# Reformed Arminian



## ReformedWretch (Dec 13, 2008)

Ran into a guy online tonight that called himself that! He was pretty much just straight arminian. Kept talking about prevenient grace and how I didn't understand it.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 13, 2008)

Oxymoron if he's using the term Reformed in its normal context. Of course, he could just be defining what Reformed means, and then he's being a bit disingenuous.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 13, 2008)

I bet he thinks he has the free will to call himself what ever he likes!


----------



## Zenas (Dec 13, 2008)

I think he has the free will to be wrong.


----------



## PastorTim (Dec 13, 2008)

Maybe someone can help me. In seeing this thread it brought to mind John MacArthur. He seems to speak out of each theology at different times. Is he Reformed or Arminian or is "Reformed Arminian" an accurate title for him, whereby merely speaking to a confused and disordered theology. Or I am the one confused?
Please do help me with this as I know many who stand behind his teachings.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Dec 13, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Ran into a guy online tonight that called himself that! He was pretty much just straight arminian. Kept talking about prevenient grace and how I didn't understand it.



Ah, Prevenient Grace! I've known several Nazarenes and Methodists who don't understand it either.  

What passes for the Wesleyan Doctrine of "Prevenient Grace" these days is NOT usually anything like what Wesley taught.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 13, 2008)

PastorTim said:


> Maybe someone can help me. In seeing this thread it brought to mind John MacArthur. He seems to speak out of each theology at different times. Is he Reformed or Arminian or is "Reformed Arminian" an accurate title for him, whereby merely speaking to a confused and disordered theology. Or I am the one confused?
> Please do help me with this as I know many who stand behind his teachings.



MacArthur is a Calvinistic Dispensationalist. Definitely not Arminian. But not "Reformed" either. He essentially holds to the Five Points regarding soteriology. He is a typical Dispensational Pre-trib Pre-mill in his eschatology.

To the opening post (OP), if "Reformed" is defined by the Confessions (a la Westminster, London Baptist, and Belgic, etc.) then technically "Reformed Arminian" is an oxymoron. However, in untechnical terms, I would think a "reformed" Arminian would be a Calvinist, i.e. an Arminian no longer. Lol.


----------



## Hippo (Dec 13, 2008)

Will Norman Geisler is a moderate Calvinist after all.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 13, 2008)

Historically, Arminians were a branch off of the Reformed church. Those who follow the theological system of Arminius & his early supporters are often called Remonstrance or Reformation Arminians, b/c they started out Reformed (not Lutheran or Catholic) and modified the system. It also distinguishes them from Wesleyan Arminians. 

I don't believe (though I'm a bit hazy here) that Reformation Arminians taught prevenient grace. I think they tended toward a more semi-pelagian anthropology, in contrast to Wesley, who technically affirmed total depravity.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 13, 2008)

This guys confirmed total depravity but not limited atonement . He also told me that Johnny MaC recently said that Calvinism and Arminianism were BOTH right! I find that hard to believe as he could provide me a link.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 13, 2008)

There is a classic Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace, but it isn't the Augustinian or Calvinist doctrine of prevenient grace. It's a matter of definitions. When we say "prevenient grace" (lit. "foregoing" grace) we mean that sovereign favor of God by which he regenerates (makes alive) dead sinners and grants them the grace of faith, and through that, union with Christ, and all the benefits of the covenant of grace.

When a classic Arminian says "prevenient" grace he means a "foregoing" infusion of a power to all sufficient to enable the sinner to do, as some late medieval theologians said, "what lies within him." According to this view, we're not so sinful that we, if given a sort of level playing field (which is the function of prevenient grace in the Arminian system) that we cannot, if we will, cooperate with that grace and produce faith and works (the classic Arminians were rationalist and moralists).

H. Orton Wiley distinguished between "the prevenient grace which is given to all men, and the mysterious issue of this grace in individual regeneration. That regeneration is thus a distinct and completed act...." This is virtually the late Medieval Pelagianizing scheme of some of the Franciscan theologians. 

Richard Watson wrote:

1. Everything which can be called in man, previous to regeneration is to be attributed to the work of the Spirit of God. Man himself is totally depraved and not capable of either thinking or doing any good thing, as shown by the previous article.

2. That the state of nature in which man exists previous to regeneration, is in some sense a state of grace–preliminary or prevenient grace.

3. That in this preliminary period there is a continuity of grace—the Holy Spirit, beginning, advancing and perfecting everything that can be called good in man. The Spirit of God leads the sinner from one step to another, in proportion as He finds response in the heart of the sinner and a disposition to obedience.

4. That there is a human co-operation with the divine Spirit, the Holy Spirit working with the free will of man, quickening, aiding and directing it in order to secure compliance with the conditions of the covenant by which man may be saved.

5. That the grace of God is given to all men in order to bring them to salvation through Jesus Christ, but that this grace so given, may be resisted by the free will of man, so as to be rendered ineffectual. R. Watson, Theological Institutes II (Carlton & Porter, 1850) as cited by H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology II (Beacon Hill press, 1952) p. 352.

Roger Olson writes:

"Grace heals the deadly wound of sin and enables humans, who are
otherwise in bondage of the will to sin, to respond freely to the message of the gospel. Grace brings God’s undeserved and unmerited favor to humans who exercise faith with repentance and trust in Christ alone for salvation"

The Arminian, the Roman Catholic, and the Federal Visionist (you knew it had to be there) all set up a system whereby one is "in by grace" but stays in "by faith and works." In all those systems, the sinner must "do his part" in order to be justified and saved.

Gary Johnson has a short paper on this.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 13, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Will Norman Geisler is a moderate Calvinist after all.



Norman Geisler was one of the contributors to the book, _Four Views on Eternal Security._ He misrepresents Calvinism. He implies that Calvinism teaches that the image of God is destroyed after man fell into sin. He believes that Calvinism teaches that one receives salvation against their will and that there can be no assurance of salvation. 

Geisler teaches that God's grace is irresistible if you want to believe in Christ. If you do not want to believe in Christ, then God's grace is not irresistible.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 13, 2008)

Wesleyan Thomas C. Oden of Drew University defines universal prevenient grace as, "...the grace that begins to enable one to choose further to cooperate with saving grace. By offering the will the _restored capacity _to respond to grace, the person then may freely and increasingly become an active, willing participant in receiving the conditions for justification." (John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 243.)

The Arminian idea of prevenient seems to offset the noetic effects of the Fall such that the Total Depravity they speak of is merely hypothetical -- for all are given sufficient grace to believe _if they will it_.

It also boils down to the question of a monergistic vs a synergistic work of salvation.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 13, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> Wesleyan Thomas C. Oden of Drew University defines universal prevenient grace as, "...the grace that begins to enable one to choose further to cooperate with saving grace. By offering the will the _restored capacity _to respond to grace, the person then may freely and increasingly become an active, willing participant in receiving the conditions for justification." (John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 243.)
> 
> The Arminian idea of prevenient seems to offset the noetic effects of the Fall such that the Total Depravity they speak of is merely hypothetical -- for all are given sufficient grace to believe _if they will it_.
> 
> It also boils down to the question of a monergistic vs a synergistic work of salvation.




Do Arminians believe that people are born totally depraved and then after their birth, God bestows His prevenient grace upon them? 

Do Arminians believe that God bestows His prevenient grace on everyone?


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 13, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> I bet he thinks he has the free will to call himself what ever he likes!


Nice!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 13, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> It also boils down to the question of a monergistic vs a synergistic work of salvation.




Yes, exactly, and differing conceptions of the effect of the fall.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 13, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > Wesleyan Thomas C. Oden of Drew University defines universal prevenient grace as, "...the grace that begins to enable one to choose further to cooperate with saving grace. By offering the will the _restored capacity _to respond to grace, the person then may freely and increasingly become an active, willing participant in receiving the conditions for justification." (John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 243.)
> ...



yes and yes.


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 13, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> > Do Arminians believe that people are born totally depraved and then after their birth, God bestows His prevenient grace upon them?
> >
> > Do Arminians believe that God bestows His prevenient grace on everyone?
> 
> ...



The Methodists presume of all people what many Presbyterians presume of their children (see McMahon's catechism) -- that they are born totally depraved, but that God regenerates them apart from the use of any intermediate human means (e.g. the preaching of the Word), preparing them to "choose God" as they advance in years. Interestingly, the Methodists tie this belief to their paedobaptism practice as well.

There are obviously some important differences, but the similarities are intriguing.


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 13, 2008)

I've also heard it said that In Christ's atonement He abolished original sin and brought everybody into a stage of innocency and that until one hears the gospel they are headed for heaven, and then once they accept to accept the gospel they are saved....again...could this be Billy Grahaminianism?


----------



## discipulo (Dec 13, 2008)

The depravity formulation of the Remonstrants has The Tricky Breach:


_That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of *his free will*

inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing 

that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born 

again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and 

will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is 

truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing"._

emphasis mine

3rd Article of the Remonstrants – 1610

After Jacobus Arminius death in 1609

_from
Phillip Schaff 
The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3, Baker Books, 
Grand Rapids, 1996_

.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 14, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Ran into a guy online tonight that called himself that! He was pretty much just straight arminian. Kept talking about prevenient grace and how I didn't understand it.



Do you think maybe he meant he was an alcoholic before he became a Christian?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 14, 2008)

Ok, I upset his with this opinion and it might even upset a few here but here goes-

I think it likely that total rejection of the doctrines of grace when heard, taught, and understood may be damnable heresy. What I mean is, after being presented with correct soteriology (that man does NOTHING because he is dead in sin and needs to be made alive by Christ) the man still *insists* that salvation is an act of the person being saved.

I personally believe that's works salvation. I don't see a way around that. If someone stomps their feet and says things like 

"I could never love/serve a God like that!"

"That's not my God!"

"You make God into a hateful. mean spirited God!"

Things like that say to me that the person saying them is *correct* meaning that the God of scripture is not their god and they have no desire for Him to be. Now, if a person thinks this way in ignorance or not understanding biblical soteriology even after being taught then I think they are simply in error. 

Thoughts?

PS- No, I don't think you have to be a 5 point Calvinist to be saved, but I do think you cannot *knowingly and willfully* say man plays a role in his salvation along with God. I don't think that's the true God they are talking about saving them when they say such a thing.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 14, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > It also boils down to the question of a monergistic vs a synergistic work of salvation.
> ...



I agree! I think that salvation is all about what God is doing, and is not at all about how man is cooperating. God will truly cause man to cooperate, but not so much as to make it seem as if he is at all dependent upon how man is responding. As Ezekial 36:27 says, "And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." He will truly make us willing, because he will put a new Spirit within us that will both impel and cause us to "will and to do according to his good pleasure". We will truly be a response to his fashioning, or else we won't respond at all. So, in my opinion, Arminianism falls way short, because it tries to heal us to a place to where we can choose to cooperate or to not cooperate with God. Whereas, God's grace is truly irresistible.....he bends our wills to so desire to choose him. And so, our will remains intact to our own souls, and yet a new principle has invaded our souls to compel us to choose according to holiness if we are his. And so, monergism prevails, yet not so much as to make us purely robotic. For, our will is still free within our own persons, to so act according to our proper natures, now both holy yet compelled by sin simultaneously. But, our persons are very much governed and constrained by him. So, it is a three-way connection. God-man-will. And so, God intervenes into the fallen nature of man to make it have a principle of holiness, to thereby cause the will of man to be thereby affected. Arminianism truly misses all of this concept.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 14, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> The Arminian idea of prevenient seems to offset the noetic effects of the Fall such that the Total Depravity they speak of is merely hypothetical -- for all are given sufficient grace to believe _if they will it_.
> 
> It also boils down to the question of a monergistic vs a synergistic work of salvation.



Thank you, that was very helpful!

Now I understand it much better, because the Remonstrant article on depravity was not so close to Pelagius.


So it is through a universal, rather than a particular, concept of prevenient grace

that they reach their concept of universal enablement – all are able to believe.

And that, is truly Pelagian!


It is incredible how the arminian distorted soteriology, trough their universal concept of preceding or prevenient grace 

had such a retro-effect on their own view of the noetic consequences of the fall on the mind - nous

Well, it’s good to "keep in mind" the biblical truth:


_Because the carnal *mind * is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, 

*neither indeed can be*. _ Romans 8:7 emphasis mine


.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 14, 2008)

discipulo said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > The Arminian idea of prevenient seems to offset the noetic effects of the Fall such that the Total Depravity they speak of is merely hypothetical -- for all are given sufficient grace to believe _if they will it_.
> ...



Well, it is not so much, in my opinion, that Arminians are Pelagian, for Pelagians believe that they never fell so far as to lose themselves unto total depravity. True Arminians believe that they lost everything unto total depravity, but that God restored part of that loss, so that they can now choose to cooperate with his grace for salvation unto them. in my opinion, there is a vast difference between the Pelagian and the Arminian. Yet, I personally think both are wrong. The Remonstrants left Arminius, and went beyond what was really intended by him, from what I've read.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 14, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Well, it is not so much, in my opinion, that Arminians are Pelagian, for Pelagians believe that they never fell so far as to lose themselves unto total depravity. True Arminians believe that they lost everything unto total depravity, but that God restored part of that loss, so that they can now choose to cooperate with his grace for salvation unto them. in my opinion, there is a vast difference between the Pelagian and the Arminian. Yet, I personally think both are wrong. The Remonstrants left Arminius, and went beyond what was really intended by him, from what I've read.




Well you may be right, there is a difference of 12 centuries and 4 letters - Semi


But you know, when it has feathers like a duck, and quacks like a duck….



_Obedience results from a decision of the mind. _ Pelagius (354 – ca. 420 ad.) 


_The mind commands the body and it obeys. The mind orders itself and meets resistance._ Augustine (354 - 430 ad.)


.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 14, 2008)

discipulo said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it is not so much, in my opinion, that Arminians are Pelagian, for Pelagians believe that they never fell so far as to lose themselves unto total depravity. True Arminians believe that they lost everything unto total depravity, but that God restored part of that loss, so that they can now choose to cooperate with his grace for salvation unto them. in my opinion, there is a vast difference between the Pelagian and the Arminian. Yet, I personally think both are wrong. The Remonstrants left Arminius, and went beyond what was really intended by him, from what I've read.
> ...



I agree brother. Hopefully someone will grant us the same grace if someone takes our PuritanBoard thoughts several decades or centuries later and builds upon them. I disagree with Arminius, but his writings say that he believed in "total depravity", from what I've read of them. He just said that Christ's work restored everyone from it to a state of being able to now choose. Pelagius would never grant such a statement. He would say that we never fell so far as to require such restoration. Check out Arminius' Works sometime, if you have it available to you. It's a 3-volume set, and is very interesting. You'll find that most "Arminians" don't even line up with his beliefs. Personally, I think Jacob just doubted certain points of Calvinism. He took a very "literal" view of certain scriptures, and had a hard time justifying them to his conscience regarding how man and God relate to one another. But, because of his sternness with not aligning himself with the views of certain others of his day, he ended up being regarded as an enemy more than a brother. I agree that he was wrong in how he viewed what the work of Christ restored, but I think that many more drifted much farther from him than what he ever intended or believed, for most "Arminians" today believe that nothing needed to be restored at all in the first place.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 14, 2008)

Thank you brother. Well I agree with you too.


That’s why the word I mentioned, for the Depravity article of the followers of Arminius, was *breach.*

My saying is that Pelagius was peeping through that fringe of two words on the article – *free will.*

In a quite appropriate Dutch context, Arminius was the hole in the dyke.


Not particularly to Holland. Thank the Lord, that He gave us the Synod of Dordrecht in due time.

To the Praise and Glory of His Grace.


But then 100 years later John Wesley said: _the world is my parish!_


And look where we are now in the Christendom. It's awfully sad!

What a mess….


.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 14, 2008)

discipulo said:


> Thank you brother. Well I agree with you too.
> 
> 
> That’s why the word I mentioned, for the Depravity article of the followers of Arminius, was *breach.*
> ...



I am so LOL with you at your thoughts here. They are truly great!!! Pelagius was truly trying to peep through the words "free" and "will". Arminius was the hole in the dyke........I agree! I could not have phrased it any better, brother! I thank God as well that he gave the Synod of Dort in due time. It was, however, just a matter of time after that, as you well say, before someone came along (Wesley) with a certain mixture of grace and enthusiasm to caused others to attach upon what he said, and to venture off into the emphasis upon the will.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 14, 2008)

TsonMariytho said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > > Do Arminians believe that people are born totally depraved and then after their birth, God bestows His prevenient grace upon them?
> ...



I find a several of assertions here that beg for proof and/or further explanation as to why you believe they are true. 

1. "The Methodists presume of all people what many Presbyterians presume of their children ..." Isn't there a fundamental and radical difference between the two? The Methodists base their presumptions on an unbiblical doctrine of prevenient grace, whereas the Presbyterians base theirs on a biblical doctrine of covenant. 

2. Are you implying that regeneration comes from the use of intermediate human means?

3. How and where do "Methodists tie this belief to their paedobaptism practice as well"? I'm not sure what you are using "this" to refer to. Honestly, most Methodists have no answer to why they are paedobaptists.

4. Are the similarities only superficial and intriguing because you assume that covenant children and paedobaptism are somehow connected to prevenient grace? 

You have painted with a broad brush here and I'd be interested in where the finer lines and borders occur in what you are saying.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 14, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> 3. How and where do "Methodists tie this belief to their paedobaptism practice as well"? I'm not sure what you are using "this" to refer to. Honestly, most Methodists have no answer to why they are paedobaptists.





There is actually a Welsh branch of the Calvinistic Methodist Movement

that pretty much became the Presbyterian Church of Wales

which finds its roots in the XVIIIth century Methodism and even had a direct influence from George Whitefield.

But developed from there to become Confessional:

Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists of Wales of 1823

Covenantal: 

Article 9 _Of the Covenant of Works.

It pleased God to condescend to enter into covenant with the first man, Adam _

Article 13. _Of the Eternal Covenant of Grace._

And stands for paedobaptism:

Article 38. _Of Baptism.

(…) All who profess themselves believers, and their infant children, have a scriptural right to this ordinance._

As may seen on link below

Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists (1823)

This confession may provide the answers you request.

Hoping this may be useful.



.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 15, 2008)

discipulo said:


> . . . Now I understand it much better, because the Remonstrant article on depravity was not so close to Pelagius.
> 
> So it is through a universal, rather than a particular, concept of prevenient grace
> 
> ...



I would merely emphasize what Mr. Plauger mentioned above -- that Arminianism sees itself as a fundamental improvement over the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views in that it is _supernaturalistic_, attributing the primary work of salvation to God at all points. (This is pointed out by B.B. Warfield in his _Plan of Salvation_)

Semi-pelagianism is naturalistic in saying that we cooperate with God's grace by _natural_ free will which was not lost in the Fall. Arminianism says that we are totally depraved by the Fall, but God's grace has _universally restored man's free will_ such that he is enabled to respond to and cooperate with God's grace unto salvation. Total depravity becomes almost a shell game with them.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 15, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> I would merely emphasize what Mr. Plauger mentioned above -- that Arminianism sees itself as a fundamental improvement over the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views in that it is _supernaturalistic_, attributing the primary work of salvation to God at all points. (This is pointed out by B.B. Warfield in his _Plan of Salvation_)
> 
> Semi-pelagianism is naturalistic in saying that we cooperate with God's grace by _natural_ free will which was not lost in the Fall. Arminianism says that we are totally depraved by the Fall, but God's grace has _universally restored man's free will_ such that he is enabled to respond to and cooperate with God's grace unto salvation. Total depravity becomes almost a shell game with them.



Thank you brother, I just picked that small powerful little book from Warfield

If you notice on the board with the order of the Decrees - the Remonstrant

are side by side with the Pelagian on the same section on the right

under the title – Naturalistic

What are your thoughts on this?

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 09:28:09 EST-----



Gomarus said:


> Arminianism sees itself as a fundamental improvement over the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views in that it is _supernaturalistic_, attributing the primary work of salvation to God at all points. (This is pointed out by B.B. Warfield in his _Plan of Salvation_).



I use the word Remonstrants - as B B Warfield does too, because they are the direct followers of 

Jacobus Arminius, being Simon Episcopius, Hugo Grotius, …

But you are the Calvinist Franciscus Gomarus, 

you surely are acquainted with these bunch of guys 


Mea culpa - Warfield doesn't use the word Arminian

on the board but - Remonstrant - being Naturalistic

While placing Wesleyan on the Supernaturalistic side. 

Yet, through the book also places the Arminian,

such a big umbrella now anyway, as a Supernaturalistic system.

No wonder we get confused 

But it's important to keep that in mind. Thank you.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 15, 2008)

discipulo said:


> . . . Warfield doesn't use the word arminian,
> 
> but places John Wesley on the Supernaturalistic side,
> 
> ...



Yes, I was equating Wesleyan with Arminian. In looking at my old copy, Warfield does indeed put the Remonstrance under _naturalistic_ and Wesleyan under _supernaturalistic_. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 15, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> I find a several of assertions here that beg for proof and/or further explanation as to why you believe they are true.
> 
> 1. "The Methodists presume of all people what many Presbyterians presume of their children ..." Isn't there a fundamental and radical difference between the two? The Methodists base their presumptions on an unbiblical doctrine of prevenient grace, whereas the Presbyterians base theirs on a biblical doctrine of covenant.



I suppose this is not the proper thread for me to explain why I regard both to be unbiblical.

Regardless, when you say "Isn't there a fundamental and radical difference between the two", that echos my statement: "There are obviously some important differences".



Whitefield said:


> 2. Are you implying that regeneration comes from the use of intermediate human means?



Of course God can work regeneration upon a human spirit whenever he chooses to. However, the only kind of which we are able to recognize the fruits, is that which evidences itself in reception to the gospel message -- which we all insist is delivered exclusively through human means.



Whitefield said:


> 3. How and where do "Methodists tie this belief to their paedobaptism practice as well"? I'm not sure what you are using "this" to refer to. Honestly, most Methodists have no answer to why they are paedobaptists.



I'm sure it is true that many rank and file Methodists, just like their Presbyterian counterparts, "have no answer"; but denominationally, again just like Presbyterians, their theologians present multiple answers, some of them conflicting with scripture and with each other.

Interestingly, Methodists sometimes make a similar argument from the Abrahamic Covenant to justify their paedobaptisms. They believe that a child enters into covenant with God.

For a discussion of infant baptism that mentions both "preventing (prevenient) grace" and the above mentioned covenantal spin from the context of the Wesleys' writings (i.e. worship directives by John, and hymns by Charles), see _American Methodist Worship_ by Karen Tucker, pp. 89ff.



Whitefield said:


> 4. Are the similarities only superficial and intriguing because you assume that covenant children and paedobaptism are somehow connected to prevenient grace?



In both cases, they presume a work of (some kind of) regeneration upon certain people, and they assume that it happens even though the Word of God has not been preached to these people via human means. It's interesting from a more strict evangelical perspective.

If no prophet has yet been sent to say "Dry Bones, hear the Word of the LORD", do we normally assume that the bones have joined together, gained flesh and sinews, and are standing up on their own*? No. So it's something of a theologican curiosity to me that some denominations make such presumptions.

* To be fair, the Methodists differentiate between this spiritual quickening and "Regeneration" with a capital "R", which at least John Wesley restricted in normal circumstances to the administration of baptism (see reference above). But as a Calvinist, I must see their theology through glasses they'd prefer me not to look through, because to me a human spirit is either dead (unregenerate) or living (regenerate).



Whitefield said:


> You have painted with a broad brush here and I'd be interested in where the finer lines and borders occur in what you are saying.



I'm afraid you must be disappointed with my explanation, as I doubt the parallel is nearly as interesting to you as to me.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 15, 2008)

TsonMariytho said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > I find a several of assertions here that beg for proof and/or further explanation as to why you believe they are true.
> ...



Thank you for your explanation. You have given me a clearer understanding of the dots you were connecting. However, in #2, I wonder what exclusive human means were being used in Acts 9:1-9.

It is my conclusion that within Arminian/Wesleyan understanding about paedobaptism there is a humorous irony. With their emphasis on free-will, one would think they would be credobaptists. My theory as to why Methodists practice paedobaptism is more due to their inheritance of a Reformed thread via their Anglican roots. The knowledge of covenant baptism has disappeared but the practice remains. When I point this out to my Methodist colleagues, they have no answer but "we've always done it"; they cannot answer why.


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 15, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> However, in #2, I wonder what exclusive human means were being used in Acts 9:1-9.



Re: Saul/Paul's conversion:

Yes, this example of miraculous special revelation is a counter-example to the pattern I asserted is the normal case. But the transmission of the Word in the "normal case" has to start somewhere!

The apostles and prophets are in a different category than the rest of us. We believe that the Spirit of God directly inspired the apostles and prophets who form the foundation of the Church, with of course Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate as the chief Cornerstone -- who again, personally taught the apostles, a distinction today's ministers should not claim.

So I would categorize Paul as one of the beginnings of that human means which God typically uses to bring his life-giving Word to the rest of the world. The rest of us read it in the human-transmitted Bible, or hear it as preached by human ministers, such as yourself, who faithfully transmit God's Word to your hearers. But you didn't make your message up -- you got it from apostles/prophets like Paul, who got it directly from the Source.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 15, 2008)

TsonMariytho said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > However, in #2, I wonder what exclusive human means were being used in Acts 9:1-9.
> ...



I don't disagree with what you say. I guess, I choked on the word "exclusive". I prefer, with you, the word normal means, but I always want to be open to those special situations where God can intervene to save his elect. Referring to Acts 9 reminds of a conversation I once had with a man who said that "God woos us and never forces himself upon us. It's not like he uses a baseball bat to get us into the kingdom of heaven." I pointed him to Act 9 and said, "Looks like a Louisville Slugger to me!"


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 15, 2008)

Lance / Whitefield, I only just viewed your profile and realized that you are currently serving as a (Reformed) ordained pastor in the UMC. I feel a little bit embarrassed at having presumed to lecture you on the subject of Methodist theology, and certainly appreciate your gracious interaction.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 15, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> It is my conclusion that within Arminian/Wesleyan understanding about paedobaptism there is a humorous irony. With their emphasis on free-will, one would think they would be credobaptists. My theory as to why Methodists practice paedobaptism is more due to their inheritance of a Reformed thread via their Anglican roots. The knowledge of covenant baptism has disappeared but the practice remains. When I point this out to my Methodist colleagues, they have no answer but "we've always done it"; they cannot answer why.



You might be interested to know that I knew of several credobaptist methodists (if such a thing makes sense) in my general area many years ago (I came out of the UMC) -- although, I'm pretty sure they were Free Methodists.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 15, 2008)

TsonMariytho said:


> Lance / Whitefield, I only just viewed your profile and realized that you are currently serving as a (Reformed) ordained pastor in the UMC. I feel a little bit embarrassed at having presumed to lecture you on the subject of Methodist theology, and certainly appreciate your gracious interaction.



No need to be embarrassed. It helps me to have other analyze these things with me. As others explain how they connect their dots it helps me examine how I connect my dots, and it helps me understand those around me who don't even know what the dots look like. 

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 02:34:30 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > It is my conclusion that within Arminian/Wesleyan understanding about paedobaptism there is a humorous irony. With their emphasis on free-will, one would think they would be credobaptists. My theory as to why Methodists practice paedobaptism is more due to their inheritance of a Reformed thread via their Anglican roots. The knowledge of covenant baptism has disappeared but the practice remains. When I point this out to my Methodist colleagues, they have no answer but "we've always done it"; they cannot answer why.
> ...



Those credobaptist Methodists are usually called "Bapthodists" .. a humorous label they even use on themselves.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 15, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> Those credobaptist Methodists are usually called "Bapthodists" .. a humorous label they even use on themselves.



Ha, I've never heard that one before.


----------

