# Does Arminianism present a false Gospel?



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

It’s not uncommon to hear a KJV only type or a fundamental Baptist accuse Calvinism of presenting a false Gospel. I had ignorantly hoped, that the Reformed community did not have this problem. Unfortunately, my ignorance was shattered when I heard a Reformed person leverage this same claim against those holding to Armenian theology. 

It seems, that it is becoming more and more common to see people making every issue, a Gospel issue. I recognize that Arminian theology is heretical in many respects, but I do not see a need to translate that into presenting a false Gospel. So I ask, does the mistaken belief that you have a choice, alter or change the fundamental truth of the Gospel? I don’t think it does and if it doesn’t, how can we allege that the Gospel they are presenting is false?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 21, 2019)

I'd say read the Canons of Dort, especially the Rejection of Errors. It's all explained quite clearly and extensively.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

I am familiar with the Cannons of Dort and their refutation of the Remonstrance. What does that have to do with the Gospel as laid out in 1 Cor 15? 
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,” 

Quit trying to make every issue a Gospel issue. Unless your epistemological and expository prowess exceeds Paul’s.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 21, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I am familiar with the Cannons of Dort and their refutation of the Remonstrance. What does that have to do with the Gospel as laid out in 1 Cor 15?



First Cor. 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. The Canons argue that the good news includes, for example, God's gracious preservation of believers so that they persevere. That's good news that we find hugely comforting. 

Perhaps the issue could be clarified by using the classic theological distinction between "gospel" narrowly understood and more broadly understood. If you use it in the narrow sense of "Christ Jesus died for sinners," then perhaps a case could be made that Arminians are not gospel-deniers or purveyors of a false gospel. But if you use "gospel" in the broader sense of all that God promises us in Christ, then you'd have to conclude otherwise.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 21, 2019)

I would say there is a distinction between Finney Armianism and Wesley Armianism. Eg, read Wesley's hymn "And can it be that I should gain". Do you see a number of Reformed doctrines in that hymn? But an Armianism that leads to Pelagianism and/or minimises the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation probably is a false gospel.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 21, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Quit trying to make every issue a Gospel issue. Unless your epistemological and expository prowess exceeds Paul’s.



At whom is this comment directed?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> First Cor. 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. The Canons argue that the good news includes, for example, God's gracious preservation of believers so that they persevere. That's good news that we find hugely comforting.
> 
> Perhaps the issue could be clarified by using the classic theological distinction between "gospel" narrowly understood and more broadly understood. If you use it in the narrow sense of "Christ Jesus died for sinners," then perhaps a case could be made that Arminians are not gospel-deniers or purveyors of a false gospel. But if you use "gospel" in the broader sense of all that God promises us in Christ, then you'd have to conclude otherwise.


Forgive me, but how does the faulty assumption that we have a choice, alter or change the truth of the Gospel? I thought it was faith in Christ that saves, not faith in God's electing grace. Does an Arminians error undue God's sovereign election?


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> At whom is this comment directed?





Taylor Sexton said:


> At whom is this comment directed?


I confess, that in the passion of the moment, I was premature with my allegation


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 21, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Forgive me, but how does the faulty assumption that we have a choice, alter or change the truth of the Gospel? I thought it was faith in Christ that saves, not faith in God's electing grace. Does an Arminians error undue God's sovereign election?



There are a few things getting tangled up. 

God saves us through Christ. Anyone who will be saved will be saved by God through Christ's redemption. 

The instrument by which we are saved is faith. Anyone who will be saved will be saved by the Holy Spirit working faith so that the individual takes hold of Christ for salvation.

The difference between Arminianism and Reformed theology is the acknowledgement of God's sovereign grace in salvation from beginning to end. Reformed theology holds that the biblical good news includes God's sovereignty in our salvation. Insofar as an Arminian refuses to acknowledge God's complete sovereignty in salvation, the Arminian denies that good news (gospel).

Ultimately, this is all about God's glory. Rather than asking whether an Arminian can undo God's election, it's better to ask: does Arminianism undermine the glory of God in salvation?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> First Cor. 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. The Canons argue that the good news includes, for example, God's gracious preservation of believers so that they persevere. That's good news that we find hugely comforting.
> 
> Perhaps the issue could be clarified by using the classic theological distinction between "gospel" narrowly understood and more broadly understood. If you use it in the narrow sense of "Christ Jesus died for sinners," then perhaps a case could be made that Arminians are not gospel-deniers or purveyors of a false gospel. But if you use "gospel" in the broader sense of all that God promises us in Christ, then you'd have to conclude otherwise.


I forgot to mention a point. I cited scripture, detailing from the mouth of Paul, what the Gospel is. I don't recall reading in that passage, that the good news includes preservation. Now, I enjoy the Canons of Dort and I hold to the 1689 LBC but those synods/ confession do not overide scripture. 
I happen to hold to preservation of the saints because scripture teaches that. But believing that doctrine is not necessary for salvation. This is what i mean, people taking every doctrine and turning it into a salvation issue. Suddenly, every issue is a Gospel issue and that's just not true.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 21, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I forgot to mention a point. I cited scripture, detailing from the mouth of Paul, what the Gospel is. I don't recall reading in that passage, that the good news includes preservation. Now, I enjoy the Canons of Dort and I hold to the 1689 LBC but those synods/ confession do not overide scripture.
> I happen to hold to preservation of the saints because scripture teaches that. But believing that doctrine is not necessary for salvation. This is what i mean, people taking every doctrine and turning it into a salvation issue. Suddenly, every issue is a Gospel issue and that's just not true.



As I said, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. There are plenty of other passages which speak about preservation and present it to us as good news, even if the exact word "gospel" is not used. 

Speaking in terms of "gospel issues" as "salvation issues" introduces another element into the discussion. Again, I think things get clarified if we use the narrower/broader distinction in regard to the concept of "gospel." The narrower understanding of "gospel" is what you're speaking about. But there is, in Reformed theology, a broader usage of that word as well. I wouldn't say that believing the Reformed doctrine of the perservance of the saints is strictly necessary for salvation (the criminal on the cross comes to mind), but there is still a sense in which we can call it a gospel issue. It's a matter of comfort and encouragement for the Christian, as well as a matter of glory to the sovereign God.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> There are a few things getting tangled up.
> 
> God saves us through Christ. Anyone who will be saved will be saved by God through Christ's redemption.
> 
> ...


I agree with almost everything you said and I happen to believe God is sovereign. I take exception to the doctrines of Grace overriding the simple truth of Christ’s atoning work. You and I would both agree that it is God’s sovereign election that allows the Armenian to exercise faith ( whether he believes it or not ). I just don’t see how their lack of understanding ( regarding sovereignty) alters the truth of what Christ did and the promise that is attached to faith in his work.


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> As I said, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. There are plenty of other passages which speak about preservation and present it to us as good news, even if the exact word "gospel" is not used.
> 
> Speaking in terms of "gospel issues" as "salvation issues" introduces another element into the discussion. Again, I think things get clarified if we use the narrower/broader distinction in regard to the concept of "gospel." The narrower understanding of "gospel" is what you're speaking about. But there is, in Reformed theology, a broader usage of that word as well. I wouldn't say that believing the Reformed doctrine of the perservance of the saints is strictly necessary for salvation (the criminal on the cross comes to mind), but there is still a sense in which we can call it a gospel issue. It's a matter of comfort and encouragement for the Christian, as well as a matter of glory to the sovereign God.


Ok, I was not aware of this " broader Gospel" can you point me to some literature? 

Also, I can agree that there is a fuller more broad understanding that comes with a reformed view ( as far as Gospel is concerned). It's the false Gospel langauge I don't like. I would prefer we used a different, less divisive word.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 21, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Ok, I was not aware of this " broader Gospel" can you point me to some literature?



A good place to start would be Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, especially chapter 20. They've got references to other (primary) sources.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> A good place to start would be Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, especially chapter 20. They've got references to other (primary) sources.


Thank you. I'd like to point out again, that I agree they lack a full understanding. Frankly, I think they are cheating themselves. It's the word i don't like. I think it's a little basic, a bit concrete and too divisive. Besides, I go nuts when they do it to us. Thank you for your patience


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 21, 2019)

Perhaps a distinction between dogma and doctrine is useful here. 

The church as a whole determined dogma as confessed in the historic creeds. One cannot be a Christian (or a church) and refute these foundations. 

Doctrine may be more or less derived from scripture. One may be seriously deficient in doctrine, but still not a heretic or outside the faith. 

I agree that American revivalists really pushed the limits. In some cases, the doctrine of Trinity gets so distorted it edges toward heresy. Or the gospel gets so lost in the works, rites, or slogans that Christ is fully obscured. 

One person addressing a group is not in a position to pronounce heresy. Church courts may and should adjudge a particular situation within its boundaries.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 21, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> Perhaps a distinction between dogma and doctrine is useful here.
> 
> The church as a whole determined dogma as confessed in the historic creeds. One cannot be a Christian (or a church) and refute these foundations.
> 
> ...


Well said, thank you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 21, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> One person addressing a group is not in a position to pronounce heresy. Church courts may and should adjudge a particular situation within its boundaries.



Which is what the Synod of Dort did.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 21, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Which is what the Synod of Dort did.


That would certainly give a subscribing denomination grounds to refuse ordination to a candidate espousing these errors; but a preacher on Sunday morning could not prounounce heresy on the local Independent Baptists. (Though he'd be wise to guard his flock against doctrinal influence).


----------



## Guido's Brother (Aug 21, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> That would certainly give a subscribing denomination grounds to refuse ordination to a candidate espousing these errors; but a preacher on Sunday morning could not prounounce heresy on the local Independent Baptists.



Wouldn't the same logic apply to the local Jehovah's Witnesses? After all, the Athanasian Creed was only condemning Arianism in the patristic age.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 21, 2019)

Guido's Brother said:


> Wouldn't the same logic apply to the local Jehovah's Witnesses? After all, the Athanasian Creed was only condemning Arianism in the patristic age.


Their published teaching certainly conflicts with dogma. (My sons at a fairly young age could hear my brief refutations to door-knockers and correctly guess if it was LDS, etc.  That likely reflects the pure teaching the boys hear each Sunday.)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 21, 2019)

According to the Canons of Dort, the Arminianism of the Remonstrants was dragging the doctrine of Pelagius out of hell. Also, if you read the likes of Francis Turretin, he repeatedly points out that the views of the Remonstrant Arminians often amounted to much the same thing as either Socinianism (Unitarianism) or Pelagianism.

But ... there is a difference between Remonstrant Arminianism and the evangelical Arminianism that emerged in the 18th century. I think the likes of William Cunningham argued that, while highly inconsistent, the later evangelical Arminianism was closer to the truth than the views of the Remonstrants.

Reactions: Like 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 21, 2019)

Here is a reference by Alexander McLeod on this subject.


----------



## timfost (Aug 21, 2019)

I think there are a few things at play here.

1. How do we define a "gospel issue"? If it means that the issue _affects_ the gospel in some way, then it's safe to say any error having to do with the gospel is a gospel error. I think, however, you may mean a _salvific issue. _Could you please define?

2. How much knowledge is necessary for salvation? The Bible doesn't quantify for us. However, some things are listed as essential, such as acknowledging Jesus as Christ. 

3. What kind of Arminianism are we talking about? I've not yet met a purely Remonstrance Arminian to date.

This quote from John Owen may be helpful:

"I no way doubt but that many men do receive more grace from God than they understand or will own, and have a greater efficacy of it in them than they will believe. Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which, in opinion, they deny to be imputed: for the faith of it is included in that general assent which they give unto the truth of the gospel, and such an adherence unto Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of the way whereby they are saved by him shall not defraud them of a real interest therein. And for my part, I must say that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about justification (some whereof are full of offense and scandal), I do not believe but that the authors of them (if they be not Socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ) do really trust unto the mediation of Christ for the pardon of their sins and acceptance with God, and not unto their own works or obedience; nor will I believe the contrary, until they expressly declare it."

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 22, 2019)

timfost said:


> I've not yet met a purely Remonstrance Arminian to date.


I've met one, and I there are a few others around. I can say that after talking to one it became very apparent that it is a different species from your average evangelical. I then a young Calvinist, the things that spewed from that fellow's mouth really did shock me.

Most "Arminians" today have never heard of the Articles of Remonstrance, and many wouldn't even know the word "Arminian".


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I had ignorantly hoped, that the Reformed community did not have this problem.


I'm not sure what this comment is meant to imply. Is it wrong to portray a false theological system as a false gospel?

Well, it depends. Define "gospel" and "false gospel", and, since you used the term, "gospel issue". And, rather importantly for this discussion, define "Arminian".

Certainly, if there is someone teaching a false gospel then we should be prepared to say so. Is it improper, for instance, to say that Rome teaches a false gospel? Or prosperity preachers? Or antinomians?

It is not a "problem" to point out that Arminianism is false. It is. But...


Reformed Apologist said:


> I heard a Reformed person leverage this same claim against those holding to Armenian [sic] theology.


Might this be too broad a brush? Perhaps. I think some of those often called "Arminians" are indeed saved. Their theogy is wrong, but, thankfully, they don't carry it to its logical ends. And, of course, it is not theology that saves men.


Reformed Apologist said:


> I recognize that Arminian theology is heretical in many respects, but I do not see a need to translate that into presenting a false Gospel.


"Heretical in many respects" and not "a false gospel". I'll admit I'm puzzled over that one. We're probably going to need a definition of "heresy" as well.


Reformed Apologist said:


> how can we allege that the Gospel they are presenting is false?


It's apparent that we need to adopt some nuance here. As Tim helpfully asked, what Arminianism are we talking about?

Arminianism, like modern Calvinism and ice cream, comes in a variety of flavours.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I then a young Calvinist


versus
I was then a young Calvinist


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I'm not sure what this comment is meant to imply. Is it wrong to portray a false theological system as a false gospel?
> 
> Well, it depends. Define "gospel" and "false gospel", and, since you used the term, "gospel issue". And, rather importantly for this discussion, define "Arminian".
> 
> ...


Tom, the Gospel is the Gospel. It is what a person needs to believe in, in order to be saved. A person does not need to believe in limited atonememt, preservation of the saints or un conditional election in order to be saved. They simply need to believe in Christ's atonement. Still, in all these forementioned doctrines, decision theology still presents heretical beliefs.

No bodies theology is perfect ( just look at paedo baptist....j/k)

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

timfost said:


> I think there are a few things at play here.
> 
> 1. How do we define a "gospel issue"? If it means that the issue _affects_ the gospel in some way, then it's safe to say any error having to do with the gospel is a gospel error. I think, however, you may mean a _salvific issue. _Could you please define?
> 
> ...



Yes...when I say "Gospel" I mean from a salvific standpoint. All I'm trying to say is, it is only necessary to believe in Christ as Lord and savior in order to be saved. That, in it's most basic sense, is the Gospel.I don't see how modern decession theology makes that false.

"And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." ( Acts 16:31)


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Arminianism, like modern Calvinism and ice cream, comes in a variety of flavors.



A phrase I use a lot about Armianian Christians is--*blessed inconsistency.*
We are all inconsistent with what we believe to some extent. Necessarily so because we are fallible human beings. Knowing this about ourselves, this is helpful, but it still does not deliver us from our many inconsistencies. Haven't we all heard Arminian Christians on their knees praying for God to save a friend or family member? There's a little inconsistency even in that isn't there? To be consistent, I guess they should work consistently to change the emotions and feelings of the person to whom they want to see saved. But they don't. They pray the same as we do. When their mother is sick, they pray to God for Him to heal. And they repeatedly thank God for saving their own soul. Ah, blessed inconsistency.

But I also have also said that if an Arminian is consistent in believing that he and he alone makes the final decision about his salvation. And that he and he alone maintains his salvation throughout his life at the peril of losing it. This man resembles much more the arrogant and self-righteous Pharisees who Jesus condemned as hopelessly lost. An entirely consistent Arminian cannot be saved.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> A phrase I use a lot about Armianian Christians is--*blessed inconsistency.*
> We are all inconsistent with what we believe to some extent. Necessarily so because we are fallible human beings. Knowing this about ourselves, this is helpful, but it still does not deliver us from our many inconsistencies. Haven't we all heard Arminian Christians on their knees praying for God to save a friend or family member? There's a little inconsistency even in that isn't there? To be consistent, I guess they should work consistently to change the emotions and feelings of the person to whom they want to see saved. But they don't they pray to God. When their mother is sick, they pray to God for Him to heal. And they repeatedly thank God for saving their own soul. Ah, blessed inconsistency.
> 
> But I also have also said that if an Arminian is consistent in believing that he and he alone makes the final decision about his salvation. And that he and he alone maintains his salvation throughout his life at the peril of losing it. This man resembles much more the arrogant and self-righteous Pharisees who Jesus condemned as hopelessly lost. An entirely consistent Arminian cannot be saved.


 I would agree with your last paragraph. Still, i must confess, that sounds like full blown pelagianism to me, verses modern day decision theology


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

To be honest, I should not have used Arminianism in the thread title. This is really inaccurate to be honest and a mistake on my part. Most modern Christians ( outside reformed circles ) really hold to a form of decision theology and not so much Arminianism. Some think they are Arminian but I don’t think they really understand what Arminianism is.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Yes...when I say "Gospel" I mean from a salvific standpoint. All I'm trying to say is, it is only necessary to believe in Christ as Lord and savior in order to be saved. That, in it's most basic sense, is the Gospel.I don't see how modern decession theology makes that false.
> 
> "And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." ( Acts 16:31)



Fiducia, Ascentia and Notitia.

The above items are present in all true believers. However, these components have as well, internal and external distinctions. That being, these components MUST be carried about, for the true believer, by the Holy Spirit. It is the gas that makes real what the scriptures show are in all the faithful. A man can have faith in earthly things; He can have ‘faith’ in faith. He can ascend to mathematical propositions and he can possess much knowledge of God and the scriptures and yet, still be unregenerate.

In other words, the converted man must have some information that is compiled within the archives of the gospel to be converted. This distinction is important as many people are possibly just regenerated and not yet converted, based on a simple confession; One might say, 'Scott, but are regenerated men, saved?'. Yes and no; they are no longer true enemies of God any longer, but they are in a process. 

Many disagree with my definition of the ordo as I describe above; but when we think through the equation, and the problematic outcomes of the other rationale, it makes better sense to me.

Regeneration is monergistic; no work makes it effectual. It is of God only. Conversion, on the other hand, it a result of assenting to certain biblical facts. For example, the thief on the cross was most likely a schooled Jewish believer, circumcised on the 8th day and reared by his parents unto these biblical facts.

https://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Fiducia, Ascentia and Notitia.
> 
> The above items are present in all true believers. However, these components have as well, internal and external distinctions. That being, these components MUST be carried about, for the true believer, by the Holy Spirit. It is the gas that makes real what the scriptures show are in all the faithful. A man can have faith in earthly things; He can have ‘faith’ in faith. He can ascend to mathematical propositions and he can possess much knowledge of God and the scriptures and yet, still be unregenerate.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing against the sovereign work of God. We all know the regeneration precedes faith. Still, is it necessary to believe in regeneration? I would say no. Look at the the thief on the cross or Abraham. There are a plethora of examples in Scripture of men being saved purely by faith, despite their imperfect understanding.


----------



## Col33 (Aug 22, 2019)

Dear C. Ryan (Reformed Apologist),

I apologize this is such a long reply but your thread has me thinking about so many things!

Would you please share in brief what you think is the "True Gospel" is?

In other words, when you proclaim the Gospel what to you proclaim?

For Arminians to believe free personal choice is the "hinge" upon which their salvation turns, they must therefore not be able to believe in Sin Nature, Total Depravity, Limited/Particular Atonement, Election, Omniscient Predestination, and other important doctrine as explained in the 5 points.

They also don't believe Romans 9 about Pharaoh, Esau, vessels for destruction, and that "God mercies whom He mercies".

*This is all about Hell.* They can't imagine God creating a human vessel for destruction.

Arminians (Semi-Pelagians) exist because *they think they are defending God* by saying God is good and loving, and would never throw someone in Hell unless that person rejected Him and "chose" against Him. It is true that all in Hell hate God, but they are also not God's elect. So there is much more to the story and things are not as simple as Arminians believe wrongly.

They believe it is a human being's "choice" that damns them to Hell, so then it must be a human being's "choice" that earns him eternal life in Heaven.

They don't believe that "Jesus Saves his People from Their Sins" Matthew 1:21. Instead, *they think Jesus stands crying & begging & pleading for them to accept Him into their hearts. * But God Almighty revealed long ago in ancient days that it is He who "makes the heart of stone fleshy". A stony heart can not choose Him. Reformed Theology teaches that God Save Us, rescues us who are DEAD, and literally breathes eternal life into us.

_*Arminians think "Come to Me'" is an invitation, but it is an imperative!*_

*The Gospel is an imperative! *It commands us to "Repent and Believe", and carried within this command is the Power of God unto Salvation that enables us to repent and believe.

Furthermore,* the Omnipotent Ex Nihilo Creation Power of God is seen in the conversion of a sinner.* Ex Nihlo mean "out of nothing". Just as all of creation was brought forth Ex Nihilo, the sinner is made alive from the nothingness of death. He is recreated. He is regenerated.

But how do Arminians explain the countless millions throughout history who never hear the Gospel, and therefore are never presented with a choice to make? How do those who affirm Reformed Theology explain what happens to those who are not regenerated because they don't hear the Gospel? How do you explain it?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> There are a plethora of examples in Scripture of men being saved purely by faith, despite their imperfect understanding.



Faith=information. Faith is never empty.

R scott Clark writes:

"So, there are thee aspects to faith: knowledge, assent, and trust. A proper definition of faith cannot omit any of the three. There are some Protestants who seek to re-define faith purely as knowledge and assent to propositions. They omit trust. In so doing, they deny the Reformed confession, even as they set themselves up as the arbiters of the Reformed faith. That is why we have an objective definition of the adjective _Reformed_. It is the teaching of the Word of God as confessed by the churches. If the churches have erred by teaching three aspects to the definition of faith, then let the revisionists make their case to the churches, from God’s Word (_sola Scriptura_) but until then, they are just QIRC-ers.

Others would truncate the definition by omitting knowledge and assent and holding only to trust. That makes faith blind, which is a contradiction in terms. We know whom we have believed. Faith isn’t comprehensive, it is apprehending, if you will. It lays hold of the Triune God, who has revealed himself in Christ, who has made us alive by the Spirit, through the gospel. It knows the Trinitarian persons and it knows and affirms truths about those persons. God has revealed those truths about himself, about us, about our salvation, and about how we are to live in light of that salvation. Just as it is arrogant to omit trust from the definition of faith, so it is blind to omit knowledge and assent."

Reactions: Amen 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Col33 (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Faith=information. Faith is never empty.
> 
> R scott Clark writes:
> 
> ...



Dear Scott Bushey,

Many theologians rightly see "Saving Faith" as a faculty, and also as a receptacle.

God creates the spiritual faculty within us, and also forms it as a receptacle into which He continues to pour faith.


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Col33 said:


> Dear C. Ryan (Reformed Apologist),
> 
> I apologize this is such a long reply but your thread has me thinking about so many things!
> 
> ...


When I am out sharing the Gospel, I’m going to start with the Law, sin, God’s sovereignty and so on. But, I’m reformed so, of course I’m going to include all that. Let me try to explain it this way. You have a headache and decide to take an aspirin. I realize that you have picked up a cyanide tablet ( thinking it’s aspirin ) and before you can eat it, I slap it out of your hand. Your disbelief in that poisonous pill, doesn’t undue the fact that I saved your life. Likewise, God is sovereign and he elects who he wills. Their unwillingness to acknowledge God’s electing work, doesn’t undue God’s sovereign work. It only means they have a skewed or faulty understanding of what’s really going on. In my experience, most protestants do believe in preservation of the saints and total depravity. They also believe in God’s electing Grace, they just err in thinking they can refuse that Grace. I am against the unchecked expansion of the plain, precious truth of the Gospel, into all facets of doctrine. Failure to believe in all the 5 points does not equal false Gospel. It only equals an incomplete or faulty understanding of the sovereignty of God.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Col33 said:


> Dear Scott Bushey,
> 
> Many theologians rightly see "Saving Faith" as a faculty, and also as a receptacle.
> 
> God creates the spiritual faculty within us, and also forms it as a receptacle into which He continues to pour faith.



The above is a description of regeneration, not conversion.

A man cannot see, unless what? he is born again? What is it that regeneration does? Men see? Yes, they are able to understand certain facts, before they are _converted._


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Tom, the Gospel is the Gospel. It is what a person needs to believe in, in order to be saved. A person does not need to believe in limited atonememt, preservation of the saints or un conditional election in order to be saved. They simply need to believe in Christ's atonement. Still, in all these forementioned doctrines, decision theology still presents heretical beliefs.
> 
> No bodies theology is perfect ( just look at paedo baptist....j/k)



Another aspect which hasn't been addressed is the difference between teachers and lay persons. A lay person may have an inadequate view of the work of salvation and that is regrettable. However if we have teachers who are teaching Arminianism that is something quite different (and is the context from which your question arises, I think). Dordt was quite clear that Arminianism was *not* the Gospel and therefore those who teach it should be avoided and called out as teaching heresy.

Does that mean that one who has Arminian beliefs cannot be saved? Of course not, which I think gets to one of the points you have made: the Gospel is the Gospel. It is objective. But one's understanding might be impaired. A.A. Hodge made the point (similar to what was said above) that often what we find amongst Arminians is that one is an Arminian theologically but a Calvinist devotionally (e.g. look at the hymns they sing). But that deficient knowledge should be corrected because it is wrong.

As was also said above we need to know who Jesus Christ is. Is it sufficient to say "I believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins" if we do not have a true knowledge of who Jesus is and what He has done for us, as the Second Person in the Trinity? Can we divorce our belief in Jesus from our understanding of the work of the whole Trinity in salvation? That may not require that a Christian has a thorough understanding of the theological intricacies of limited atonement and the perseverance of the saints. But I would also be concerned if a Christian's understanding of salvation led him to believe something contrary to those teachings. What is their understanding of the Gospel if they think they can lose their justification or that Christ died for people who are never saved? They may never have consciously thought through these matters, and that is one thing; to actively deny these Biblical teachings is another.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Col33 (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> The above is a description of regeneration, not conversion.
> 
> A man cannot see, unless what? he is born again? What is it that regeneration does? Men see? Yes, they are able to understand certain facts, before they are _converted._



Sinners are not able to believe upon Jesus or have any kind of saving faith prior to conversion/regeneration, correct?


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Faith=information. Faith is never empty.
> 
> R scott Clark writes:
> 
> ...


I qouted scripture from 1 Cor and Acts, expounding on the plaim truth of the Gospel. Why, do you insinst on reading your tradition into the plain truths of those cited verses?


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Another aspect which hasn't been addressed is the difference between teachers and lay persons. A lay person may have an inadequate view of the work of salvation and that is regrettable. However if we have teachers who are teaching Arminianism that is something quite different (and is the context from which your question arises, I think). Dordt was quite clear that Arminianism was *not* the Gospel and therefore those who teach it should be avoided and called out as teaching heresy.
> 
> Does that mean that one who has Arminian beliefs cannot be saved? Of course not, which I think gets to one of the points you have made: the Gospel is the Gospel. It is objective. But one's understanding might be impaired. A.A. Hodge made the point (similar to what was said above) that often what we find amongst Arminians is that one is an Arminian theologically but a Calvinist devotionally (e.g. look at the hymns they sing). But that deficient knowledge should be corrected because it is wrong.
> 
> As was also said above we need to know who Jesus Christ is. Is it sufficient to say "I believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins" if we do not have a true knowledge of who Jesus is and what He has done for us, as the Second Person in the Trinity? Can we divorce our belief in Jesus from our understanding of the work of the whole Trinity in salvation?


I would not argue that they are teaching heretical doctrine, that's not my point.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I would not argue that they are teaching heretical doctrine, that's not my point.



Well if they are teaching heresy how is that not a Gospel issue? Whether or not they are themselves saved seems almost irrelevant if they are teaching heresy to others.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I qouted scripture from 1 Cor and Acts, expounding on the plaim truth of the Gospel. Why, do you insinst on reading your tradition into the plain truths of those cited verses?



“Tradition”? This is the Reformed understanding, Sir. Is belief empty?


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well if they are teaching heresy how is that not a Gospel issue? Whether or not they are themselves saved seems almost irrelevant if they are teaching heresy to others.





Scott Bushey said:


> “Tradition”? This is the Reformed understanding, Sir. Is belief empty?


So, let me get this straight. Paul comes along and says “ Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1Cor:15) and again "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." ( Acts 16:31) and you have the audacity to say, “not so sir, Paul forgot to mention T.U.L.I.P? I mean, how dare you! How can you sit there and corrupt this very simple truth?


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well if they are teaching heresy how is that not a Gospel issue? Whether or not they are themselves saved seems almost irrelevant if they are teaching heresy to others.


The Gospel is simply that which Paul laid out in 1 Cor 15


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> So, let me get this straight. Paul comes along and says “ Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1Cor:15) and again "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." ( Acts 16:31) and you have the audacity to say, “not so sir, Paul forgot to mention T.U.L.I.P? I mean, how dare you! How can you sit there and corrupt this very simple truth?



Who is the Lord Jesus being referred to? Is He one who took upon Himself the sins of His people and made a full and final atonement for their sins and imputes to them His perfect righteousness by which they are justified and not for anything in them but only by His own free and sovereign grace and thus ensuring that those He died for _will_ be saved? Or is he one who died in order to make it merely _possible _for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins to, by his own will somehow, choose to believe but who might also fall away from that salvation wrought at least partially by himself (in his own co-operation with God's grace)?

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Who is the Lord Jesus being referred to? Is He one who took upon Himself the sins of His people and made a full and final atonement for their sins and imputes to them His perfect righteousness by which they are justified and not for anything in them but only by His own free and sovereign grace and thus ensuring that those He died for _will_ be saved? Or is he one who died in order to make it merely _possible _for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins to, by his own will somehow, choose to believe but who might also fall away from that salvation wrought at least partially by himself (in his own co-operation with God's grace)?


look Sir, you know what the scripture says. quit obfuscating so you can simply win an argument

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> look Sir, you know what the scripture says. quit obfuscating so you can simply win an argument



Well I know it says a lot more than 1 Corinthians 15.


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> look Sir, you know what the scripture says. quit obfuscating so you can simply win an argument


This kind of remark is worse than unhelpful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I know it says a lot more than 1 Corithians 15.


Ok, what does Paul say the Gospel is in 1 Cor 15? What does Paul says saves you in Acts 16:31? Show me one single verse where it says a person must believe in unconditional election or preservation of the saints. Just one will do.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Ok, what does Paul say the Gospel is in 1 Cor 15? What does Paul says saves you in Acts 16:31? Show me one single verse where it says a person must believe in unconditional election or preservation of the saints. Just one will do.



I've already "spoken" to that above. I specifically said that a person doesn't necessarily need to understand those concepts theologically, but that I would also be worried if they believed things contrary to them.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> This kind of remark is worse than unhelpful.


Oh, please, don't act like a child with a skinned knee.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I've already "spoken" to that above. I specifically said that a person doesn't necessarily need to understand those concepts theologically, but that I would also be worried if they believed things contrary to them.


oh, ok. I apologize, I didn't realize that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Tom, the Gospel is the Gospel. It is what a person needs to believe in, in order to be saved. A person does not need to believe in limited atonememt, preservation of the saints or un conditional election in order to be saved. They simply need to believe in Christ's atonement. Still, in all these forementioned doctrines, decision theology still presents heretical beliefs.
> 
> No bodies theology is perfect ( just look at paedo baptist....j/k)


I fail to see how this serves as a reply to my post. I specifically said that "it is not theology that saves men."

I would add my agreement with @alexandermsmith that a full understanding of these things is not necessary for salvation, but an outright denial of them would certainly raise concerns.

Meanwhile, as Scott Bushey has said, "faith is not empty."

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 22, 2019)

Well, there it is. I will no longer engage in this conversation.

A parting note: let us Calvinists remember grace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

RA,
Sir, I ask again, is Belief empty? For example, I believe I live in Florida. Florida is located in the southern area of United States of America. How is that I have come to these conclusions in relation to geography. Are my conclusions not based on factual data I have obtained?

Paul makes mention of ‘preaching’. Was his sermon only based on ‘to believe’? Or was his gospel message full of biblical truth of the gospel and Christ?

These are basics of apologetics, by the way.


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I've already "spoken" to that above. I specifically said that a person doesn't necessarily need to understand those concepts theologically, but that I would also be worried if they believed things contrary to them.


Sir, my point is simply this. If Paul clearly lays out for us what the Gospel is; why are we accusing some of teaching a false Gospel, simply because they don't hold to all 5 points? Thats my only point. If they are teaching the Gospel according to 1 Cor 15, then we can't allege they are teaching a false Gospel, despite the fact that they teach other heretical doctrines

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> then we can't allege they are teaching a false Gospel, despite the fact that they teach other heretical doctrines


OK. _What?_

Gone for real now. I just had to express my exasperation.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Sir, my point is simply this. If Paul clearly lays out for us what the Gospel is; why are we accusing some of teaching a false Gospel, simply because they don't hold to all 5 points? Thats my only point. If they are teaching the Gospel according to 1 Cor 15, then we can't allege they are teaching a false Gospel, despite the fact that they teach other heretical doctrines



I would just say that if someone is teaching a gospel which allows for people to be justified and then lose that justification; which teaches an atonement which does not accomplish the salvation of all those included in its purview; which teaches that sinners, though dead in trespasses and sins, are somehow able and indeed required to co-operate with God in their justification, then that is not the Gospel that I understand is being referred to by Paul in that passage. Such a gospel is, indeed, not good news.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> RA,
> Sir, I ask again, is Belief empty? For example, I believe I live in Florida. Florida is located in the southern area of United States of America. How is that I have come to these conclusions in relation to geography. Are my conclusions not based on factual data I have obtained?
> 
> Paul makes mention of ‘preaching’. Was his sermon only based on ‘to believe’? Or was his gospel message full of biblical truth of the gospel and Christ?
> ...


I'm not arguing against that, nor am I arguing that reformed doctrine isn't taught in Scripture. I simply pointing out that Scripture tells us what the Gospel is, and despite some heretical doctrines, if they are presenting the Gospel as laid out in 1 Cor 15, then we can't make false assertions that the Gospel they preach is false.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## hammondjones (Aug 22, 2019)

How are we defining heresy?


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I fail to see how this serves as a reply to my post. I specifically said that "it is not theology that saves men."
> 
> I would add my agreement with @alexandermsmith that a full understanding of these things is not necessary for salvation, but an outright denial of them would certainly raise concerns.
> 
> Meanwhile, as Scott Bushey has said, "faith is not empty."


I apopogize, i missed where you said that.


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> OK. _What?_
> 
> Gone for real now. I just had to express my exasperation.


nothing, that was my whole point


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I would say there is a distinction between Finney Armianism and Wesley Armianism. Eg, read Wesley's hymn "And can it be that I should gain". Do you see a number of Reformed doctrines in that hymn? But an Armianism that leads to Pelagianism and/or minimises the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation probably is a false gospel.


Great point of distinction, as many holding to more of a free will Gospel would reject full blown version taught by Finnry and his ilk!


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

hammondjones said:


> How are we defining heresy?


belief contrary to orthodox doctrine


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> belief contrary to orthodox doctrine


 
Exactly. As I have said.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Exactly. As I have said.


I'm not following you. How does a heretical view of...lets say, preservation of the saints, translate into false Gospel? Keeping in mind that Paul lays out what the Gospel is in 1 Cor 15.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

I was referring to your point about the ‘gospel’ being based on ‘orthodox doctrine’.


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> I was referring to your point about the ‘gospel’ being based on ‘orthodox doctrine’.


ok. when I say Gospel, i mean as laid out in 1 Cor 15. I understand that there is a broader meaning of Gospel in reformed theology, but I am not adressing that. If I were, I would agree with what you and others are saying.


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Let me try it this way. Between Lutheranism, Presbyterianism and Reformed Baptist, There are 3 different doctrines on Baptism and the Lord’s supper ( I know, it's more complicated then that). We can’t all be right, though we may all be wrong. So, it stands to reason, that we are all teaching heretical doctrines as far as those in the other denominations are concerned. That said, we would never accuse the others of teaching a false Gospel ( as laid out in 1 Cor 15). Now we know decision theology teaches heretical doctrine, but if they are preaching the Gospel from 1 Cor 15, why aren’t we extending the same courtesy we extend ourselves? I just don’t get it, I really don’t. Christ died on the cross for your sins, believe and accept him as Lord and Savior. Bang…done, that’s the Gospel, that’s what saves, and one’s belief in T.U.L.I.P has nothing to do with that plain and precious truth.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Let me try it this way. Between Lutheranism, Presbyterianism and Reformed Baptist, There are 3 different doctrines on Baptism and the Lord’s supper ( I know, it's more complicated then that). We can’t all be right, though we may all be wrong. So, it stands to reason, that we are all teaching heretical doctrines as far as those in the other denominations are concerned. That said, we would never accuse the others of teaching a false Gospel ( as laid out in 1 Cor 15). Now we know decision theology teaches heretical doctrine, but if they are preaching the Gospel from 1 Cor 15, why aren’t we extending the same courtesy we extend ourselves? I just don’t get it, I really don’t. Christ died on the cross for your sins, believe and accept him as Lord and Savior. Bang…done, that’s the Gospel, that’s what saves, and one’s belief in T.U.L.I.P has nothing to do with that plain and precious truth.


Many who hold to what is called free will salvation would agree with us that a sinner can not accept Jesus as Lord unless the Spirit Himself grants them His grace to do such, it's just that they would see His enabling all people same grace to say yes, but many keep saying no. You can say that they misunderstand proper Sotierology, but still preach and teach using same Gospel that we do..


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Paul says a number of times in 1 Cor 15, 'according to the scriptures'. There is much more packed into this passage than meets the eye. 

It seems to me, that the struggle is your understanding of regeneration vs conversion. Most people, in my opinion, believe they are converted when the scriptures become true to them, when in fact, they are just regenerated.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 22, 2019)

C. Ryan...

I realize I'm late to the party, but if I may, I'd like to encourage you to review the way you use some terms. I think it will help you communicate well with the rest of us. I hope I'm not being simplistic if I suggest the core disagreement on this thread is about how we apply labels. And frankly, your labels sound a bit untypical to me (and, I think, to several others here).

First, you seem to describe the true_ gospel_ solely in terms of Paul's brief summary in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Well, if affirming those two verses is all it takes to preach a true gospel, then the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, and the Jehovah's Witnesses all preach the true gospel, because none of them would deny those verses. So your definition of a _true gospel_ is going to put you in a spot where you talk right past most people on this board, because most of us would agree that all of those groups teach a _false gospel_, by our generally-accepted use of the label.

Conversely, you apply the label_ heresy_ to mistaken beliefs about mode of baptism. Again, most of us, along with much of the church through the ages, don't use that term that way. We might call that an_ error_, but we reserve_ heresy_ for graver matters—often for false teaching that runs afoul of the historic creeds and results in a person being declared outside of the faith, or perhaps even fit to be burned at the stake!

I think you and we can benefit greatly from discussions on this board. But you can help in that process by taking the time to learn how folks here generally use these and other terms.

As for the term_ false gospel_, I am sympathetic to your complaint that it seems as if too many errors get labeled as "gospel matters" these days. However, to see where the concept of a false gospel comes from, I would direct you to the book of Galatians. There, Paul confronts a form of works-righteous, and he calls it a different and distorted gospel. So when it comes to defining _false gospel_, many of us are inclined to think first of something like that: a teaching that seems on the surface to affirm 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 but actually puts confidence in the flesh. Using that definition of_ false gospel_, I'm sure you can see why some folks here will argue that the various forms of Arminianism at least lean in that direction.

It doesn't mean these folks claim that Arminians deny the creeds or don't believe 1 Corinthians 15 or can't be saved. Pay attention to the lingo in use here, and your interactions will be more profitable.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Paul says a number of times in 1 Cor 15, 'according to the scriptures'. There is much more packed into this passage than meets the eye.
> 
> It seems to me, that the struggle is your understanding of regeneration vs conversion. Most people, in my opinion, believe they are converted when the scriptures become true to them, when in fact, they are just regenerated.


no, I'm sorry, I understand regeneration just fine. Show me one place in Scripture that says or infers, that you must have faith in Christ AND you must also believe in election, preservation and total depravity in order to be saved. Where in scripture does it explicitly say, that these doctrines are apart of the Gospel, as laid out in 1 Cor 15


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Show me one place in Scripture that says or infers, that you must have faith in Christ AND you must also believe in election, preservation and total depravity in order to be saved.



I never said that. You should probably refrain from accusing me of something I never said; I am however, standing on the shoulders of all the Reformed in relation to ascentia, fiducia and notia in conversion. Belief is based on biblical truth; Faith is not empty. One needs to understand why Christ died, what sin is, how can God become a man and sacrifice Himself for men, etc. This is the gospel.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Jack K said:


> C. Ryan...
> 
> I realize I'm late to the party, but if I may, I'd like to encourage you to review the way you use some terms. I think it will help you communicate well with the rest of us. I hope I'm not being simplistic if I suggest the core disagreement on this thread is about how we apply labels. And frankly, your labels sound a bit untypical to me (and, I think, to several others here).
> 
> ...


Number one, that is a strawman argument. Catholics do not believe in the sufficiency of that promise, and both JW's and Mormons have a heretical understanding regarding the deity of Christ. Frankly, I'm offended that you would even put forward such a claim. 

I just told you what scripture says the Gospel is, and you actually sit here and say It's different.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> I never said that. You should probably refrain from accusing me of something I never said; I am however, standing on the shoulders of all the Reformed in relation to ascentia, fiducia and notia in conversion. Belief is based on biblical truth; Faith is not empty. One needs to understand why Christ died, what sin is, how can God become a man and sacrifice Himself for men, etc. This is the gospel.


You are infering it sir! what exactky do yiu think the Gospel is? It's the good news in Christ finished work on the cross...period!!! That's it! You are the ones that are attempting to obfuscate that simple truth by infering that the truth is not that simple and that belief in other doctrine is necessary


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Christ finished work on the cross



You want to unpack this idea as if I am a little child? If it is so simple, please, indulge me as I am a 6 year old. 

*This is what u miss....one cannot believe in a thing one has no comprehension of. Faith is based on truth and facts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I just told you what scripture says the Gospel is, and you actually sit here and say It's different.



Not really. I told you what many people will think of when they hear the term_ false gospel_. I did that to try to help you understand where people might be coming from. I was trying to help, not trying to offend or accuse, and certainly not trying to misrepresent you. If I failed to take enough care to avoid that, I am very sorry.

I still think you will benefit by considering what sort of teaching Paul has in mind when he applies the label_ different gospel_ in Galatians. I think it will help you understand others here. That's probably enough said from me.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> You want to unpack this idea as if I am a little child? If it is so simple, please, indulge me as I am a 6 year old.
> 
> *This is what u miss....one cannot believe in a thing one has no comprehension of. Faith is based on truth and facts.


Then kindky explain the thief on the cross or how the two examples given in scripture of perfect faith, came from gentiles who did nit have the full revelation


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Jack K said:


> Not really. I told you what many people will think of when they hear the term_ false gospel_. I did that to try to help you understand where people might be coming from. I was trying to help, not trying to offend or accuse, and certainly not trying to misrepresent you. If I failed to take enough care to avoid that, I am very sorry.
> 
> I still think you will benefit by considering what sort of teaching Paul has in mind when he applies the label_ different gospel_ in Galatians. I think it will help you understand others here. That's probably enough said from me.


I apologize if I heard you wrong. All I'm saying is, an Arminian says, you must choose to have faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross. Some of you come along and say, no, that’s a false Gospel. The only part of it that is false is the belief that we exercise choice. But, it isn’t necessary to believe, that we don’t have a choice in order to be saved. That is my whole point my friends. I’m not arguing against reform doctrine or trying to prop up Armenians. I simply stating, that the belief in Christ “ finished work” is a corps precept of the faith that stands completely on it’s own. Failure to understand God’s sovereignty or other Reformed doctrine, does NOT abrogate that simple promise.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> explain the thief on the cross



The thief on the cross was a Jew; circumcised on the 8Th day and most likely tutored in the faith by faithful parents to the covenant. 




Reformed Apologist said:


> two examples given in scripture of perfect faith came from gentiles who did nit have the full revelation



You're gonna have to give me the citations so as I can look at them. No one has full revelation. 1 Cor 13:12

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> The thief on the cross was a Jew; circumcised on the 8Th day and most likely tutored in the faith by faithful parents to the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol....that is special pleading my friend. We are discussing scripture. We don't get to create assumptions in order to prop up our position. 

I'll have to check and get back to you. I forget the verses off the top of my head.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Lol....that is special pleading my friend. We are discussing scripture. We don't get to create assumptions in order to prop up our position.



Simple hermeneutics:


39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, *Dost not thou fear God*, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: *but this man hath done nothing amiss.* 42 And he said unto Jesus, *Lord*, remember me when *thou comest into thy kingdom*. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be *with me in paradise*.

_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Lk 23:39–43.

Much to unpack here....but the answers are right in front of you.

The thief lived where?
Under what Rule and Authority?
Where was he actually crucified?
Did Rome hang their people on crosses?
He called Christ, "Lord" and "God"...how did he know that?
He knew Christ was sinless. How did he know that?
He knew Messiah's kingdom existed.
How did he know of 'paradise' as described by Christ?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> The thief on the cross was a Jew; circumcised on the 8Th day and most likely tutored in the faith by faithful parents to the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok Scott, You acknowledge that no one has perfect revelation. So, what’s the percentage then? We get a pass cause we have faith in Christ plus the truth of the reformed position? Those pesky Armenians are just out of luck right? I mean, they have Christ, but they have no t.u.l.i.p so their pretty much screwed. They may as well pack it in right? I mean, there is no way our sovereign Lord couldn’t possibly save someone with Armenian theology. If anyone is going to have the true Gospel, they need to have perfect doctrine like us. Everyone else is just espousing a heretical doctrine. We can all high five each other now, is that what it is?


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Simple hermeneutics:
> 
> 
> 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, *Dost not thou fear God*, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: *but this man hath done nothing amiss.* 42 And he said unto Jesus, *Lord*, remember me when *thou comest into thy kingdom*. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be *with me in paradise*.
> ...


Lol...simple hermeneutics? laughable. We are given no biblical context for that thiefs background. For all we know he grew up in the diaspora and had pagan beliefs. Not every jew was orthodox. That is plain crazy, i can't believe you would submit that, hermeneutics...what a joke ( and not a funny one )

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Jack K (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> All I'm saying is, an Arminian says, you must choose to have faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross. Some of you come along and say, no, that’s a false Gospel.



I think, more exactly, one might claim the Arminian says something more like this: "Christ and his finished work on the cross—plus your wise and freely-chosen decision to believe in him—saves you." The concern, then, is with the inclusion of any_ plus your..._ in that statement. And because Galatians is addressing requirements that add to Christ, and applies the_ false gospel_ label to such teaching, the Arminian's _plus_ also deserves that label. So goes the argument.

We could debate whether or not this is a proper view of Arminianism, or a too-careless use of the label. But can you see how a person might reach that conclusion? And how this particular use of the label doesn't mean they claim Arminians are unsaved? It just means Arminian teaching adds an element of works to the free grace of the gospel, and thus deserves the label. (I probably would not use that label myself in general conversation about Arminianism, but I can see why some might.)

Your initial question here was about the use of the term_ false gospel_. I'm not sure you should look to 1 Corinthians 15 to define that term, since it isn't used there. I think you would understand others better if you looked to Galatians.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Mr Ryan,
I never even addressed the Arminian issue; I have never met a Remonstrance Arminian-well, one, but she is now reformed. Arminianism is not your everyday theology; most all people in this country that are not reformed are inconsistent Arminians; there is a difference; the clinical Arminian, i.e. one who holds to the remonstrant position, reject a biblical view, intentionally. The inconsistent Arminian is just ignorant and can be of the elect.

The point being, even the inconsistent person has the basics of the gospel. That being, belief and acceptance; repentance. Faith. These things are based on facts. One cannot say that one could walk into the jungle and tell a native to just haphazardly believe in this Jesus and they will be saved. He would need to understand sin. Repentance, and believe in something, right?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Simple hermeneutics:
> 
> 
> 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, *Dost not thou fear God*, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: *but this man hath done nothing amiss.* 42 And he said unto Jesus, *Lord*, remember me when *thou comest into thy kingdom*. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be *with me in paradise*.
> ...


I forgot to mention, the charges were written above his head and the Jewish leaders were leveraging allegations right up to Christ death. We can only assume so much, i think you go overboard with your assumptions


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Lol...simple hermeneutics? laughable. We are given no biblical context for that thiefs background. For all we know he grew up in the diaspora and had pagan beliefs. Not every jew was orthodox. That is plain crazy, i can't believe you would submit that, hermeneutics...what a joke ( and not a funny one )



Sir,
You fail to dialog, which comes across as desperate, not to miss mentioning, boring. You talk, but u don't interact. I will not waste anymore of my time. I should have followed Tom's move.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Mr Ryan,
> I never even addressed the Arminian issue; I have never met a Remonstrance Arminian-well, one, but she is now reformed. Arminianism is not your everyday theology; most all people in this country that are not reformed are inconsistent Arminians; there is a difference; the clinical Arminian, i.e. one who holds to the remonstrant position, reject a biblical view, intentionally. The inconsistent Arminian is just ignorant and can be of the elect.
> 
> The point being, even the inconsistent person has the basics of the gospel. That being, belief and acceptance; repentance. Faith. These things are based on facts. One cannot say that one could walk into the jungle and tell a native to just haphazardly believe in this Jesus and they will be saved. He would need to understand sin. Repentance, and believe in something, right?


again, if I have misscharacterized your stance ( i am highly frustrated) then i am sorry. I feel like I have been very clear with what I am trying to say about the Gospel and i'm being told i'm wrong. Then, later on i'm told they never said that. Again, i'm not arguing the truth of reformed theology or that regeneration preceeds faith. I'm only saying that's its faith in Christ and his work that saves ( in the most basic way). I'm not arguing the doctrines of Grace that undergird our faith in that simple promise. Thats it, thats all im trying to say


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Jack K said:


> I think, more exactly, one might claim the Arminian says something more like this: "Christ and his finished work on the cross—plus your wise and freely-chosen decision to believe in him—saves you." The concern, then, is with the inclusion of any_ plus your..._ in that statement. And because Galatians is addressing requirements that add to Christ, and applies the_ false gospel_ label to such teaching, the Arminian's _plus_ also deserves that label. So goes the argument.
> 
> We could debate whether or not this is a proper view of Arminianism, or a too-careless use of the label. But can you see how a person might reach that conclusion? And how this particular use of the label doesn't mean they claim Arminians are unsaved? It just means Arminian teaching adds an element of works to the free grace of the gospel, and thus deserves the label. (I probably would not use that label myself in general conversation about Arminianism, but I can see why some might.)
> 
> Your initial question here was about the use of the term_ false gospel_. I'm not sure you should look to 1 Corinthians 15 to define that term, since it isn't used there. I think you would understand others better if you looked to Galatians.


Ok...if that is true and they are putting their faith behind their choice instead of behind Christ, then that is for sure a heretical an damnable teaching


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott,
I have been less then generous with you in my frustration. please forgive me

Reactions: Amen 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Sir,
> You fail to dialog, which comes across as desperate, not to miss mentioning, boring. You talk, but u don't interact. I will not waste anymore of my time. I should have followed Tom's move.


Scott, please forgive me. It's true that I am highly frustrated and I have been less then gracious in my response. 
I stand behind my convictions ( which i believe are biblical) but that doesn't give me license to disrespect you. I sincerely apologize

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

I thought it would help to provide some back story. I grew up in a traditional baptist church that taught decision theology. I was taught that God draws us be we must accept him. I was also taught total depravity and preservation of the saints. I don’t think I ever put faith in my choice to accept Christ but the teaching was corrupt none the less. My point is, to say Armenians preach a false Gospel is a drastic over simplification. Of course, there are denominations ( that are in the decision camp ) that clearly do preach a false Gospel. There are many non denominational Christians ( including some baptist) that claim to be Armenian, but in reality, they are 2 or 3 pointers who teach decision theology. So, to leverage the allegation that all Armenians/ decision theologies preach a false Gospel is misleading and reckless. It is simply not a one size fits all situation. I hope that clears it up.


----------



## De Jager (Aug 22, 2019)

I guess this all depends on what definitions we use. What is Arminian Theology? What is the gospel?

If one thinks that they contribute anything to their salvation, even 2%, I don't see how that person can be saved. However, most people we would call Arminian these days believe that salvation is by grace, but don't believe or understand that even their choosing of Christ is by grace. It is a misunderstanding of the bondage of the will that they have.

As for the bare facts of the gospel, even the demons know that. They know that Christ lived a perfect life, died, rose again, etc, but it is not good news to them. But that gospel is only good news where one trusts that the work of Christ summarized therein is 100% sufficient for their right standing with God. Not 95%, Not 98%, but 100%. The basic gospel truths are not good news if one still has to contribute to their own salvation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

De Jager said:


> I guess this all depends on what definitions we use. What is Arminian Theology? What is the gospel?
> 
> If one thinks that they contribute anything to their salvation, even 2%, I don't see how that person can be saved. However, most people we would call Arminian these days believe that salvation is by grace, but don't believe or understand that even their choosing of Christ is by grace. It is a misunderstanding of the bondage of the will that they have.
> 
> As for the bare facts of the gospel, even the demons know that. They know that Christ lived a perfect life, died, rose again, etc, but it is not good news to them. But that gospel is only good news where one trusts that the work of Christ summarized therein is 100% sufficient for their right standing with God. Not 95%, Not 98%, but 100%. The basic gospel truths are not good news if one still has to contribute to their own salvation.


Thank you brother, you had said what I have been meaning to say this whole time. I just need to work on articulating my thoughts better.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I thought it would help to provide some back story. I grew up in a traditional baptist church that taught decision theology. I was taught that God draws us be we must accept him. I was also taught total depravity and preservation of the saints. I don’t think I ever put faith in my choice to accept Christ but the teaching was corrupt none the less. My point is, to say Armenians preach a false Gospel is a drastic over simplification. Of course, there are denominations ( that are in the decision camp ) that clearly do preach a false Gospel. There are many non denominational Christians ( including some baptist) that claim to be Armenian, but in reality, they are 2 or 3 pointers who teach decision theology. So, to leverage the allegation that all Armenians/ decision theologies preach a false Gospel is misleading and reckless. It is simply not a one size fits all situation. I hope that clears it up.


God has elected into Himself some to get saved out of the Catholic Church even, and their theology is really messed up , do why He not be able to save out from among the so called free will churches His own? Spurgeon and Wesley held to different theology on this, yet we're not both saved by same Lord? It's just that Spurgeon had auch better understanding on what it really meant!


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> God has elected into Himself some to get saved out of the Catholic Church even, and their theology is really messed up , do why He not be able to save out from among do called free will churches His own? Spurgeon and Wesley held to different theology on this, yet we're not both saved by same Lord? It's just that Spurgeon had auch better understanding on what it really meant!


Brother, I am having a really tough time understanding your post. It's too disjointed and garbled


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Sir,
> You fail to dialog, which comes across as desperate, not to miss mentioning, boring. You talk, but u don't interact. I will not waste anymore of my time. I should have followed Tom's move.


Brother, help me out here. After checking your profile, I see you were saved out of an arminian church ( i say that loosely) like myself. So, you know what I am talking about when I say" simple truth of the Gospel". We both have first hand knowledge of this truth. Knowing this, why buck me on it? Seriously? Help me understand


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

First of all, thank u for the kind words. Let's start over. Interact and answer my questions. Thats dialoging. 

I was saved in a Calvary Chapel. Since I now understand the order of salvation, I don't know when I was actually converted; I do know when I was regenerated, however because the preaching and the word of God made sense to me, whereas, in the past, it didn't. It was like hitting it rich or finding, 'the pearl of great price'. I bought the field! I left CC soon after. 

Dordt concluded that Arminianism is heresy and those holding to it are perishing. Do u agree?

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> First of all, thank u for the kind words. Let's start over. Interact and answer my questions. Thats dialoging.
> 
> I was saved in a Calvary Chapel. Since I now understand the order of salvation, I don't know when I was actually converted; I do know when I was regenerated, however because the preaching and the word of God made sense to me, whereas, in the past, it didn't. It was like hitting it rich or finding, 'the pearl of great price'. I bought the field! I left CC soon after.
> 
> Dordt concluded that Arminianism is heresy and those holding to it are perishing. Do u agree?


Yes, I agree with Dort and their stance on Arminianism. I'm just not sure that "some" denominations actually teach full blown Arminian theology. I think people throw Arminian around too loosely. That is why I switched to calling it decision theology.


----------



## De Jager (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Yes, I agree with Dort and their stance on Arminianism. I'm just not sure that "some" denominations actually teach full blown Arminian theology. I think people throw Arminian around too loosely. That is why I switched to calling it decision theology.



You could also call it bad theology.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Thanks for your response; Do u believe a person can hold to some of Arminian principles as described by the 5 articles of the Remonstrance and still be saved?


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

De Jager said:


> You could also call it bad theology.


 I don't want to be unnecessarily divisive. Most people who claim to hold to Arminian theology, really don't understand what they are saying. It's almost as if Arminianism has grown to include all forms of decision theology and thas is inaccurate. 

When throwing around strong words like false gospel and heresy we really need to be more surgical and understand exactly what it is they are believing. If not, we will shut them down and potential growth is lost


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Thanks for your response; Do u believe a person can hold to some of Arminian principles as described by the 5 articles of the Remonstrance and still be saved?


Scott, I don't like pretending like I hold the keys to the Kingdom. In all fairness, I'm not fully informed on all aspects of Arminian doctrine and to answer that question would be to answer in ignorance. 

I would venture to say, if they are consistent in their beliefs, salvation is unlikely


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Got you. Thanks.

Your opening statement says:


> "I recognize that Arminian theology is heretical in many respects, but I do not see a need to translate that into presenting a false Gospel".



Then u say in post 104:



> Yes, I agree with Dort and their stance on Arminianism.



So just for clarity, would u change your opening statement, given that you are now saying that u agree with Dordt?

Do u understand that Dordt's whole emphasis is in regards to the gospel, that being that Arminianism is a false gospel.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Thanks for your response; Do u believe a person can hold to some of Arminian principles as described by the 5 articles of the Remonstrance and still be saved?


I'll be 100% honest with you Scott. There is a piece of me that wonders, can a man really be saved without belief in the doctrines of grace

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Got you. Thanks.
> 
> Your opening statement says:
> 
> ...


 I would ( like i mentioned earlier ) replace Arminianism with "decision theology". I think my use of Arminianism in the title is missleading


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Brother, I am having a really tough time understanding your post. It's too disjointed and garbled


Sorry , my main point was that since His even saves some Catholics despite them having real theology issues, and since He saved both Wesley and Spurgeon, would not He still view Arminians and Cavinists as teaching same Gospel?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Scott, I don't like pretending like I hold the keys to the Kingdom. In all fairness, I'm not fully informed on all aspects of Arminian doctrine and to answer that question would be to answer in ignorance.
> 
> I would venture to say, if they are consistent in their beliefs, salvation is unlikely


Can they be saved and still have misunderstandings? Yes, see all saved Catholics for example!


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Got you. Thanks.
> 
> Your opening statement says:
> 
> ...



Just to clarify, I do believe that real Arminianism is completely heretical. I stand behind Dort. My mistake was using the term Arminianism to really talk about decision theology. Or better yet, people who are really 2 or 3 pointers. 
I used Arminianism cause everybody not holding to reformed theology is usually tagged arminian.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I'll be 100% honest with you Scott. There is a piece of me that wonders, can a man really be saved without belief in the doctrines of grace[/QUOTE





De Jager said:


> You could also call it bad theology.


Depends on if they hold that their faith saved them, or was it Jesus, object of that faith? What about those of us who were saved, and then accepted Calvinism much later in after being persuaded and convinced by scriptures and authors?


----------



## De Jager (Aug 22, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Depends on if they hold that their faith saved them, or was it Jesus, object of that faith? What about those of us who were saved, and then accepted Calvinism much later in after being persuaded and convinced by scriptures and authors?


Whether the person was converted in an arminian or decisionist setting or not, it is still bad theology.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Moving along; Now, essentially what I have gotten u to do was admit that there are things, that a person must understand to have the correct, biblical gospel. This is exactly what Dordt did in response to Arminius. That being, the Remonstrance were wrong and they have a heretical gospel and the reformed, given what Dordt confesses, a sound biblical one. . 

Now, are there people out there that are elect, that are regenerated, holding to some of these false teachings? Yes. However, I would doubt that they are actually converted yet as they do not posses the truth of the gospel (yet).

When I earlier mentioned hermeneutics and the fact that u have 'apologist' in your signature, parts of being an apologist is uncovering minutia as the smaller things are important. For example, would u agree that historical context is important in apologetics and is a basic hermeneutic?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I'll be 100% honest with you Scott. There is a piece of me that wonders, can a man really be saved without belief in the doctrines of grace



Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the gospel. Much like a cliff notes of God's word. They are at the heart of the gospel.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the gospel. Much like a cliff notes of God's word. They are at the heart of the gospel.



I want to be able to agree with you Scott, I really do. I just don't know that scripture would agree, I really don't. I am open to being convinced.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> When I earlier mentioned hermeneutics and the fact that u have 'apologist' in your signature, parts of being an apologist is uncovering minutia as the smaller things are important. For example, would u agree that historical context is important in apologetics and is a basic hermeneutic?



Yes, I agree that historical context is very important. I just disagree over how far to take historically based assumptions. 

Also, I never intended to argue against what you were saying in your 1st paragraph. I agree with you on that point in certain respects

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

D o G: we are sinners, can't save ourselves, unable to come unless God calls us first; His love is irresistible. Men need to accept, receive, repent. God chose us in Him-the elect only. Jesus is God; in the flesh; died for sinners that don't deserve mercy, rose from the dead. sits at God's right hand actively ruling. Those that come to Christ are safe in his arms forever. 

This is the gospel. Short and sweet. 

However, it would be difficult for someone to really assimilate that data without having some background. Most people in this country already have much data already onboard; hence, the simplicity is actually data topping off information that they already have.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> I want to be able to agree with you Scott, I really do. I just don't know that scripture would agree, I really don't. I am open to being convinced.


I will not go do far as to say that only those holding to a proper Reformed Theology can and are being saved.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> D o G: we are sinners, can't save ourselves, unable to come unless God calls us first; His love is irresistible. Men need to accept, receive, repent. God chose us in Him-the elect only. Jesus is God; in the flesh; died for sinners that don't deserve mercy, rose from the dead. sits at God's right hand actively ruling. Those that come to Christ are safe in his arms forever.
> 
> This is the gospel. Short and sweet.
> 
> However, it would be difficult for someone to really assimilate that data without having some background. Most people in this country already have much data already onboard; hence, the simplicity is actually data topping off information that they already have.


I think that the Gospel message itself in less than that, as it's holding to one is sinner, Jesus died in your stead, and that eternal life is Him being your own risen Saviour and Lord!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Keep in mind, we are saved. We are being saved and we will be saved.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Whether the person was converted in an arminian or decisionist setting or not, it is still bad theology.
> 
> Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk


Agreed, but does it cross over to damnable heresy theology though?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Agreed, but does it cross over to damnable heresy theology though?



(A)rminianism is damnable. No person is in heaven is Arminian. It is the antihesis of God's word.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## timfost (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott,

Perhaps it may be helpful to unpack the way we use "gospel" a little more. The doctrines of grace are good news for sure. In fact, the whole counsel of God is good news. However, I would not say that it is the gospel as scripture defines it, at least in a sense. Similarly, the doctrine of election is not "the gospel" as it goes out to unbelievers, which is normally how we use the term. Consider Dort 1.14:

"As the doctrine of divine election by the most wise counsel of God was declared by the prophets, by Christ Himself, and by the apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures both of the Old and the New Testament, *so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed*, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God’s most holy Name, and for enlivening and comforting His people, without vainly attempting to investigate the sacred ways of the Most High (Acts 20:27; Rom. 11:33, 34; 12:3; Heb. 6:17–18)."

This is important since while the gospel is fit for an unbelieving world, election, as a part of the doctrines of grace, is fit for believers.

Similarly, the 39 Articles, Art. 17 states:

"As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort *to godly persons*, *and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ*, mortifying the works of the flesh... So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation."

This confirms something similar to Dort while speaking of the danger of holding this doctrine before unbelievers. But certainly the gospel should be held out before unbelievers as Dort also affirms in 1.3-4.

All this to say, our confessions do seem to distinguish "the gospel" and the doctrines of grace insofar as what is to be proclaimed to whom. 

I do believe that the doctrines of grace are good news (gospel) for the church militant in their present salvation (those who are _being_ saved).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Kinghezy (Aug 22, 2019)

The below comes from the Westminster Confession. Perhaps it is useful to keep in mind during this discussion, since it seems to indicate that someone may have enough understanding for salvation, but not in all matters that may be good to know.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 22, 2019)

timfost said:


> The doctrines of grace are good news for sure. In fact, the whole counsel of God is good news. However, I would not say that it is the gospel as scripture defines it, at least in a sense



Hey Tim,
I made that distinction in post # 118 where I said:



> Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the gospel. Much like a cliff notes of God's word. They are at the heart of the gospel.



I guess I could have worded that better. *Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the heart of the gospel message.* Could a man be saved reading the D of G? Not without the scriptural citations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Aug 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Hey Tim,
> I made that distinction in post # 118 where I said:
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't think I was saying anything you would disagree with. Just trying to clarify.

And yes, the doctrines of grace are the nuts and bolts of the gospel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 23, 2019)

It is a sobering thought - based on these comments the vast majority of churches in the USA are perhaps preaching a false gospel. Matt 19:25-26


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 23, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Now, are there people out there that are elect, that are regenerated, holding to some of these false teachings? Yes. However, I would doubt that they are actually converted yet as they do not posses the truth of the gospel (yet).



Hey Scott, how's it going?

I didn't follow every post that mainly you and you know who has been going back and forth about so I'm not totally up to snuff as they say. But would you apply this paragraph above to unsound people such as Billy Graham? It was he that led me to the Lord as he has many many other people. Plus a whole lot that were not "led to the Lord" who thought they were.
Just asking.

Sorry C. Ryan for the you know who phrase. 

Ed


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 23, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> Hey Scott, how's it going?
> 
> I didn't follow every post that mainly you and you know who has been going back and forth about so I'm not totally up to snuff as they say. But would you apply this paragraph above to unsound people such as Billy Graham? It was he that led me to the Lord as he has many many other people. Plus a whole lot that were not "led to the Lord" who thought they were.
> Just asking.
> ...



Hi Ed,
Since we both know that the elect come from 'every tribe, tongue and nation', the actual venue is insignificant. The purpose and decree of God is sure; no matter who is preaching. My only rationale has to do with the order of salvation and if a man can be converted without any data onboard. Election precedes regeneration in that the regenerated elect have seeds of faith, prior to conversion, or as Matt would say, akin to an acorn. An acorn is not a tree yet; only the capacity. When this actually occurs in the decree, only God knows. Truth is the water that germinates the acorn and starts the growth. The sprout may be the conversion. I know many disagree with me here in relation to the order, but in my opinion, it makes better sense. I have no issue with the 'gap'.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 23, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> Hey Scott, how's it going?
> 
> I didn't follow every post that mainly you and you know who has been going back and forth about so I'm not totally up to snuff as they say. But would you apply this paragraph above to unsound people such as Billy Graham? It was he that led me to the Lord as he has many many other people. Plus a whole lot that were not "led to the Lord" who thought they were.
> Just asking.
> ...


There have been many saved by the grace of God such as Billy Graham who did not have a full understanding of Sotierology as Calvinist and Reformed would have, are we seeing only we have the real truth and are the really saved then?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 23, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is a sobering thought - based on these comments the vast majority of churches in the USA are perhaps preaching a false gospel. Matt 19:25-26


Or teaching the real gospel, and yet still ignorant as to what the full understanding of it is?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 23, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> I have no issue with the 'gap'.



Your order is excellent, and election inevitably precedes everything—it is from eternity. (Oops, is that my _Supra._ showing?) As for the rest of your list, as I said I agree, but I also think they could happen _in order_—yes—but also _in an instant_ from our point of view. If I am wrong, I welcome being better taught. I never want to be right, for the sake of being right.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 23, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> but I also think they could happen _in order_—yes—but also _in an instant_ from our point of view. If I am wrong,



Ed, absolutely. Many times, it happens in a nano-second. My position doesn't demand that it has to happen that way, i.e. an elect infant, regenerated in the womb, w/ seed of faith, watered by the word and converted at a later date.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> are we seeing only we have the real truth and are the really saved then?



I speak only to the first part of the quote highlighted green. 

An aside:
Every honest Christian teacher should think that they are correct about _everything_ they believe the Bible teaches. Even though they know that they _could_ be wrong at some points. It would be the hight of dishonesty and a conscience-searing sin to think otherwise. We should remember this when we try to teach a fellow saint the truth more perfectly. Always assume the best motives in a brother while at the same time "i_nstructing those that oppose themselves._"

2 Timothy 2:24-26
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.​


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 23, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Ed, absolutely. Many times, it happens in a nano-second. My position doesn't demand that it has to happen that way, i.e. an elect infant, regenerated in the womb, w/ seed of faith, watered by the word and converted at a later date.


regeneration though comes right before the person received Jesus as Lord and saviour, or else close to it, not extended period of time between those events.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> regeneration though comes right before the person received Jesus as Lord and saviour, or else close to it, not extended period of time between those events.



And with elect infants in the womb that are regenerated? How does that practically work? When are they converted?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 23, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> And with elect infants in the womb that are regenerated? How does that practically work? When are they converted?


when they have received Jesus as Saviour and Lord!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> when they have received Jesus as Saviour and Lord!



When does that happen?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 23, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> When does that happen?


The moment they trusted in Jesus to save them!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The moment they trusted in Jesus to save them!



When does that happen?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 23, 2019)

David,
My point being, trust, belief, acceptance, reception has to be based on something; how is it that an infant in the womb, who is decreed to live a full life, who is regenerated, do these things? Since we both know that conversion is not regeneration and regeneration is not conversion, when is this infant converted? U say, "The moment they trusted in Jesus to save them!" I say, when? After they receoive truth from their parents? When they are able to process data? Surely u agree that when u 'received' and 'accepted', it was based on propositions u understood and accepted, correct? Hence, there can be time between regeneration and conversion.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> God knows those whom He will save, so when the time for to hatdinber to receive Jesus will be the time He shall regenerate them in order to do just that.



I understand that; we are talking of conversion, not regeneration.

You previously said:



> regeneration though comes right before the person received Jesus as Lord and saviour, or else close to it, not extended period of time between those events.



Regeneration is at God's discretion; it can happen at any time, much akin to wind blowing around.

Apparently, u believe that a infant who is decreed to live a full life, can be regenerated and converted prior to receiving the gospel?

How does an infant receive truth when they are not cognitively able? I understand that God does save elect infants who are decreed to die in the womb or closely thereafter, by His divine hand and power, going to that infant himself and preaching the gospel to that child. But one who will live a full life, must have the gospel preached to him/her. Men can only be saved by the gospel and assenting to biblical propositions. Can an infant repent? Receive? Accept? ect....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 23, 2019)

John Owen: Love of the truth requires opposition to Arminianism

I do not deny that many evangelical Arminians are saved, but it is in spite of their Arminianism.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Qtotmehtmehtot ethUOTEE="Scott Bushey



*Fix your post.*

Ed

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 23, 2019)

I see both as flip sides of same coin, as while God regenerated the sinner in order to them to be enabled to receive Jesus, to us appears to all be happening at the same time!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 23, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> I see both as flip sides of same coin, as while God regenerated the sinner in order to them to be enabled to receive Jesus, to us appears to all be happening at the same time!



David,
It's really difficult having any dialog with you. You don't really interact with the previous comments. It would do u well, to try and interact with that which the posters are trying to convey and then, respond. Sorry, but I cannot continue conversing with you because of this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 23, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> It's really difficult having any dialog with you. You don't really interact with the previous comments. It would do u well, to try and interact with that which the posters are trying to convey and then, respond. Sorry, but I cannot continue conversing with you because of this.


Replying to your post 146, I do see God has determined to apply His saving grace towards all aborted,infants, and mentally challenged, as He does for them and to them what is impossible for them to do in those states.


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 24, 2019)

Reformed Apologist said:


> Tom, the Gospel is the Gospel. It is what a person needs to believe in, in order to be saved. A person does not need to believe in limited atonememt, preservation of the saints or un conditional election in order to be saved. They simply need to believe in Christ's atonement. Still, in all these forementioned doctrines, decision theology still presents heretical beliefs.
> 
> No bodies theology is perfect ( just look at paedo baptist....j/k)



One must receive and rest upon Christ alone as offered in the gospel.

The problem with even “4 point Calvinism” is that one cannot believe he’s saved because Christ died for his sins. After all, the theology of 4 pointers down to 0 pointers is that Christ died even for those in hell. Accordingly, it’s not Christ alone but Christ plus faith that saves.

4 pointers must believe they’re saved because God sovereignly granted them faith. Whereas strident Arminians must believe they’re saved because they exercised the non gift of faith.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 24, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Ed,
> Since we both know that the elect come from 'every tribe, tongue and nation', the actual venue is insignificant. The purpose and decree of God is sure; no matter who is preaching. My only rationale has to do with the order of salvation and if a man can be converted without any data onboard. Election precedes regeneration in that the elect have seeds of faith. as Matt would say, akin to an acorn. An acorn is not a tree yet; only the capacity. When this actually occurs in the decree, only God knows. Truth is the water that germinates the acorn and starts the growth. The sprout may be the conversion. I know many disagree with me here in relation to the order, but in my opinion, it makes better sense. I have no issue with the 'gap'.



Scott,

I think this needs a little work.

“Election precedes regeneration in that the elect have seeds of faith.”

The seed of faith typically refers to a fruit of regeneration. Non regenerate elect persons don’t have the seed of faith.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 24, 2019)

RWD said:


> Scott,
> 
> I think this needs a little work.
> 
> ...



Good catch, Rich.
What I meant to say was: "Regeneration precedes conversion in that the regenerated elect have seeds of faith."

I will edit my post. Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 24, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Good catch, Rich.
> What I meant to say was: "Regeneration precedes conversion in that the elect have seeds of faith."
> 
> I will edit my post. Thanks.



But not all the elect have the seed of faith was my point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 24, 2019)

Agreed. editing again.

Election precedes regeneration in that the regenerated elect have seeds of faith, prior to conversion.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 24, 2019)

Regarding infants and justification, here are some options we might consider.

1. Infants can be regenerate and united to Christ but not justified because they don’t have cognizant faith.

2. Infants who are regenerate have the seed of faith and are justified, though they haven’t yet exercised the seed of faith by _believing_.

3. There is no such thing as the seed of faith and regenerate infants are justified by union with Christ.

4. Infants who are regenerate mysteriously have cognizant faith and are resting upon Christ.

Some food for thought...

In Chapter 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, saving faith actually is distinguished from believing. The Confession teaches that through the grace of faith, the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls (paragraph 14.1). See how it distinguishes the gift of faith and believing, which is the exercising of faith?

“By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word…” (14.2.). The Confession does not teach that by this faith a Christian is enabled to have faith, for that would be unintelligible. Rather, the Confession teaches that by this faith – saving faith – God _enables _his elect to believe. In other words, by distinguishing faith and belief the Confession teaches that God effects the grace of faith by the Spirit of Christ in the hearts of His elect, whereby those with true faith, when confronted with the propositions of Scripture whereby they are understood, _exercise_ _this faith_ unto “obedience to the commands...” and many other “acts” of faith such as “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life…”

Notwithstanding, these “acts” of faith - even the _principle_ act of faith - are not to be confused with the essence of faith, for as we have shown – _by faith_ one believes, which in its principle act is accepting, receiving and resting upon Christ alone for the whole of salvation. So, when a person is regenerated he is granted the gift of faith. In time that faith will grow to believe in later years x,y and z, and not just the milk of the word, such as a, b, and c.

Because faith is distinguished from believing in the Confession’s chapter on saving faith, it is most reasonable to read 11.1 of the same Confession with that in mind. “Those who God effectually calls, He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness in to them…nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness…” (Maybe read that again.)

In other words, it is most reasonable to interpret the Confession as not defining "faith itself" as “the act of believing" (lest it contradicts chapter 14!), but rather again distinguishing faith from the act of believing, just as it distinguishes faith from "evangelical obedience." In other words, the Confession teaches that God does not credit either (a) faith, (b) the act of believing, or (c) any other evangelical obedience to the sinner when he is pardoned, accepted and accounted as righteous.

Given such a distinction between faith and belief, it is easy to understand how a regenerate infant who is united to Christ can be justified by grace_ through faith alone_ – apart from understanding, believing and willfully embracing gospel propositions. (*Position 2 above*)

However, if justification is through faith alone and if the three “classic” elements of faith are necessary conditions for justification in infants, then regenerate infants (and those incapable of being called) cannot be pardoned for their sin! (*Position 1 above*)

Or else, regenerate infants can have cognizant faith, which I believe leads to all sorts of problems. (*Position 4 above*)

However, if infants can be justified, yet cannot have faith, then justification is by regeneration alone, apart from faith, when it comes to infants and those incapable of being called. That too is, I think, problematic. (*Position 3 above*)

At the very least, those who wish to maintain both that God may be merciful to infants and that justification is through a _cognizant_-faith alone have some theological reconciling to do. The simple solution is that those three elements pertain to _belief _and not to faith narrowly considered in seed form. After all, what about one who comes to Christ and then slips into a coma? He isn't believing in Christ (nor likely assenting, etc. to anything for that matter), but certainly he possesses the irrevocable gift of _faith_ (though not being exercised). We have justifying faith when sleeping, but are we _exercising_ faith at such times?

We must keep in mind that we are saved through faith so that our salvation might be of grace. Faith is the immediate result of regeneration, even prior to it being exercised by believing in Christ! Again, "by this faith one believes."

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 25, 2019)

RWD said:


> Regarding infants and justification, here are some options we might consider.
> 
> 1. Infants can be regenerate and united to Christ but not justified because they don’t have cognizant faith.
> 
> ...


What if God Himself though has determined that He shall Himself apply saving Grace towards all infants, aborted, miscarriaged, and mentally challenged apart from anything they could do by themselves?


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 25, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> What if God Himself though has determined that He shall Himself apply saving Grace towards all infants, aborted, miscarriaged, and mentally challenged apart from anything they could do by themselves?



Obviously God doesn’t “apply saving grace towards all infants” (lest some lose their salvation). So, I’ll take you to be asking, “What if God Himself though has determined that He shall Himself apply saving Grace towards all infants _who are_ aborted, _have_ _undergone_ _miscarriage_,_ or are born_ mentally challenged...”

God could do that. However, I have no reason to believe he does.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 25, 2019)

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/08/more-on-the-infant-who-dies-in-infancy/


----------



## De Jager (Aug 25, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> What if God Himself though has determined that He shall Himself apply saving Grace towards all infants, aborted, miscarriaged, and mentally challenged apart from anything they could do by themselves?



What if he hasn't?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 26, 2019)

De Jager said:


> What if he hasn't?


He can do whatever is pleasing and right, but based upon how He expresses Himself to us in scriptures, would He not do as I suggested?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 26, 2019)

RWD said:


> Obviously God doesn’t “apply saving grace towards all infants” (lest some lose their salvation). So, I’ll take you to be asking, “What if God Himself though has determined that He shall Himself apply saving Grace towards all infants _who are_ aborted, _have_ _undergone_ _miscarriage_,_ or are born_ mentally challenged...”
> 
> God could do that. However, I have no reason to believe he does.


I was meaning not towards all infants and others who grew up to be adults, but towards those who die either in the womb or early on as infants after birth!


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 26, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> I was meaning not towards all infants and others who grew up to be adults, but towards those who die either in the womb or early on as infants after birth!



That’s what I addressed.


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 26, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> He can do whatever is pleasing and right, but based upon how He expresses Himself to us in scriptures, would He not do as I suggested?



You’re suggesting that the way in which God “expresses Himself to us in scriptures” is that he is inclined to save _all_ fallen infants who die in infancy; yet he’s not so inclined to save all adults. I would think that the onus of proof is upon you to show that God’s redemptive mercy is _particular_ in that way. Surely totally depraved infants that die in infancy aren’t more worthy of redemption than they’d be if they grew up to be totally depraved adults. So why is God more inclined to save infants who die in infancy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 26, 2019)

RWD said:


> You’re suggesting that the way in which God “expresses Himself to us in scriptures” is that he is inclined to save _all_ fallen infants who die in infancy; yet he’s not so inclined to save all adults. I would think that the onus of proof is upon you to show that God’s redemptive mercy is _particular_ in that way. Surely totally depraved infants that die in infancy aren’t more worthy of redemption than they’d be if they grew up to be totally depraved adults. So why is God more inclined to save infants who die in infancy?



Due to Him being gracious towards them, as while still in their fallen state, He chooses to save those who die in those ways? I believe Spurgeon held to same viewpoint.


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 26, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Due to Him being gracious towards them, as while still in their fallen state, He chooses to save those who die in those ways?



You’ve begged the question. Again, “Why is God more inclined to save infants who die in infancy?” That question could have been stated, “Why is God more gracious to save infants who die in infancy?” To which you answered, God is “gracious toward them.” Your thesis and your support of it seem to be identical: God is more inclined to save infants who die infancy (i.e. more gracious toward them than adults) because God is “gracious toward them.” Isn’t God gracious toward adults? I’m looking for a reason to believe he’s more gracious toward infants who haven’t yet grown up to be murderers, blasphemers and moralists.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 26, 2019)

RWD said:


> You’ve begged the question. Again, “Why is God more inclined to save infants who die in infancy?” That question could have been stated, “Why is God more gracious to save infants who die in infancy?” To which you answered, God is “gracious toward them.” Your thesis and your support of it seem to be identical: God is more inclined to save infants who die infancy (i.e. more gracious toward them than adults) because God is “gracious toward them.” Isn’t God gracious toward adults? I’m looking for a reason to believe he’s more gracious toward infants who haven’t yet grown up to be murderers, blasphemers and moralists.


My contention is that He knows that they are are in a fallen state, but that the Cross of Christ provided the means by which He can freely apply officious Grace towards them. I did not mean to derail this thread,

so what is the agreement here as to the OP then?


----------



## User20004000 (Aug 26, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> My contention is that He knows that they are are in a fallen state, but that the Cross of Christ provided the means by which He can freely apply officious Grace towards them. I did not mean to derail this thraed, so what is the agreement here as to the OP then?



Yes, Arminianism preaches the false gospel of “Jesus died for you.” However, when it’s preached to the elect, it’s true.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

