# Kirk Cameron and Ray COmfort to be on ABC's Nightline



## ReformedWretch

Kirk and Ray on ABC's Nightline - Friday
A producer from ABC's Nightline called last month and said that he had seen our TV show and wanted to do an interview with Kirk and Ray. A week later a full camera crew showed up, and ABC flew over a producer and Martin Bashir from New York. Martin Bashir is the hard-hitting reporter who interviewed Princess Diana and conducted the 2003 interview with Michael Jackson. After a spirited, two hour interview we are very excited about its potential for the gospel and for the ministry in general.

We've just been notified that the segment featuring the ministry is scheduled to air this Friday, March 17 at 11:35 pm PST. Please note that Nightline may come on earlier or later in your time zone. Check your local listings. (To check local listings online you can visit AOL Television Listing pages, select your area, and then type in "Nightline" in the search box. From there you should easily be able to see when Nightline comes on in your time zone.)

--------

Should be entertaining.


----------



## fredtgreco

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I really like Kirk Cameron. Anyone who is willing to publicly talk about the importance of the 10 Commandments in the context of modern evangelism deserves respect.

I'll try and watch it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I really like Kirk Cameron. Anyone who is willing to publicly talk about the importance of the 10 Commandments in the context of modern evangelism deserves respect.
> 
> I'll try and watch it.



 While we may not agree with everything he believes, theologically, at least he is not spreading the typical "fill out this card and you're in" gospel.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.

http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.
> 
> http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml



 The only reason this one gets more attention than your average joe arminian is because he used to be on T.V. 

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## fredtgreco

Phil 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.
> 
> http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml



Where is this link from, Scott?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Did Dordt see Arminius as a Christian? Was the god of Arminius the same God dordt worshipped?

If they are not preaching the Christ of the scriptures, are they preaching Christ at all and if they are not preaching the Christ of the scriptures, are they not wolves in sheeps clothing?

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> If God's Word gets exposure, regardless of the medium, it shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.



Josh,
The Mormons and jehovahs Witnesses do this; as well as the RC's. Shall we condone them also?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.
> 
> http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this link from, Scott?
Click to expand...


'Living Waters' is the Comfort/Cameron ministy.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> If God's Word gets exposure, regardless of the medium, it shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh,
> The Mormons and jehovahs Witnesses do this; as well as the RC's. Shall we condone them also?
Click to expand...


That is the difference Scott - and I guess we will have to disagree. Arminius is worlds apart from Mormons and RCs.


----------



## Scott Shahan

What denomination back ground do these two come from? Does anybody know?


----------



## tdowns

*I checked the link.*

Would anybody care to go through just that link, not knowing anything else about them, and tell me what the key areas in their message is that is heretical or false.

I need to read it again fully myself, but I'd be interested in others takes on what "in that link, the front page" is false. 

I'm not saying I agree with them, don't know enough about their doctrines, just wondering how their "message" initially is false.

Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> If God's Word gets exposure, regardless of the medium, it shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh,
> The Mormons and jehovahs Witnesses do this; as well as the RC's. Shall we condone them also?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the difference Scott - and I guess we will have to disagree. Arminius is worlds apart from Mormons and RCs.
Click to expand...


Fred,
I don't quite understand. Is not a cancer a cancer. Whether it is in the lung or metastasized makes no difference. I mean, it's not like a little cancer is better than a lot of it; really!
Josh said that Gods word would not return void; I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, the NWT is generally orthodox except fopr a few places which remove Christs diety. The Mormons use the KJV bible. Just because they do, does not make their theology any more correct, and in the same way we need to be consistant. Either we don't advocate their junk or we do. We can't advocate junk on this side of the street because it _seems_ more orthodox; it must be weighed along the lines we use to discriminate orthodoxy from heresy, and in all of that remain consistant. If not, next in line will be Copeland, Hagan, Hinn, et. al. which will will have to give their due, based upon our consistancy.

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> If God's Word gets exposure, regardless of the medium, it shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh,
> The Mormons and jehovahs Witnesses do this; as well as the RC's. Shall we condone them also?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stand by my statement. I did not mention personalities. I mentioned the exposure of the Word of God. It's not a matter of condoning Mormons, JWs, or RCs. I don't have the ability to condone/approve/disapprove that which ABC does or does not have on their program, but I can tell you I'd be happy if the Word of God, the Gospel, got exposure over its airwaves, rather than the next "Special Investigation". Furthermore, the Reformed aren't being asked to do this, so I'm at least glad that *somebody* is, that might, in some way or another, be the Pharoah through which God makes His power knonw, or the sewer which sews the good seeds. I'm also thankful that the wolf in sheep's clothing that pastored the free will baptist church at which I was saved, preached the Word of God which changed my life.
Click to expand...


So, do you approve of what TBN does; they preach from the bible; or how about the church of Christ; they're on TV also. Copeland, et. al. are helping the cause? 

I told my brother the other day that if you asked 100 people on the street what religion they were 75 of them would say 'Christian'! Of the 75, if you asked how many of them were born again, it would wittle it's way down to about 40. From the 40, if you asked them if they had membership in a local church where there was oversite, that would go down to about 20 or so. Jesus said that the path was narrow and few are they that find it. FEW! 

Mat 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. 

The gospel is an offence! How many people do you know that are agrresively, violently taking the kingdom by force? Are the Arminians doing this? The gospel is one true message; mess that up and everything is wrong. Just because it sounds intriguing does not make it right.

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Scott Shahan_
> What denomination back ground do these two come from? Does anybody know?



calvary Chapel. Living Waters is an affiliate.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> Would anybody care to go through just that link, not knowing anything else about them, and tell me what the key areas in their message is that is heretical or false.
> 
> I need to read it again fully myself, but I'd be interested in others takes on what "in that link, the front page" is false.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with them, don't know enough about their doctrines, just wondering how their "message" initially is false.
> 
> Thanks.



Trevor,
Their message is synergistic. Gods salvation is monergistic.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

read em and weep boys. Our Dispensational Brethren are the face of American Christianity.  if you can't beat em, join em, or are you guys so intrepid that you want to swim against the tide 

oops, I swim against the tide, but after great reformist go before me.  so in actuality I walk down a path that was made.


----------



## sosipater

Scott,

Can you please explain *specifically* why you say their "message" is synergistic? I assume you can do that from the link you provided.

Thanks,
Russ

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by sosipater]


----------



## tdowns

*Totally agree.*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> Would anybody care to go through just that link, not knowing anything else about them, and tell me what the key areas in their message is that is heretical or false.
> 
> I need to read it again fully myself, but I'd be interested in others takes on what "in that link, the front page" is false.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with them, don't know enough about their doctrines, just wondering how their "message" initially is false.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trevor,
> Their message is synergistic. Gods salvation is monergistic.
Click to expand...


I'm with you, 

I'm thinking of it more as an analysis of how different our message would be in it's context. (For my own sake on how I present the gospel, I've always liked Comfort's style and "Law-Gospel" message).

I mean, if we assume they are talking to the elect in their little write up, would everything they say be o.k. I need to REALLY read it again, but on first glance, it seems, if you assume no one knows who is elect, and we preach as if they are and let God sort it out, is their "WRITTEN MESSAGE IN THAT ONE PAGE LINK" a good presentation of the gospel message?

No tricks here, just honestly wondering about the delivery of the gospel. I guess I could ask, could a Reformed person write what they wrote....'IN THAT ONE PAGE LINK.

And then, of course if they could, then at least the "message" is solid if not the messenger.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> So, do you approve of what TBN does; they preach from the bible; or how about the church of Christ; they're on TV also. Copeland, et. al. are helping the cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not about my approval. We're talking about ABC, not TBN. ABC is having a showcase...I'd much rather it be Cameron and Comfort talking than a special investigation on "this or that".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel is an offence! How many people do you know that are agrresively, violently taking the kingdom by force? Are the Arminians doing this? The gospel is one true message; mess that up and everything is wrong. Just because it sounds intriguing does not make it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gospel is an offense. I have seen Cameron share the gospel via using the Law, i.e. Ten Commandments (through the power of the Spirit), to bring people under conviction. Will these folks persevere? I don't know. Do all folks persevere who make professions under Reformed preaching? I don't know.
Click to expand...


but.....reformed preaching is biblical. Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism is heresy. If they are not preaching the true gospel, that being a gospel held together by a monergistic God, then what are they preaching?

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> BTW, I'm not disagreeing that some of the things they're saying is synergistic, but that does not thwart God's conviction through the exposure of the Word of God to the human heart.



So, to remain consistant, you must take that to it's farthest conclusion; God uses as well the Mormons, JW's and Hinn to save His people.

Mar 9:38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." 
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 
Mar 9:40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 


Is that your understanding of the above verse?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> Would anybody care to go through just that link, not knowing anything else about them, and tell me what the key areas in their message is that is heretical or false.
> 
> I need to read it again fully myself, but I'd be interested in others takes on what "in that link, the front page" is false.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with them, don't know enough about their doctrines, just wondering how their "message" initially is false.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trevor,
> Their message is synergistic. Gods salvation is monergistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you,
> 
> I'm thinking of it more as an analysis of how different our message would be in it's context. (For my own sake on how I present the gospel, I've always liked Comfort's style and "Law-Gospel" message).
> 
> I mean, if we assume they are talking to the elect in their little write up, would everything they say be o.k. I need to REALLY read it again, but on first glance, it seems, if you assume no one knows who is elect, and we preach as if they are and let God sort it out, is their "WRITTEN MESSAGE IN THAT ONE PAGE LINK" a good presentation of the gospel message?
> 
> No tricks here, just honestly wondering about the delivery of the gospel. I guess I could ask, could a Reformed person write what they wrote....'IN THAT ONE PAGE LINK.
> 
> And then, of course if they could, then at least the "message" is solid if not the messenger.
Click to expand...


Is not the heart of the messenger important to the message? As far as the link, you would have to know more about their ministry. They are elbow to elbow with CC and Cameron is a Lahaye clone.


----------



## ANT

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> BTW, I'm not disagreeing that some of the things they're saying is synergistic, but that does not thwart God's conviction through the exposure of the Word of God to the human heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to remain consistant, you must take that to it's farthest conclusion; God uses as well the Mormons, JW's and Hinn to save His people.
> 
> Mar 9:38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us."
> Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.
> Mar 9:40 For the one who is not against us is for us.
> 
> 
> Is that your understanding of the above verse?
Click to expand...


You could always use Romans 8:28 to show that "all things" are working for the good of the elect. Could you not?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Anthony,
I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.

verse 8:1 states:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are _in_ Christ Jesus.


----------



## ANT

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Is not the heart of the messenger important to the message? As far as the link, you would have to know more about their ministry. They are elbow to elbow with CC and Cameron is a Lahaye clone.



Scott, I just want to throw this out. What about the prophet that was hired to curse Israel, but could do nothing but bless. His heart was not right, but that did not affect the message.

Just a thought, my ...


----------



## ANT

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Anthony,
> I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.
> 
> verse 8:1 states:
> 
> Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are _in_ Christ Jesus.



But would it not apply to the elect that are not saved yet as well. God is sovereign over us before He gives us new life in Christ too. Is it ok to say that in the case of Romans 8:28?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> God uses as well the Mormons, JW's and Hinn to save His people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God uses His Word to bring His elect unto salvation. God uses Pharoah to make His Name known. God uses Judas to betray His Own Son.
> 
> If Paul says, "What then? Only that in every way, whether in *pretense* or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.", what does he mean? He's obviously making a contrast between "truth" and "pretense".
> 
> preÂ·tense ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prtns, pr-tns)
> n.
> The act of pretending; a false appearance or action intended to deceive.
> A false or studied show; an affectation: a pretense of nonchalance.
> A professed but feigned reason or excuse; a pretext: under false pretenses.
> Something imagined or pretended.
> Mere show without reality; outward appearance.
> A right asserted with or without foundation; a claim. See Synonyms at claim.
> The quality or state of being pretentious; ostentation.
> 
> I, too, believe that Comfort and Cameron are a far cry from Mormon's and JWs, etc. I'll go back and say once again that I'd much rather see Comfort and Cameron on there talking about the Law of God and how it makes us all sinners in need of God's salvation/God's divine justice, than a special investigation on sweat shops in India.
Click to expand...

 [/quote]

Josh,
It all comes down to this; is the Arminian Christ the Christ of the scriptures? If it is not, it is no better than what the JW's preach or the Mormons and as reformers we should not advocate anything that is artificial.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Anthony,
> I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.
> 
> verse 8:1 states:
> 
> Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are _in_ Christ Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But would it not apply to the elect that are not saved yet as well. God is sovereign over us before He gives us new life in Christ too. Is it ok to say that in the case of Romans 8:28?
Click to expand...


No. Before Paul was saved, he was an enemy of Christ. Fully at odds w/ God. 

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 
Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 


Eph 5:8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light


----------



## Pilgrim

I do know that Cameron interviewed MacArthur for their show a year or so ago and that he has a lot of respect for MacArthur. Other than that I really haven't kept up much with their ministry in recent years.


----------



## ANT

I do not disagree that their theology is wrong & they have a bad understanding of Christ and His work. 

But I understand what is being said. Basically ... When someone reads/preaches/teaches/speaks the words that are written in the Bible ... God sends them out for a reason, a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them. They cannot make the Word of God of none effect.


----------



## Arch2k

The message that Scott linked to is the same o'le "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life..."

Pray the prayer...walk the isle...



> "Dear God, today I turn from all my sins (name them), and I put my trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Please forgive me, and grant me your gift of everlasting life. Amen."



It has elements of truth in it for sure, but does it present a gospel that is in Christ alone? 

Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and damnable heretics of all shades could whole-heartedly agree with *everything* presented.

It's all up to you:



> Today, with all your heart"”turn away from sin, and surrender your life to Jesus Christ. Please don´t put it off till later. You may die today and then it will be too late.



But if you don't!!!



> If you've decided to reject the gift of forgiveness and you die in your sins, there is no hope for you.



With this gospel, the difference between a person going to heaven or hell no longer depends on the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers  (which isn't even mentioned!), but my "decision" or "the attitude of my heart."

Is the gospel we are called to defend?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Josh,
> It all comes down to this; is the Arminian Christ the Christ of the scriptures? If it is not, it is no better than what the JW's preach or the Mormons and as reformers we should not advocate anything that is artificial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christ that's in the Scriptures that is preached (whether the Arminians realize it or not) is the Christ that God preaches through the hearing or reading of His Word. If they preach man's ineptitude before God (by the Law), Christ's sacrificial, substitutionary atonement for the sins of those who believe (John 3:16), by responding in faith and repentance, trusting in Christ alone, then they are preaching the Gospel (whether they realize it or not). Yes, they may say, "Well you need to step out in faith." "Aha! A Work! Salvation by works!" But people must step out in faith. Yet we know they will only do so by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Some of what Comfort and Cameraon may say might be tainted (for example, the courtroom illustration that Christ paid the price for EVERY one's sin, or this or that), but as humans, we all have tainted talk, yet God rises above our foolishness and does not allow His Word to return unto Himself void. Maybe I'm just severely missing something. Do you want Comfort and Cameron on ABC talkin about Ten Commandments and salvation of sinners, or something else? What I'm asking is this (sincerely): Are you saying it's more hurtful for them to be on ABC than helpful?
Click to expand...


Yes. Thats exactly what I'm saying. Preaching is for preachers. These men are not schooled in theology and based upon that they should leave the theology to those whom God has called to preach it. This is exactly how errors are perpetuated. There is an example in scripture (I can't recall where) where God states, "I never sent you to preach, why are you preaching?".


----------



## ANT

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Anthony,
> I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.
> 
> verse 8:1 states:
> 
> Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are _in_ Christ Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But would it not apply to the elect that are not saved yet as well. God is sovereign over us before He gives us new life in Christ too. Is it ok to say that in the case of Romans 8:28?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Before Paul was saved, he was an enemy of Christ. Fully at odds w/ God.
Click to expand...


But Paul was still one of the elect. And I fully believe that God had used everything in his life to accomplish the end He had in mind for Paul's life. God is sovereign over the non-elect as well, but they do not have everything working for them in their life to lead them into life in Christ (salvation). But the elect do ... they are never among the non-elect (even before salvation) .. because the Bible states he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Am I right in this?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Anthony,
> I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.
> 
> verse 8:1 states:
> 
> Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are _in_ Christ Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But would it not apply to the elect that are not saved yet as well. God is sovereign over us before He gives us new life in Christ too. Is it ok to say that in the case of Romans 8:28?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Before Paul was saved, he was an enemy of Christ. Fully at odds w/ God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Paul was still one of the elect. And I fully believe that God had used everything in his life to accomplish the end He had in mind for Paul's life. God is sovereign over the non-elect as well, but they do not have everything working for them in their life to lead them into life in Christ (salvation). But the elect do ... they are never among the non-elect (even before salvation) .. because the Bible states he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Am I right in this?
Click to expand...


Yes. However, you need to make the distinction between when he was actually saved (in time) and his position with God prior to that. He was like you and I, an enemy.


----------



## New wine skin

I side with Greco. Cameron is fine. Just because he may not realize he is is in a monergistic covenant with God, does not take away from the objective reality of the monergistic covenant .


----------



## Arch2k

Ant,

Romans 8:28 must be for the regenerate, for they are the only ones who can "love God."

John Gill on the passage:




> That love God;
> a character, which does not agree with all the sons and daughters of Adam: love to God is not naturally in men; it is wrought in the soul in regeneration, and is an evidence of it; it grows up with faith, which works by it; without it, a profession of religion is vain; and where it is once wrought, it lasts for ever; it ought to be superlative and universal, constant, warm and ardent, hearty and sincere: such who have it, show it by a desire to be like to God, and therefore imitate him, by making his glory the supreme end of their actions; by being careful not to offend him; by delighting in his presence, in his people, word, ordinances, ways, and worship; and by undervaluing the world, and all things in it, in comparison of him; who is to be loved for the perfections of his being, the characters and relations he stands in and bears to his people, and on account of the love with which he has loved them, and which is indeed the spring and source of theirs. They are further described, as such
> 
> who are the called according to his purpose:
> The called of God and of Jesus Christ; not to any office, or by the external ministry of the word only, but by special grace; from darkness to light, from bondage to liberty, from the company of sinful men to fellowship with Christ, from a trust in their own righteousness to a dependence on his, to grace here, and glory hereafter; which is done according to the purpose of God: the persons called are fixed upon by God; none are called but whom God purposed to call; those who are called can assign no other reason of it than the will of God; and no other reason but that can be given why others are not called; the time when, the place where, the means whereby persons are called, are all settled and determined by the will, and according to the purpose of God.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> BTW, I'm not disagreeing that some of the things they're saying is synergistic, but that does not thwart God's conviction through the exposure of the Word of God to the human heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to remain consistant, you must take that to it's farthest conclusion; God uses as well the Mormons, JW's and Hinn to save His people.
> 
> Mar 9:38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us."
> Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.
> Mar 9:40 For the one who is not against us is for us.
> 
> 
> Is that your understanding of the above verse?
Click to expand...


No, to go over the ground that we have before, there is a big difference between having a wrong view of the true God, and not believing in the true God at all.

Mormans and JWs believe that Jesus is not God at all, but rather a created being. There is no way that you can get the gospel from that.

One can be saved before coming to a complete understanding of the doctrines of grace; one cannot be saved by hearing the Morman or JW message.

Affectionately,


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ANT_
> I do not disagree that their theology is wrong & they have a bad understanding of Christ and His work.
> 
> But I understand what is being said. Basically ... When someone reads/preaches/teaches/speaks the words that are written in the Bible ... God sends them out for a reason, a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them. They cannot make the Word of God of none effect.



So then, we reformed should advocate anything that comes out of the heretics mouth as long as it is word for word from the bible?


----------



## ANT

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Anthony,
> I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.
> 
> verse 8:1 states:
> 
> Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are _in_ Christ Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But would it not apply to the elect that are not saved yet as well. God is sovereign over us before He gives us new life in Christ too. Is it ok to say that in the case of Romans 8:28?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Before Paul was saved, he was an enemy of Christ. Fully at odds w/ God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Paul was still one of the elect. And I fully believe that God had used everything in his life to accomplish the end He had in mind for Paul's life. God is sovereign over the non-elect as well, but they do not have everything working for them in their life to lead them into life in Christ (salvation). But the elect do ... they are never among the non-elect (even before salvation) .. because the Bible states he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Am I right in this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. However, you need to make the distinction between when he was actually saved (in time) and his position with God prior to that. He was like you and I, an enemy.
Click to expand...


I do make that distinction, I just also wanted to show that God uses all in the life of the elect (before and after their distinction in time of their salvation) for their good and for His purposes. 

God shows us mercy even when we do not deserve it ... especially in the case of the elect person who is not yet brought unto salvation in Christ.


----------



## ANT

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ANT_
> I do not disagree that their theology is wrong & they have a bad understanding of Christ and His work.
> 
> But I understand what is being said. Basically ... When someone reads/preaches/teaches/speaks the words that are written in the Bible ... God sends them out for a reason, a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them. They cannot make the Word of God of none effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, we reformed should advocate anything that comes out of the heretics mouth as long as it is word for word from the bible?
Click to expand...


I did not say that!

I said that ...


> God sends them out for a reason,


 (His Words)


> a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them.



I did not say to advocate the heretic. I simply said that when God's Word is spoken ... It accomplishes what God wants it to. 

We all know that it hardens some and (through the Holy Spirit) brings others life.




[Edited on 3-16-2006 by ANT]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Anthony,
> I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.
> 
> verse 8:1 states:
> 
> Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are _in_ Christ Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But would it not apply to the elect that are not saved yet as well. God is sovereign over us before He gives us new life in Christ too. Is it ok to say that in the case of Romans 8:28?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Before Paul was saved, he was an enemy of Christ. Fully at odds w/ God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Paul was still one of the elect. And I fully believe that God had used everything in his life to accomplish the end He had in mind for Paul's life. God is sovereign over the non-elect as well, but they do not have everything working for them in their life to lead them into life in Christ (salvation). But the elect do ... they are never among the non-elect (even before salvation) .. because the Bible states he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Am I right in this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. However, you need to make the distinction between when he was actually saved (in time) and his position with God prior to that. He was like you and I, an enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do make that distinction, I just also wanted to show that God uses all in the life of the elect (before and after their distinction in time of their salvation) for their good and for His purposes.
> 
> God shows us mercy even when we do not deserve it ... especially in the case of the elect person who is not yet brought unto salvation in Christ.
Click to expand...


That may be true to a degree, however, that does not make us less the enemy. Care to define what the apostle meant when he used the term 'enemy'?

James aligns it with:

Jam 4:4 Ye *adulterers and adulteresses*, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.


2nd Thes clearly defines the difference and makes the distinction:

2Th 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

There's a difference; it cannot be both, enemy and friend!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ANT_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ANT_
> I do not disagree that their theology is wrong & they have a bad understanding of Christ and His work.
> 
> But I understand what is being said. Basically ... When someone reads/preaches/teaches/speaks the words that are written in the Bible ... God sends them out for a reason, a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them. They cannot make the Word of God of none effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, we reformed should advocate anything that comes out of the heretics mouth as long as it is word for word from the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that!
> 
> I said that ...
> 
> 
> 
> God sends them out for a reason,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (His Words)
> 
> 
> 
> a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say to advocate the heretic. I simply said that when God's Word is spoken ... It accomplishes what God wants it to.
> 
> We all know that it hardens some and (through the Holy Spirit) brings others life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-16-2006 by ANT]
Click to expand...


Anthony,
Reread what I wrote. I never said 'advocate the heretic; I said that I agree that Gods word will accomplish that which it was destined to accomplish; what we are talking about, and what I said to you earlier is that, based upon that then, as long as (even) the heretics preach word for word form the bible or portions of what they say or write, as long as it is orthodox, we should advocate that portion? No. we should'nt advocate any of it as it is from a illicit well..........


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> So, are Comfort and Cameron "Textbook" Arminians?



 I have never met an Arminian. Their theology is deficient and borders upon semi-Pelagianism and Arminian theology.


----------



## Bladestunner316

There is no such thing as an Arminian everyone is a calvinist at heart


----------



## jenson75

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> So, are Comfort and Cameron "Textbook" Arminians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never met an Arminian. Their theology is deficient and borders upon semi-Pelagianism and Arminian theology.
Click to expand...




You have never met an Arminian? Really? Wow!

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by jenson75]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> So, are Comfort and Cameron "Textbook" Arminians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never met an Arminian. Their theology is deficient and borders upon semi-Pelagianism and Arminian theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never met an Arminian? Really? Wow!
Click to expand...


I have never met anyone who has said that they have met an Arminian. 

Calvinism is based upon certain ideas. As far as I am concerned, one cannot be a 4 point Calvinist. All 5 points rest, one upon the other. In the same way, I have never met anyone whom held to that which the Remonstrants prescribed.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I have never met anyone who has said that they have met an Arminian.
> 
> Calvinism is based upon certain ideas. As far as I am concerned, one cannot be a 4 point Calvinist. All 5 points rest, one upon the other. In the same way, I have never met anyone whom held to that which the Remonstrants prescribed.



Scott...with all due respect, then you don't get out much.

The Remonstrance were essentially what we would call "4-point" Arminians. They left perserverance open. They did not decide one way or the other on if a person could lose their salvation or not. Yet Dort condemned them.

There are a multitude of Arminians today, and many (if not most!) do not only fully embrace Arminianism, but border on Pelagianism.

The gospel presented is the same as the gospel of Arminius. It does no good to pretend they don't exist, because they do.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Scott...with all due respect, then you don't get out much.



You already told me that last time we discussed this stuff. 



> The Remonstrance were essentially what we would call "4-point" Arminians. They left perserverance open. They did not decide one way or the other on if a person could lose their salvation or not. Yet Dort condemned them.
> 
> There are a multitude of Arminians today, and many (if not most!) do not only fully embrace Arminianism, but border on Pelagianism.
> 
> The gospel presented is the same as the gospel of Arminius. It does no good to pretend they don't exist, because they do.



Ok


----------



## Arch2k




----------



## Craig

I find many arminians are only arminian when it comes to hashing out doctrine with precision...that's what gets them in trouble.

While Cameron may be arminian, his presentation of the gospel is more complete than mainstream evangelicalism: he actually believes the Law does what it was designed to do...bring repentance unto faith. Whether he clearly understands their relation and that God saves monergistically...well, he doesn't have to say monergism. He only needs to mention our guiltiness before God and the true remedy. 

Beyond that, he may be deficient...but if repentance, faith, and imputation are part of his gospel, then I believe that is gospel.

Cameron is a breath of fresh air for "celebrity conversions". He hasn't been shy about the offensiveness of the cross, to my knowledge.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Here's the problem with the above; where do we draw the line? If you make ammends for him, why not Copeland and Hinn? This door has a sign on it that says 'relativism'. Once opened, there is no return. It cannot be both ways.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.
> 
> http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml



I pretty much agreed with everything I read on that website. Misplaced emphasis on somethings perhaps and said without 100% calvinisitic precision but nothing I could really disagree with outright. Am I an Arminian?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott,

I find it interesting that you are disagreeing with Fred and others here who want to temper the very harsh criticisms. I'm uncertain what you're railing against.

In the heated thread: "Is the Arminian God worshippable", I felt we were generally on the same side giving Matt the benefit of the doubt that he was talking about a full orbed embrace of non-Christian doctrines. You preserved the idea that Churches and individuals, though tainted with the poison of some of the doctrines of Arminius, could still be saved and the Gospel could go forth, by God's grace, in spite of the way they tend to undermine it at times. Maybe I misunderstood.

While recognizing the cancerous influence of certain Arminian assumptions, I think most people, like Cameron and Comfort, aren't really consistent enough in their embrace of the concepts to completely pollute the Word of God when they talk about it. Calvary Chapel people, for all the other ways that they endanger the Gospel, can still present the Gospel message. Not everybody *always* qualifies salvific messages with "...by your own free will...."

I just find the comparisons of the two individuals to JW's and Mormons to be unfair. Whether they trust savingly in Christ is not for us to know to the point that we can say they are not Brothers. That they dabble in dangerous doctrines that undermine the Gospel even as they try to proclaim it is indisputable. That they ought to turn aside from those dangerous doctrines is also indisputable. That the Gospel goes forward in spite of some folly is something we ought to rejoice in.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## RamistThomist

Phrase it another way: how much calvinism does one have ot believe to be saved?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Rich,
In the thread you cite, I was holding to the obvious, that being that men are being saved in those venues; I will add, men are being saved in the Mormon church, and JW churches as well. However, I was NOT advocating their presentation of their erred gospel messages. The reformed should NOT _advocate_ and perpetuate their error by publicly supporting nor suggesting.

Rich, as well, an erred gospel is bad, period! It is not half bad, or sort of bad, it is just plain bad!

Having said that, I am not happy, nor would I suggest, nor applaud the idea that Cameron and Comfort are being interviewed.



[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Phrase it another way: how much calvinism does one have ot believe to be saved?



Jacob, thats off point and not what I am fighting for. The issue is not whom is saved, but the gospel and how it is delivered; and by whom.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.
> 
> http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much agreed with everything I read on that website. Misplaced emphasis on somethings perhaps and said without 100% calvinisitic precision but nothing I could really disagree with outright. Am I an Arminian?
Click to expand...


Peter,
Thanks for your thoughts. here's the thing; Living Waters holds to a synergistic gospel;hence, their Christ is not the Christ opf the scriptures. Shoud we, the reformed, advocate what they do? If wre do, where is the line drawn? We will have to take the idea to it's farthest conclussion and as well give Hinn, Copeland, and Rome the kudos. this fact is unavoidable. It cannot be both ways. They are either correct or they are not.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott,

I guess we're just on different pages. I would never attend a Mormon Church if it was the only Church in Okinawa.

I attend a Southern Baptist Church now with some decidedly Arminian tendencies and people that need better instruction. I do so because the option would be worshipping at home. I consider the people at this Church brothers and sisters in Christ and NOT cult leaders. I consider them starving sheep that I pity greatly. You should see their eyes light up when I explain the Gospel to them untainted by all the Arminian doctrines that keep pulling them back down. I love these Brethren and worship there in spite of the fact that SOME of the preaching is awful. 

I've thought about leaving but my goodness there are some poor, and I mean POOR, people that show a reliance on Christ that shames me. I told one, after much wrestling, that I was going to be sticking around and her eyes lit up: "Oh good Rich-san. I am so glad. You teach the Bible so good." That woman has been shunned by her family for SIX DECADES for claiming Christ as her Savior. I'm sorry but this is bringing tears to my eyes as I think about it. She is so poor, and many like her, suffer not only for their faith before their Japanese families but they also have a lack of spiritual nourishment. I know God has been faithful to them because their faith is preserved because of His faithfulness to keep even their Shepherds from embracing Arminianism too much. Anything I can do, in the short time I have here, to open up the Word and teach them is the least I can do.

We're on the same page, I suppose, that Arminianism is harmful. That I can agree with. What I cannot abide is saying that the dear Saints at my Church are to be compared to any synagoge of Satan.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Phrase it another way: how much calvinism does one have ot believe to be saved?



Let the WLC answer for you:



> Q72: What is justifying faith?
> A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]
> 
> 1. Heb. 10:39
> 2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
> 3. Rom. 10:14, 17
> 4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
> 5. Eph. 1:13
> 6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
> 7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11



According to Question 72, one MUST believe in total depravity. No ifs, no buts...



> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIV
> Of Saving Faith
> II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein;[5] and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ *alone* for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. [9]
> 
> 5. II Peter 1:20-21; John 4:42; I Thess. 2:13; I John 5:9-10; Acts 24:14
> 6. Psa. 119:10-11, 48, 97-98, 167-168; John 14:15
> 7. Ezra 9:4; Isa. 66:2; Heb. 4:1
> 8. Heb. 11:13; I Tim. 4:8
> 9. John 1:12; Acts 15:11, 16:31; Gal. 2:20; II Tim. 1:9-10



The confession also notes that a person must believe in _solus christus_.

Arminianism is antithetical to the Westminster Divines summery of what scripture teaches about saving faith because it denies the total depravity of man and asserts that man can (with Christ's help) save himself.

This is how biblical one must be in order to be saved.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> I guess we're just on different pages. I would never attend a Mormon Church if it was the only Church in Okinawa.



Neither would I; I am not suggesting that.



> I attend a Southern Baptist Church now with some decidedly Arminian tendencies and people that need better instruction. I do so because the option would be worshipping at home. I consider the people at this Church brothers and sisters in Christ and NOT cult leaders. I consider them starving sheep that I pity greatly. You should see their eyes light up when I explain the Gospel to them untainted by all the Arminian doctrines that keep pulling them back down. I love these Brethren and worship there in spite of the fact that SOME of the preaching is awful.



I hear you and understand.



> I've thought about leaving but my goodness there are some poor, and I mean POOR, people that show a reliance on Christ that shames me. I told one, after much wrestling, that I was going to be sticking around and her eyes lit up: "Oh good Rich-san. I am so glad. You teach the Bible so good." That woman has been shunned by her family for SIX DECADES for claiming Christ as her Savior. I'm sorry but this is bringing tears to my eyes as I think about it. She is so poor, and many like her, suffer not only for their faith before their Japanese families but they also have a lack of spiritual nourishment. I know God has been faithful to them because their faith is preserved because of His faithfulness to keep even their Shepherds from embracing Arminianism too much. Anything I can do, in the short time I have here, to open up the Word and teach them is the least I can do.



Amen, be diligent!



> We're on the same page, I suppose, that Arminianism is harmful. That I can agree with. What I cannot abide is saying that the dear Saints at my Church are to be compared to any synagoge of Satan.



Rich,
Arminianism isn't harmful, it is deadly. Hold to it and you perish. Only God knows who are His. I am not judging them personally. However, if they preach a synergistic gospel, I will not, as a reformed man, advocate it, suggest it, not give kudos to anyone attached to it.



[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rich,
> Arminianism isn't harmful, it is deadly. Hold to it and you perish. Only God knows who are His. I am not judging them personally. However, if they preach a synergistic gospel, I will not, as a reformed man, advocate it, suggest it, not give kudos to anyone attached to it.


Fair enough. Nevertheless, if you are open to a _suggestion_, it is beyond hyperbolic to compare all Churches tainted with Arminianism to Mormon and JW Churches. I think you can make the above point without that leap. That so many Churches are under its deadly influence is something that, I believe, grieves us all greatly.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rich,
> Arminianism isn't harmful, it is deadly. Hold to it and you perish. Only God knows who are His. I am not judging them personally. However, if they preach a synergistic gospel, I will not, as a reformed man, advocate it, suggest it, not give kudos to anyone attached to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Nevertheless, if you are open to a _suggestion_, it is beyond hyperbolic to compare all Churches tainted with Arminianism to Mormon and JW Churches. I think you can make the above point without that leap. That so many Churches are under its deadly influence is something that, I believe, grieves us all greatly.
Click to expand...


Rich,
I hear you loud and clear. However, how is Arminianism any less incidious than what the JW's preach or the Mormons? Error is error, period. In fact, all of these errors, damn.

As far as being grieved, I am past that; I am angry. 

Psa 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. 

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK, we're grieved _and_ angry. We can be both - Christ, after all, did weep for Jerusalem but got angry at some.

The difference between the two is not the folly of the doctrines, per se, but the membership. I think of Mormon and JW meeting places as synagogues of Satan. I think of Christian Churches as, well, Christian Churches.

It just obscures your main argument to compare Mormon people who might believe the Gospel to people who have been baptized into Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> OK, we're grieved _and_ angry. We can be both - Christ, after all, did weep for Jerusalem but got angry at some.
> 
> The difference between the two is not the folly of the doctrines, per se, but the membership. I think of Mormon and JW meeting places as synagogues of Satan. I think of Christian Churches as, well, Christian Churches.
> 
> It just obscures your main argument to compare Mormon people who might believe the Gospel to people who have been baptized into Christ.



Rich,
But this is where you and I disagree. If they hold to an Arminian gospel, they have not been baptized into anything.; just like the Mormons and JW's.

The people I referred to in the other thread are people whom no longer hold to such a doctrine.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

That standard is pretty hard to measure Scott. I'm not saying that I have 100% confidence in the validity of baptisms at all such Churches but neither would I presume to make them be baptized before they joined a Reformed Church. I have heard both a crystal clear Gospel message at my current Church but I've also heard some pure excrement. Which one of those a particular person trusted in, and whether their baptism is valid, is not for me to judge.


----------



## Scott Bushey

You and I agree that there are believers and unbelievers in the church. Having said that, the baptism may be valid, but whether or not it was into Christ is what I am referring. If they trust in an Arminian gospel, which is synergistic, they remain in their sin. Could they improve thier baptism, sure; abandon the error.

Whatever the case, we are getting off the point. My contention is that as reformed folk, we should not advocate any error. LW, Comfort, Cameron, CC or what have you, if they are erring, we should not stand by it.


----------



## Pilgrim

I've heard at least one Calvinistic SBC pastor say that if you preach what amounts to Calvinism in many churches you get choruses of "amens" until you start using some of the forbidden words. Yet another example of how many hold two or more contradictory ideas within their mind at the same time and also have misconceptions about some things.


----------



## Scott Shahan

I see and hear what you are saying Scott, Cameron is Preaching a false Gospel. It is very subtle but if one really discerns their message it is a message of error and that error leads the flock astray. Their message masquerades itself as light, but in the end that light leads people into eternal darkness. Satan does his best work within the church, and, like you said not everybody that is talking about Jesus belongs to Jesus. The Apostle Paul warned the church of false phophets teaching false doctrines.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Just an FYI

You all did notice that I said it would simply be "entertaining" right?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> I've heard at least one Calvinistic SBC pastor say that if you preach what amounts to Calvinism in many churches you get choruses of "amens" until you start using some of the forbidden words. Yet another example of how many hold two or more contradictory ideas within their mind at the same time and also have misconceptions about some things.


How true.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Just an FYI
> 
> You all did notice that I said it would simply be "entertaining" right?


 Yeah but Adam we read between the lines as to _why_ it would be entertaining.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.
> 
> http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much agreed with everything I read on that website. Misplaced emphasis on somethings perhaps and said without 100% calvinisitic precision but nothing I could really disagree with outright. Am I an Arminian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peter,
> Thanks for your thoughts. here's the thing; Living Waters holds to a synergistic gospel;hence, their Christ is not the Christ opf the scriptures. Shoud we, the reformed, advocate what they do? If wre do, where is the line drawn? We will have to take the idea to it's farthest conclussion and as well give Hinn, Copeland, and Rome the kudos. this fact is unavoidable. It cannot be both ways. They are either correct or they are not.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


Scott, first of all, I'm saying I've found nothing overtly synergistic at their website. Second, I think you are too hard on so-called Arminians or broad non-calvinistic evangelicalism. Most of these people are not dogmatic 5 (or 4) point Remonstrants but just doctrinally fuzzy and imprecise in their theology. Even if there is some subconscious Arminian admixture they believe in the Bible, they believe in the Creed, they even to an extent believe in the great Reformational attainments. To be sure we should mark and avoid those that walk contrary to the doctrine we have learned and refuse ecclesiastical fellowship those who do not hold to our Confession, but to deny their salvation and even that they are Christian and equate them with JWs and Mormons is overboard.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Peter]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> LW, Comfort, Cameron, CC or what have you, if they are erring, we should not stand by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can we not err? We are but men. Thank God for His grace which covers all our actions.
Click to expand...


Josh,

I understand what you are trying to defend. God's grace is ABOUNDING even to the chief of sinners such as myself. Praise God for his mercy!

However, His saving grace does not happen apart from means, by means of faith in the one, true gospel of Christ and him crucified. To say that God's grace DOES happen apart from these means is to resort to antinomianism. Surely our bad works God makes up for in His grace, but saving faith is altogether a different thing, because God himself is the "author and finisher" of it. It comes from him. He does not fail in this task. If this faith was left up to us, surely it would be deficient, but thanks be to God that He gives it to us.



> 1Co 4:7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?



It is precisely _because_ this faith comes from God that we know that he will not fail in it.

If God's Word says that saving faith includes faith that is in Christ's merits alone, and none of our own, we should stand up firmly for this truth, believing that God will accomplish what he has promised! We should boldly proclaim the anathemas against any gospel that renounces such truths, yet preaching the truth of the biblical gospel in love with respect.

All to often, people become proud of what they have learned, and it is a travesty on the church that it is so. But seperating saving truth from damning error need not rest in the pride of men, but in the power of God. God has called us to fight a spiritual war on this earth, and he has given us the tools to do so. It is my opinion though, that all too many reformed folk are yelling "peace!" today when in the middle of a universal war.



> Jer 6:14 They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly,
> Saying, "˜Peace, peace!´
> When there is no peace.



The content of a person's faith is really what is the dividing ground in this discussion.

Can we judge a faith that believes salvation is 1% Christ and 95% Man to be from God? How about 50% Christ and 50% Man? How about 99% Christ and 1% Man? 

What does scripture tell us?

Rom 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

If a person is working for their salvation (in the very least), God owes him something. God becomes a debtor to this man. The question is, "What did the man earn?" What can any depraved man earn? Hell. That is the only thing that a fallen, sinful human can earn from a holy God.



> Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "œVengeance is Mine, I will repay,"



This is why faith must be in the righteousness of Christ alone, *so that it might be according to grace*!



> Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace,



If it is of faith, but turns out to be according to merit, then we can judge the faith to be a false and therefore non-saving faith.

Faith and grace must not be seperated, in the same way works and merit must not be seperated.

Faith in a God that saves:

Some people believe in a God that gets them part of the way, and it is left up to them to finish the job. This God is _ineffectual._ He is not savior, for even the term "savior" is effectual (one who saves). Faith in a leaky boat may get my hopes up, but it will not get me across the Atlantic. Only faith in a boat that cannot fail will save me.

Some people believe in a God that stands on the sidelines cheerleading for them, but never wins the game on their behalf. Is this the God of my salvation? Salvation is of the Lord. Anything else is nothing more than us trying to play savior. If salvation is left up to us, WE will surely fail...and that is why our trust must be in God alone.


----------



## Pergamum

Praise God for the ministries of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. 

In a time when most "Christian" spokespeople are way out there, these guys are not "way out there." 

I differ with them but little, but am proud to call them brothers and not malign the good that they do!


I have been blessed by what I have seen of them. I have only winced a few times at how they have phrased things...but chances are I might wince at a few of you stone-throwers as well if I sat in your churches!


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> here's the thing; Living Waters holds to a synergistic gospel;hence, their Christ is not the Christ opf the scriptures. Shoud we, the reformed, advocate what they do? If wre do, where is the line drawn? We will have to take the idea to it's farthest conclussion and as well give Hinn, Copeland, and Rome the kudos. this fact is unavoidable. It cannot be both ways. They are either correct or they are not.



Scott, I think the argument that one must accept Mormon, Catholic and Word of Faith teachers to remain truly consistent with accepting ones like Cameron and Comfort is an argument that proves too much, and here's why:

Along those same lines, imagine an infra (or supra) claiming that one who advocates supra (or infra) preaching must take _that_ to its furthest conclusion and accept cultic preaching as well. Ultimately only one side in the infra/supra issue is in fact biblical, and thus the other side _has an unbiblical understanding of one of the issues regarding how God saves people_ - yet you and I would both agree that endorsement of preaching from someone of the other persuasion in that issue does _not_ by logical necessity lead to a path of advocating Mormon or Catholic preaching.

So likewise, since an unbiblical understanding of the order of God's decrees is not enough to warrant a lack of endorsement of the message, why does an unbiblical understanding of the monergistic nature of those decrees happen to be the place at which the line of full disapproval is drawn? The "how far does it go" question goes both ways, for the question of why to approve of supra (or infra) preaching but not synergistic preaching (my question) is just as relevant and demanding of an answer as is the question of why to approve of synergistic preaching but not Mormon or Word of Faith preaching (your question). As Josh, Fred and others have articulated, the reason the cultic messages should not be advocated is that there is no way one can be saved by fully believing them, like Jesus not being God. But if a real misunderstanding of the logical order of regeneration and faith precludes salvation as you say, why does a misunderstanding of the order of decrees not?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Scott, first of all, I'm saying I've found nothing overtly synergistic at their website.



Are you familiar w/ their ministry? I am. They are Arminian and dispensational. Camerion produced a movie w/ TBN on the rapture; Lehaye was as well involved. You want to advocate that stuff?



> Second, I think you are too hard on so-called Arminians or broad non-calvinistic evangelicalism.



I didn't see you telling Matt that after he baraged you w/ his most recent paper on Arminianism.




> Most of these people are not dogmatic 5 (or 4) point Remonstrants but just doctrinally fuzzy and imprecise in their theology.



If they hold to a false gospel, it is a false gospel. As I have said, it is not a little bad, or sort of bad, it is just oplain bad and for we reformed, we should not perpetuate it, endorse it, suggest it etc.




> Even if there is some subconscious Arminian admixture they believe in the Bible, they believe in the Creed


,

What creed? The Apostles creed? They reject that! They attribute that creed w/ Rome and priests. How do I know, I come out of the CC movement.




> they even to an extent believe in the great Reformational attainments.



They do. I promise you, 98% do not even know what the word reformation means, never mind the era and what occured historically.




> To be sure we should mark and avoid those that walk contrary to the doctrine we have learned and refuse ecclesiastical fellowship those who do not hold to our Confession


,

Please make up your mind Peter.




> but to deny their salvation and even that they are Christian and equate them with JWs and Mormons is overboard.



I never denied their salvation or their Christianity; In fact, as Rich has pointed out, I have in the past fought to prove that God saves in those venues by whatever means he chooses. I am simply stating that as the reformed, we should not advocate their error nor perpetuate it by endorsing it.

Arminianism is no better than what the JW's, Mormons or RC's teach; it is a different gospel, a different Jesus. But you have your right to an opinion.


Would you say the same of Geisler or D. Hunt? They are as well elbow to elbow with CC and Cameron/Comfort.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> here's the thing; Living Waters holds to a synergistic gospel;hence, their Christ is not the Christ opf the scriptures. Shoud we, the reformed, advocate what they do? If wre do, where is the line drawn? We will have to take the idea to it's farthest conclussion and as well give Hinn, Copeland, and Rome the kudos. this fact is unavoidable. It cannot be both ways. They are either correct or they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, I think the argument that one must accept Mormon, Catholic and Word of Faith teachers to remain truly consistent with accepting ones like Cameron and Comfort is an argument that proves too much, and here's why:
> 
> Along those same lines, imagine an infra (or supra) claiming that one who advocates supra (or infra) preaching must take _that_ to its furthest conclusion and accept cultic preaching as well. Ultimately only one side in the infra/supra issue is in fact biblical, and thus the other side _has an unbiblical understanding of one of the issues regarding how God saves people_ - yet you and I would both agree that endorsement of preaching from someone of the other persuasion in that issue does _not_ by logical necessity lead to a path of advocating Mormon or Catholic preaching.
> 
> So likewise, since an unbiblical understanding of the order of God's decrees is not enough to warrant a lack of endorsement of the message, why does an unbiblical understanding of the monergistic nature of those decrees happen to be the place at which the line of full disapproval is drawn? The "how far does it go" question goes both ways, for the question of why to approve of supra (or infra) preaching but not synergistic preaching (my question) is just as relevant and demanding of an answer as is the question of why to approve of synergistic preaching but not Mormon or Word of Faith preaching (your question). As Josh, Fred and others have articulated, the reason the cultic messages should not be advocated is that there is no way one can be saved by fully believing them, like Jesus not being God. But if a real misunderstanding of the logical order of regeneration and faith precludes salvation as you say, why does a misunderstanding of the order of decrees not?
Click to expand...


OK Chris,
Please tell me where we draw the line. Would you endorse CC? Geisler? Hunt? Wilkerson? Lahaye? Warren? Graham? Joyce meyer? Stanley? If these guys were being interviewed, would you advocate them, after all, they are of the same ilk.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

For the record, please keep further posts with the premise that I am against ENDORSING, ADVOCATING or SUGGESTING things like the above. Just like endorsing or suggesting a book, there are better things to suggest and endorse in the cause. Shame on us; we know better.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch

Scott, is it your opinion that I shouldn't have posted this topic at all?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Scott, is it your opinion that I shouldn't have posted this topic at all?



No. Your premise was intended to disregard such nonsense, which is exactly mine; There are better alternatives to endorse. Next thing you'll see is the reformed endorsing Billy Graham and his televised evenets.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch

Yea.

I used to be a big, big living waters fan. Here's the thing though, I can be a pretty emotional guy. By that, I don't mean I cry easily (lol) I mean making an appeal to my emotions can be very successful. I had to learn the difference between the Holy Spirit and my emotional feelings.

Kirk and Ray are very, very, *VERY* good at appealing to your emotions. In fact, Arminianism (at least today's kind) is very good at this as well. This is why we so often don't see much (if any) fruit from conversions that take place under that kind of preaching. Emotions can drive you but they can't sustain you.

You can do street ministry successfully by appealing to people's emotions. You can draw large crowds by appealing to people's emotions. You can have a large alter call by appealing to people's emotions. I can remember hearing a story by Jerry Lee Lewis time and again about how he fought the "alter call" at his cousin's preaching (Jimmy Swagart). Jerry Lee would say how his knuckles would turn white from gripping the chair in front of him so hard to avoid walking down the aisle. Thing is, he tells this story as if his will is over coming God's! 

Play the right music, say the right words, plead just hard and long enough and you can have what looks like great results. Seeds amongst thorns though.


----------



## Scott Bushey

If we endorse Cameron, are we not by default endorsing Lehaye? Will not this message be sent to the world?


----------



## ReformedWretch

Sure will so I won't endorse him. I will watch tonight to see how it goes and how they answer tough questions. If anything I suspect they be exposed for not having the simple answers correct theology gives you. We will see...that's why I said it will be entertaining.


----------



## Scott Bushey

http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2000/leftbehind.html

http://www.cloudtenpictures.com/index.php?object=AboutCloudTenPictures

TBN partners w/ Cloud ten Pictures:

http://www.tbn.org/index.php/7.html?nid=67

Rays affiliation w/ CC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Smith

TBN lumps Cameron together with:

http://www.tbn.org/index.php/2/4/p/158.html


nuff said.............



[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch

If you like this show, you may also like:
Pastor John Hagee
Billy Graham
Tommy Tenney
Hal Lindsey
Pastor Rod Parsley


----------



## CDM

> ...I never sent you to preach, why are you preaching...



Can someone point me to this part in Scripture? It sounds familiar, I just can't think of where it is.



> No, to go over the ground that we have before, there is a big difference between having a wrong view of the true God, and not believing in the true God at all.
> 
> Mormans and JWs believe that Jesus is not God at all, but rather a created being. There is no way that you can get the gospel from that.



Just curious, the Roman Catholics "believe Jesus is God." Can one be saved under this system?



> Calvinism is based upon certain ideas. As far as I am concerned, one cannot be a 4 point Calvinist. All 5 points rest, one upon the other. In the same way, I have never met anyone whom held to that which the Remonstrants prescribed.



Are not the Church of Christ full, 5 point, Remonstrant Amrinians? I thought the Assemblies of God are too. They believe you can lose your salvation don't they?


----------



## jenson75

Please don't remove my post... I am just being honest...

After all that has been mentioned in this thread, do you expect me to believe that you believe in the doctrines of GRACE?

If you wish to go after the Arminians, please make sure your life is scrupulous. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Just my two pence....

Put it this way, if there were to be an Arminian here on this board, how will go about "converting" him/her?

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> I'd much rather see Comfort and Cameron on there talking about the Law of God and how it makes us all sinners in need of God's salvation/God's divine justice, than a special investigation on sweat shops in India.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-16-2006 by joshua]


you're so not liberal


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> Please don't remove my post... I am just being honest...
> 
> After all that has been mentioned in this thread, do you expect me to believe that you believe in the doctrines of GRACE?
> 
> If you wish to go after the Arminians, please make sure your life is scrupulous. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Just my two pence....
> 
> Put it this way, if there were to be an Arminian here on this board, how will go about "converting" him/her?
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]



For starters, Arminians are excluded from participating on this board. The board requires one hold to the LBC or WCF as confessions. We are not talking of recipients of the message, but the messenger. 

Secondly, your post was not removed, it was _moved_. I moved it because it had to do with Christian liberty. 

You previously wrote:



> If you want to go after the Arminians, please make sure your lives are scrupulous (I have seen smoking, drinking, bare-knuckled boxing on this board already...). If not, who will take you seriously? Just my 2 pence...



Adam asked:



> Are you equating those things with presenting the gospel falsely?



And I inquired:



> Are you saying that I can't have a pint, a smoke and wrestle with Matt?




???

And as far as me holding to the D's O G, I don't see how what I have said affects that.

Sidebar>>> Please click on the link at the bottom of my post for signature requirements.


Thank you.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## jenson75

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> Please don't remove my post... I am just being honest...
> 
> After all that has been mentioned in this thread, do you expect me to believe that you believe in the doctrines of GRACE?
> 
> If you wish to go after the Arminians, please make sure your life is scrupulous. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Just my two pence....
> 
> Put it this way, if there were to be an Arminian here on this board, how will go about "converting" him/her?
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, Arminians are excluded from participating on this board. The board requires one hold to the LBC or WCF as confessions. We are not talking of recipients of the message, but the messenger.
> 
> Secondly, your post was not removed, it was _moved_. I moved it because it had to do with Christian liberty.
> 
> 
> You previously wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to go after the Arminians, please make sure your lives are scrupulous (I have seen smoking, drinking, bare-knuckled boxing on this board already...). If not, who will take you seriously? Just my 2 pence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam asked:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you equating those things with presenting the gospel falsely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I inquired:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I can't have a pint, a smoke and wrestle with Matt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> And as far as me holding to the D's O G, I don't see how what I have said affects that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sidebar>>> Please click on the link at the bottom of my post for signature requirements.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


I would appreciate if you had asked me first, before moving it elsewhere.

You have described a set of truth, attached the proof texts, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Very nice. By openly criticising Arminians, Kirk and Ray, etc., you are opening yourself to those who will scrutinise you... very carefully. 
Calvinists, Arminians and even unbelievers will do that, too. Pity I cannot be there personally to meet you face to face and see if your brand of Calvinism is something I would like to believe.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]


----------



## ReformedWretch

That's why I simply asked you one question.

Do you equate drinking a beer, smoking a cigar, or watching a fight to presenting the gospel incorrectly or even falsely?


----------



## Peter

Scott, glad to hear you acknowledge many have been converted under K.Cameron and other crypto-Arminian teachings. I'm not sure what you mean by saying we should not "endorse" them but as I said before, we should have no Church Communion with brothers who do not walk after the traditions we have received2Th 3:6. This is not because they are not Christians but b/c they are sectarians. It is unfair to compare them to JWs who openly deny the fundamentals of the faith. Arminianism is not another Gospel. They may have the superstructures of the Gospel wrong but the foundation is there:

Another foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 3:11


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> Please don't remove my post... I am just being honest...
> 
> After all that has been mentioned in this thread, do you expect me to believe that you believe in the doctrines of GRACE?
> 
> If you wish to go after the Arminians, please make sure your life is scrupulous. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Just my two pence....
> 
> Put it this way, if there were to be an Arminian here on this board, how will go about "converting" him/her?
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, Arminians are excluded from participating on this board. The board requires one hold to the LBC or WCF as confessions. We are not talking of recipients of the message, but the messenger.
> 
> Secondly, your post was not removed, it was _moved_. I moved it because it had to do with Christian liberty.
> 
> 
> You previously wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to go after the Arminians, please make sure your lives are scrupulous (I have seen smoking, drinking, bare-knuckled boxing on this board already...). If not, who will take you seriously? Just my 2 pence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam asked:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you equating those things with presenting the gospel falsely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I inquired:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I can't have a pint, a smoke and wrestle with Matt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> And as far as me holding to the D's O G, I don't see how what I have said affects that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sidebar>>> Please click on the link at the bottom of my post for signature requirements.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would appreciate if you had asked me first, before moving it elsewhere.
> 
> You have described a set of truth, attached the proof texts, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Very nice. By openly criticising Arminians, Kirk and Ray, etc., you are opening yourself to those who will scrutinise you... very carefully.
> Calvinists, Arminians and even unbelievers will do that, too. Pity I cannot be there personally to meet you face to face and see if your brand of Calvinism is something I would like to believe.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
Click to expand...


The concept of moving threads is left to the discretion of the administration of this board. It would be silly to ask your permission. Tons of threads are erroneously placed and need to be moved. Thats one of our functions here. I pray you understand. 

You mention scrutiny. Is my life perfect? By far it is not. Is God sanctifying me, yes. Was Peter above scrutiny? No. Did he possess a level of hypocrisy? yes. Did the world see that? Yes. Hoding to the doctrines of grace is by Gods mercy alone. He has been gracious with me and I am thankful. This is besides the point when it comes to false teachers and false gospel messages. I am not one whom holds to relativism. Am I less than gracious when it comes to these people whom are in error; no less than Ezekiel or Jeremiah was. No less than Paul was. How might I be more _middle of the road_ with my critiques? Smile more? Be more complacent? Be relative? Inclusive? One thing I know, the church is filled with poorly taught people. This is because people are preaching that should not be preaching. men are literally ordaining themselves to the ministry. No schooling. No theology. They go to their pastor and say, God has called me to start a church in Boise, Idaho. bang, they are ordained. This is not good and a large part of the problem. And what are these people teaching? mainline teachings; word of faith, Arminianism, hyper charismania! These three groups hold 3/4 of people that attend church. Look for yourself. The largest churches in America are charismatic; some even tout membership of 40,000 people, i.e. Willow Creek/Bill Hybels. I don't believe complacency or smiling a lot will help. I do believe that papers like Matts are what the world needs to hear. No soft shoe, just truth.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Scott, glad to hear you acknowledge many have been converted under K.Cameron and other crypto-Arminian teachings. I'm not sure what you mean by saying we should not "endorse" them but as I said before, we should have no Church Communion with brothers who do not walk after the traditions we have received2Th 3:6. This is not because they are not Christians but b/c they are sectarians. It is unfair to compare them to JWs who openly deny the fundamentals of the faith. Arminianism is not another Gospel. They may have the superstructures of the Gospel wrong but the foundation is there:
> 
> Another foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 3:11



HOLD THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter,
Am I hearing you? Arminianism is not another Gospel?


----------



## jenson75

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> That's why I simply asked you one question.
> 
> Do you equate drinking a beer, smoking a cigar, or watching a fight to presenting the gospel incorrectly or even falsely?



Sorry, I did not think you were asking me a question...

This is a big digression. 

Put it this way, I teach Sunday School. I tell children about sin and their need for repentance and faith in Christ. If I step out of the class, and play football, drink, smoke and watch a fight.... and the boys see me doing all that, what kind of a testimony is that??? They will laugh, and so would their unbelieving parents as well...

My problem is not about Arminianism vs Calvinism. I would like to see those who profess Doctrines of Grace to practice it...


----------



## ReformedWretch

Peter..

The question is this (at least for me), is presenting the Arminian mesage presenting the true gospel? If it completely up to me to decide if I am saved or not is that the true gospel? If it is not, yet it is not a flase gospel, what would you call it? A confused gospel? I know I am certainly confused.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> That's why I simply asked you one question.
> 
> Do you equate drinking a beer, smoking a cigar, or watching a fight to presenting the gospel incorrectly or even falsely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I did not think you were asking me a question...
> 
> This is a big digression.
> 
> Put it this way, I teach Sunday School. I tell children about sin and their need for repentance and faith in Christ. If I step out of the class, and play football, drink, smoke and watch a fight.... and the boys see me doing all that, what kind of a testimony is that??? They will laugh, and so would their unbelieving parents as well...
> 
> My problem is not about Arminianism vs Calvinism. I would like to see those who profess Doctrines of Grace to practice it...
Click to expand...


and....how is having a pint or a smoke not holding to the d o gs?


----------



## Peter

Scott, did you say there are Arminians who are saved? How can they be saved if they do not believe the gospel?


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> That's why I simply asked you one question.
> 
> Do you equate drinking a beer, smoking a cigar, or watching a fight to presenting the gospel incorrectly or even falsely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I did not think you were asking me a question...
> 
> This is a big digression.
> 
> Put it this way, I teach Sunday School. I tell children about sin and their need for repentance and faith in Christ. If I step out of the class, and play football, drink, smoke and watch a fight.... and the boys see me doing all that, what kind of a testimony is that??? They will laugh, and so would their unbelieving parents as well...
> 
> My problem is not about Arminianism vs Calvinism. I would like to see those who profess Doctrines of Grace to practice it...
Click to expand...


I'm not certain what it is you are teaching them....


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Peter..
> 
> The question is this (at least for me), is presenting the Arminian mesage presenting the true gospel? If it completely up to me to decide if I am saved or not is that the true gospel? If it is not, yet it is not a flase gospel, what would you call it? A confused gospel? I know I am certainly confused.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Peter..
> 
> The question is this (at least for me), is presenting the Arminian mesage presenting the true gospel? If it completely up to me to decide if I am saved or not is that the true gospel? If it is not, yet it is not a flase gospel, what would you call it? A confused gospel? I know I am certainly confused.



The Jesus of the Arminian gospel cannot even hold his own people from falling away; This is not the Christ of the scriptures!


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Peter..
> 
> The question is this (at least for me), is presenting the Arminian mesage presenting the true gospel? If it completely up to me to decide if I am saved or not is that the true gospel? If it is not, yet it is not a flase gospel, what would you call it? A confused gospel? I know I am certainly confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jesus of the Arminian gospel cannot even hold his own people from falling away; This is not the Christ of the scriptures!
Click to expand...



(sorry for the Dittos)


----------



## jenson75

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> Please don't remove my post... I am just being honest...
> 
> After all that has been mentioned in this thread, do you expect me to believe that you believe in the doctrines of GRACE?
> 
> If you wish to go after the Arminians, please make sure your life is scrupulous. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Just my two pence....
> 
> Put it this way, if there were to be an Arminian here on this board, how will go about "converting" him/her?
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, Arminians are excluded from participating on this board. The board requires one hold to the LBC or WCF as confessions. We are not talking of recipients of the message, but the messenger.
> 
> Secondly, your post was not removed, it was _moved_. I moved it because it had to do with Christian liberty.
> 
> 
> You previously wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to go after the Arminians, please make sure your lives are scrupulous (I have seen smoking, drinking, bare-knuckled boxing on this board already...). If not, who will take you seriously? Just my 2 pence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam asked:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you equating those things with presenting the gospel falsely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I inquired:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I can't have a pint, a smoke and wrestle with Matt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> And as far as me holding to the D's O G, I don't see how what I have said affects that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sidebar>>> Please click on the link at the bottom of my post for signature requirements.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would appreciate if you had asked me first, before moving it elsewhere.
> 
> You have described a set of truth, attached the proof texts, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Very nice. By openly criticising Arminians, Kirk and Ray, etc., you are opening yourself to those who will scrutinise you... very carefully.
> Calvinists, Arminians and even unbelievers will do that, too. Pity I cannot be there personally to meet you face to face and see if your brand of Calvinism is something I would like to believe.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of moving threads is left to the discretion of the administration of this board. It would be silly to ask your permission. Tons of threads are erroneously placed and need to be moved. Thats one of our functions here. I pray you understand.
> 
> You mention scrutiny. Is my life perfect? By far it is not. Is God sanctifying me, yes. Was Peter above scrutiny? No. Did he possess a level of hypocrisy? yes. Did the world see that? Yes. Hoding to the doctrines of grace is by Gods mercy alone. He has been gracious with me and I am thankful. This is besides the point when it comes to false teachers and false gospel messages. I am not one whom holds to relativism. Am I less than gracious when it comes to these people whom are in error; no less than Ezekiel or Jeremiah was. No less than Paul was. How might I be more _middle of the road_ with my critiques? Smile more? Be more complacent? Be relative? Inclusive? One thing I know, the church is filled with poorly taught people. This is because people are preaching that should not be preaching. men are literally ordaining themselves to the ministry. No schooling. No theology. They go to their pastor and say, God has called me to start a church in Boise, Idaho. bang, they are ordained. This is not good and a large part of the problem. And what are these people teaching? mainline teachings; word of faith, Arminianism, hyper charismania! These three groups hold 3/4 of people that attend church. Look for yourself. The largest churches in America are charismatic; some even tout membership of 40,000 people, i.e. Willow Creek/Bill Hybels. I don't believe complacency or smiling a lot will help. I do believe that papers like Matts are what the world needs to hear. No soft shoe, just truth.
Click to expand...



I absolutely agree that Christians need to be taught. It is not the "why", but the "how" that I am concerned. 

I need to correct you about something - a theological education, no matter how important it is, does not make a man a good pastor. I know of an "evangelical" theological college here in London that churns out men (in the bus loads, with PhDs) that needs to be in pews, not in pulpits.

As to your final point(s), like it or not, your message must be consistent with your life... That is all I am going to say about this...


----------



## ReformedWretch

What is it about a beer, a cigar, and a UFC match that makes your life inconsistent with the message of the gospel? Maybe those things are not consistent with the Arminian gospel and that's where the confusion is coming from?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> Please don't remove my post... I am just being honest...
> 
> After all that has been mentioned in this thread, do you expect me to believe that you believe in the doctrines of GRACE?
> 
> If you wish to go after the Arminians, please make sure your life is scrupulous. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Just my two pence....
> 
> Put it this way, if there were to be an Arminian here on this board, how will go about "converting" him/her?
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, Arminians are excluded from participating on this board. The board requires one hold to the LBC or WCF as confessions. We are not talking of recipients of the message, but the messenger.
> 
> Secondly, your post was not removed, it was _moved_. I moved it because it had to do with Christian liberty.
> 
> 
> You previously wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to go after the Arminians, please make sure your lives are scrupulous (I have seen smoking, drinking, bare-knuckled boxing on this board already...). If not, who will take you seriously? Just my 2 pence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam asked:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you equating those things with presenting the gospel falsely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I inquired:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I can't have a pint, a smoke and wrestle with Matt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> And as far as me holding to the D's O G, I don't see how what I have said affects that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sidebar>>> Please click on the link at the bottom of my post for signature requirements.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would appreciate if you had asked me first, before moving it elsewhere.
> 
> You have described a set of truth, attached the proof texts, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Very nice. By openly criticising Arminians, Kirk and Ray, etc., you are opening yourself to those who will scrutinise you... very carefully.
> Calvinists, Arminians and even unbelievers will do that, too. Pity I cannot be there personally to meet you face to face and see if your brand of Calvinism is something I would like to believe.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of moving threads is left to the discretion of the administration of this board. It would be silly to ask your permission. Tons of threads are erroneously placed and need to be moved. Thats one of our functions here. I pray you understand.
> 
> You mention scrutiny. Is my life perfect? By far it is not. Is God sanctifying me, yes. Was Peter above scrutiny? No. Did he possess a level of hypocrisy? yes. Did the world see that? Yes. Hoding to the doctrines of grace is by Gods mercy alone. He has been gracious with me and I am thankful. This is besides the point when it comes to false teachers and false gospel messages. I am not one whom holds to relativism. Am I less than gracious when it comes to these people whom are in error; no less than Ezekiel or Jeremiah was. No less than Paul was. How might I be more _middle of the road_ with my critiques? Smile more? Be more complacent? Be relative? Inclusive? One thing I know, the church is filled with poorly taught people. This is because people are preaching that should not be preaching. men are literally ordaining themselves to the ministry. No schooling. No theology. They go to their pastor and say, God has called me to start a church in Boise, Idaho. bang, they are ordained. This is not good and a large part of the problem. And what are these people teaching? mainline teachings; word of faith, Arminianism, hyper charismania! These three groups hold 3/4 of people that attend church. Look for yourself. The largest churches in America are charismatic; some even tout membership of 40,000 people, i.e. Willow Creek/Bill Hybels. I don't believe complacency or smiling a lot will help. I do believe that papers like Matts are what the world needs to hear. No soft shoe, just truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree that Christians need to be taught. It is not the "why", but the "how" that I am concerned.
> 
> I need to correct you about something - a theological education, no matter how important it is, does not make a man a good pastor. I know of an "evangelical" theological college here in London that churns out men (in the bus loads, with PhDs) that needs to be in pews, not in pulpits.
> 
> As to your final point(s), like it or not, your message must be consistent with your life... That is all I am going to say about this...
Click to expand...


I agree.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> What is it about a beer, a cigar, and a UFC match that makes your life inconsistent with the message of the gospel? Maybe those things are not consistent with the Arminian gospel and that's where the confusion is coming from?




Thank you.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Peter..
> 
> The question is this (at least for me), is presenting the Arminian mesage presenting the true gospel? If it completely up to me to decide if I am saved or not is that the true gospel? If it is not, yet it is not a flase gospel, what would you call it? A confused gospel? I know I am certainly confused.



Good post. I think that is what I would call it; a "confused gospel". Or the Gospel plus an unhealthy mixture of confusion and error. Even the Papists have the Gospel even if it is smuthered under superstition and idolatry. The question is really what knowledge is necessary for salvation. I'm going to have to do some study and prayer to form a clear opinion on this.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Peter..
> 
> The question is this (at least for me), is presenting the Arminian mesage presenting the true gospel? If it completely up to me to decide if I am saved or not is that the true gospel? If it is not, yet it is not a flase gospel, what would you call it? A confused gospel? I know I am certainly confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good post. I think that is what I would call it; a "confused gospel". Or the Gospel plus an unhealthy mixture of confusion and error. Even the Papists have the Gospel even if it is smuthered under superstition and idolatry. The question is really what knowledge is necessary for salvation. I'm going to have to do some study and prayer to form a clear opinion on this.
Click to expand...


The question is how much error reduces the gospel to _no gospel_?

When one goes through each point of contention in a clinical Arminian gospel message, it is not the biblical account. Arminianism is heresy; the Remonstrants were heretics! Todays ilk is not the remonstrant type; I would agree. But where do you draw the line? If you asked Hinn or Copeland if they believed in Justification by faith alone, they would agree. If you asked them if men must repent, they would agree. If you asked them if Christ only saves; they would agree. The difference is embedded. Just like the errors being perpetuated today. It is even more insidious and viral. So, as far as confusion goes, whose to say Hinn, et. al. aren't as well confused then?


Reformed folk should not advocate, endorse or suggest any of it.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK Chris,
> Please tell me where we draw the line. Would you endorse CC? Geisler? Hunt? Wilkerson? Lahaye? Warren? Graham? Joyce meyer? Stanley? If these guys were being interviewed, would you advocate them, after all, they are of the same ilk.



If people like Geisler, Hunt, Wilkerson and Warren (I hesitate to include Graham since he has advocated strong Inclusivism even of other religions, Meyer because she has Word of Faith teachings, and Stanley simply because I am not familiar with his beliefs or teachings) were in the same position now that Cameron is in, I would 1) make it clear that I believe much of their theology to be unbiblical and compromising of God's full biblical truth regarding the Gospel and the process of salvation. But I would also 2) make it clear that I encourage people to listen and respond to their call to repent and believe in Christ, and affirm that they are doing a good thing as far as that goes.

Why would I do #2 with men like them but not with Mormons, Roman Catholics and Word of Faith teachers? Peter made the point well:



> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Scott, did you say there are Arminians who are saved? How can they be saved if they do not believe the gospel?



People who truly and fully believe what Cameron is teaching can be saved (and I fully agree with Matt's recent paper on Arminianism, but you even acknowledged that the teaching of men like Cameron is not at the level of Remonstrance teaching), while people who truly and fully believe everything Mormons, Roman Catholics or Word of Faith teachers proclaim cannot be saved. The former teaches that we are hopeless in sin, that faith alone in Christ's sacrifice is the only thing that can save us from it, and even that repentance is a necessary component of that faith - whereas the latter groups do not preach that message. _That_ is where I draw the line, and that is the basis on which I believe a line can in fact be principally drawn between men like Cameron and men like Kenneth Hagin or Joseph Smith. And in light of that, I still ask where a similar line could possibly be principally drawn between the issues of monergism and synergism (and that of perseverance), and the issues of infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism (since the latter issues necessarily contain false claims about God's redemption just as the former do)?


----------



## Arch2k

A confused gospel the Arminian gospel is. Confused on the point of exactly who is the savior...Christ or man.

If 100% Christ...then the biblical gospel (the only gospel) and hence a person is saved.

If 1% Man...then a false gospel and one worthy of damnation forever. To add one work to the work of Christ makes the CoG the CoW and makes man the savior, not Christ. 

How can the latter in ANY fashion be considered the true gospel?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> A confused gospel the Arminian gospel is. Confused on the point of exactly who is the savior...Christ or man.
> 
> If 100% Christ...then the biblical gospel (the only gospel) and hence a person is saved.
> 
> If 1% Man...then a false gospel and one worthy of damnation forever. To add one work to the work of Christ makes the CoG the CoW and makes man the savior, not Christ.
> 
> How can the latter in ANY fashion be considered the true gospel?



Thank you; and hence, we should not endorse it. Let sleeping dogs lie.

As well, I want to again state, we are not talking about any personal salvations here. What I am 'railing' against is the reformed position and our endorsement of these erring camps. let them endorse themselves on TBN. As for us, let us tell them to read Owen, Calvin et. al. for truth. 

May it never be mentioned that we elbowed up to the error that could come back to bite us in the end.



[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> If people like Geisler, Hunt, Wilkerson and Warren (I hesitate to include Graham since he has advocated strong Inclusivism even of other religions, Meyer because she has Word of Faith teachings, and Stanley simply because I am not familiar with his beliefs or teachings) were in the same position now that Cameron is in, I would 1) make it clear that I believe much of their theology to be unbiblical and compromising of God's full biblical truth regarding the Gospel and the process of salvation.



Chris,
But why climb out on that dry limb? Just don't suggest stuff like that!





> But I would also 2) make it clear that I encourage people to listen and respond to their call to repent and believe in Christ, and affirm that they are doing a good thing as far as that goes.



Chris,
But the gospel that you are defending is not the gospel that they are touting. It is synergistic. Man, then God, and that element is unavoidable in their presentations. I have seen them. I have actually been out w/ Ray while I lived in California. Granted, what they do is better than most, but better than most does not the gospel make. Error is error.




> People who truly and fully believe what Cameron is teaching can be saved (and I fully agree with Matt's recent paper on Arminianism, but you even acknowledged that the teaching of men like Cameron is not at the level of Remonstrance teaching),



God saves even in RC churches. I understand this. He uses His means and His word and the person leaves the illicit situation. However, that does not condone an erred attempt at truth.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k

An Everlasting Task for Arminians by William Gadsby.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> But why climb out on that dry limb? Just don't suggest stuff like that!



I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But the gospel that you are defending is not the gospel that they are touting. It is synergistic. Man, then God, and that element is unavoidable in their presentations. I have seen them. I have actually been out w/ Ray while I lived in California. Granted, what they do is better than most, but better than most does not the gospel make. Error is error.



What I'm saying is that _synergism alone_ does not void one's salvific knowledge of Christ and the Gospel. Again, if error is error, and a denial of full monergism or perseverance is alone enough to damn, then why does the infra/supra debate not hold the same stakes, since it too is an issue regarding God's plan of redemption and just how He goes about redeeming people, and what part man's actions play in that process Mind you, I am not saying that the wrong side in the latter debate is anywhere near as great an error and deviation as is synergism - but I _am_ saying that neither of them are so great an error in and of themselves to void the saving knowledge of Christ, and thus damn.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> God saves even in RC churches. I understand this. He uses His means and His word and the person leaves the illicit situation. However, that does not condone an erred attempt at truth.



I know we both agree that God can save people under both synergistic teaching of the Word and Roman Catholic teaching of the Word. We also both agree that with the Catholic teaching, a person can only be saved if that person does not truly believe the _whole_ message, but only the true part. But what I'm saying about mere synergistic teaching (or even just a teaching that denies, say, perseverance) is that one _can_ be saved if that person truly believes it in full, since the error it contains is not by itself damnable as is the error in the Catholic message.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> But why climb out on that dry limb? Just don't suggest stuff like that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But the gospel that you are defending is not the gospel that they are touting. It is synergistic. Man, then God, and that element is unavoidable in their presentations. I have seen them. I have actually been out w/ Ray while I lived in California. Granted, what they do is better than most, but better than most does not the gospel make. Error is error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that _synergism alone_ does not void one's salvific knowledge of Christ and the Gospel. Again, if error is error, and a denial of full monergism or perseverance is alone enough to damn, then why does the infra/supra debate not hold the same stakes, since it too is an issue regarding God's plan of redemption and just how He goes about redeeming people, and what part man's actions play in that process Mind you, I am not saying that the wrong side in the latter debate is anywhere near as great an error and deviation as is synergism - but I _am_ saying that neither of them are so great an error in and of themselves to void the saving knowledge of Christ, and thus damn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> God saves even in RC churches. I understand this. He uses His means and His word and the person leaves the illicit situation. However, that does not condone an erred attempt at truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know we both agree that God can save people under both synergistic teaching of the Word and Roman Catholic teaching of the Word. We also both agree that with the Catholic teaching, a person can only be saved if that person does not truly believe the _whole_ message, but only the true part. But what I'm saying about mere synergistic teaching (or even just a teaching that denies, say, perseverance) is that one _can_ be saved if that person truly believes it in full, since the error it contains is not by itself damnable as is the error in the Catholic message.
Click to expand...


Chris,
Again, I am encouraging the reformed to not endorse the stuff. Why would you say anything positive about it when there are better things to hang your hat on. Do you want to be held responsible for the people whom hear the error and subscribe to it?

Why is this so difficult???? 

I'll add, if Rick warren was on or Joel Osteen, would you suggest them as well? No? Why, because they are in more error? How much more is Warren in error? See what I'm getting at. lets just not suggest or endorse junk like that!

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k

How is the Catholic gospel any different than the modern Arminian gospel?

I thought the Catholics were considered Arminians (they're just more consistent  )


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeff,
Correct. We are speaking of people whom here the scriptures preached there and leave after hearing and understanding the truth.


----------



## Larry Hughes

I think Scott´s and Jeff´s point, which I concur with, is that they are not really preaching Christ. But I don´t mean to put words into mouths if I´m wrong.

Excerpt from the web site:



> "œWhat does it mean to "put your faith in Jesus Christ?" It means to personally trust in Jesus the same way you´d trust in a parachute if you had to jump 25,000 feet out of an airplane. You wouldn´t just "believe" in the parachute; you would put it on! In the same way, the Bible says, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ..." and you will be saved. There are millions of people who "believe" Jesus exists . . . but they have not put on the Savior"”there´s a BIG difference. And the difference will be obvious when you "œjump" through the door of death.
> 
> Today, with all your heart"¦etc"



Read that and then think about what that passage says to you. What did you HEAR? Because THAT is the crucial point!

You see this is chalked full of things "œto do" and confuses saving faith and conceals the Gospel all over the place. The sum total of the idea in this excerpted passage is "œYOU must DO something first." That´s much different than receiving the Good News already GIVEN. It´s in the communication and the difference between Prescription, TO DO, something and Proclamation of something, DONE. It´s very subtle but makes the all difference in the hearers ear, especially the incurable "œdoer" and religious fraud in us all the old Adam.


Take for example Acts 16:30-31 and the account of the Philippian jailer´s conversion. "œand after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, <<<what must I do>>> to be saved?" They said, "<<<Believe in the Lord Jesus>>>, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Here we have a Roman guard who in his society who is use to the idea/religion of "œif I sacrifice X to the gods, I will receive good fortune". This is his base thinking. Then suddenly after singing Psalms and praises to their God he sees Paul and his folks stay IN the jail while others ran right after a violent earth quake. He´s frightened and reacts the only way he knows how, he offers "œwhat must I DO" to gain the favor of this God. He´s still in his "œI´ll do for this God to gain favor mode". But Paul´s answer contrary to some who read this is not supporting the jailer´s question/offer, "œ"¦sirs what must I do to be saved", no, rather Paul´s answer is against "œDOING" entirely. For when Paul says, "œBelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ"¦" he is saying, "œYou do nothing, receive freely, without money, without cost, without sacrifice!" Paul´s answer is not supporting a "œdo", faith is not a "œdo" faith is utterly receptive. The jailer says, "œdo", Paul says, "œhear is Christ freely". The "œbelieve" is utterly against the "œdo", not an prescription for it to be filled. 

Faith is the awakening caused by the message itself, it is the vessel CREATED by the proclamation (the Good News). It is the GOSPEL nakedly proclaimed that calls into being faith. Strictly speaking we are not called by or to "œfaith" we are called by and to the Gospel. Faith doesn´t say "œLazarus come forth", the Gospel says, "œLazarus come forth", and he does! Lazarus would still be in the tomb if Comfort´s "œgospel" was hollered out. The Good News is literally the WORD that calls into being, against man´s wisdom which sees nothing existing, AS IF IT IS so that it WILL BE. Wisdom says, "œWhy are you calling to that body its obviously dead and cannot respond". The Gospel says, "œLet there be light" and there IS light by that very Word "“ the dead man rises to the chagrin and shock of everyone. It is the placarding of Christ and Him crucified before the dead man´s eyes, that message, that calls into being that which will receive it. The Holy Spirit works through that means, we merely are the "œbull horns" for the message.

But in today´s climate if you call a man to, "œYou wouldn´t just "believe" in the parachute; you would put it on" or "œPut on the Lord Jesus Christ" or "œthey have not put on the Savior" or "œwith all your heart" "“ all "œto dos" by the way "“ you have not called Him to Christ at all although your language uses and lingers about the words "œChrist", but not once have you GIVEN the Good News or Christ Himself. Is the Good News this, "œIF I DO XY or Z, THEN I will receive forgiveness?" Or is the Good News this, "œChrist Jesus was CRUCIFIED on a bloody cross for me"? Again it is the difference in Prescribing a subtle work whereby I might falsely rest in, my "œto do", my heaping of this work for myself "“ and sheer Proclamation of the News. We should never forget it is the NEWS that calls not a call to faith that calls. Descriptively proclaiming the Good News is a call to faith, but it is the News doing the calling not a faith doing it. The NEWS causes the faith, faith cannot cause faith.

Hence, they are not, especially in today´s heavy "œI do" climate, giving Christ but a false Christ"¦albeit a very close copy to the truth. The irony is "“ is that they give a decent Law, have you ever kept the Law"¦, I´ve heard them say. But then they just exchange the 10 Commandments for these ethereal "œto do" faith type commands. Or these monumental, give all your heart commands. If I give all my heart then Jesus will save me? What false doctrine is this! What happen to, "œWhile we were STILL enemies Christ died for the ungodly" and "œI will GIVE you a new heart"?

It´s been put like this; giving Christ, the Gospel, is like preparing a huge banquette table feast for a starving man and then saying eat. There´s no IF you "œdo", THEN you may eat. If they were to say, I´m starving what must I do to eat, all I say is behold and eat. Strange indeed it would be if they didn´t eat until they satisfied themselves that they couldn´t eat what is freely before them until they "œdid something for me". To one that will not freely eat what is freely given and as he lay starving and dying try to work for what is before him freely without condition, his folly is inexcusable. See how we love our works and war with God´s mercy! See how impossible faith is for the Old Adam, the incurable doer and he must die entirely, yet how free the Gospel really is! 

Grace and peace,

Larry H.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Again, I am encouraging the reformed to not endorse the stuff. Why would you say anything positive about it when there are better things to hang your hat on. Do you want to be held responsible for the people whom hear the error and subscribe to it?
> 
> Why is this so difficult????



Well, it depends on whether or not we all mean the same thing by "endorse," since it is a vague word in this context. I already laid out the senses in which I would and would not "endorse" it. Would you really just as soon have someone talking about global warming on the program as you would have Cameron teaching what he is, and not encourage anyone to listen to the latter any more than the former?



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> How is the Catholic gospel any different than the modern Arminian gospel?
> 
> I thought the Catholics were considered Arminians (they're just more consistent  )



Because in addition to a mere belief in synergism, the Catholic gospel adds the salvific necessity of Christ being continually re-sacrificed, the salvific necessity of the sacraments and purgatorial cleansing on top of that, and the belief that we only receive Christ's righteousness in the sense that our faith in Him causes us to act righteous, just to name a few minor differences.

Of course the Catholics are synergists - but that has absolutely no implications for the error of synergism in and of itself, without other baggage attached. Would you no sooner vote to have Cameron on the program than you would Hagin or a Mormon, if given the option?

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Again, I am encouraging the reformed to not endorse the stuff. Why would you say anything positive about it when there are better things to hang your hat on. Do you want to be held responsible for the people whom hear the error and subscribe to it?
> 
> Why is this so difficult????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it depends on whether or not we all mean the same thing by "endorse," since it is a vague word in this context. I already laid out the senses in which I would and would not "endorse" it. Would you really just as soon have someone talking about global warming on the program as you would have Cameron teaching what he is, and not encourage anyone to listen to the latter any more than the former?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> How is the Catholic gospel any different than the modern Arminian gospel?
> 
> I thought the Catholics were considered Arminians (they're just more consistent  )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in addition to a mere belief in synergism, the Catholic gospel adds the salvific necessity of Christ being continually re-sacrificed, the salvific necessity of the sacraments and purgatorial cleansing on top of that, and the belief that we only receive Christ's righteousness in the sense that our faith in Him causes us to act righteous, just to name a few minor differences.
> 
> Of course the Catholics are synergists - but that has absolutely no implications for the error of synergism in and of itself, without other baggage attached. Would you no sooner vote to have Cameron on the program than you would Hagin or a Mormon, if given the option?
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Me Died Blue]
Click to expand...


Chris,
C'mon. You know what I mean; in the context of what I have been saying, it is not vague. Here, hows this: I would endorse Fred greco, I would not endorse Warren. I would endorse Chris Blum, I would not endorse CC. I would endorse PB, not TBN and Comfort. I would endorse Mcmahon, not Geisler. I would endorse Calvin, not Westley.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> C'mon. You know what I mean; in the context of what I have been saying, it is not vague. Here, hows this: I would endorse Fred greco, I would not endorse Warren. I would endorse Chris Blum, I would not endorse CC. I would endorse PB, not TBN and Comfort. I would endorse Mcmahon, not Geisler. I would endorse Calvin, not Westley.



It seems like we may have to agree to disagree here, since, while I would not tell unbelievers or new believers to look to any of the latter you mentioned for sound advice on much of Christian doctrine and living, I still could not in good conscience tell them to not not listen to their message altogether, as Christ can still be savingly heard by believing their message in full.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> How is the Catholic gospel any different than the modern Arminian gospel?
> 
> I thought the Catholics were considered Arminians (they're just more consistent  )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in addition to a mere belief in synergism, the Catholic gospel adds the salvific necessity of Christ being continually re-sacrificed, the salvific necessity of the sacraments and purgatorial cleansing on top of that, and the belief that we only receive Christ's righteousness in the sense that our faith in Him causes us to act righteous, just to name a few minor differences.
Click to expand...


I agree. The fact is that the RC's are exactly the same, only more consistent that "evangelical arminians" (although I do not like to use that term). Think about this: If Christ's death does not actually save anyone (i.e. he does not effectually propitiate for ALL of your sins) then it takes continual re-sacrifice. I know plenty of Arminians that believe that if you die before you confess every single sin, you can go to hell. This is because they believe that their confession earns them heaven, in the exact same manner RC's believe the continual re-sacrifice of their "cheese-us" earns them salvation.

The point is fundamentally the same. Christ's once for all death is not enough for either the RC's or the Arminians...they both need to add to this. The only difference is how they choose to add. One is clearer, the other more deceptive.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Of course the Catholics are synergists - but that has absolutely no implications for the error of synergism in and of itself, without other baggage attached. Would you no sooner vote to have Cameron on the program than you would Hagin or a Mormon, if given the option?



I would no sooner have Cameron or the Pope. Both will tell you exactly what you can do for God.


----------



## Arch2k

Josh,

In my post to you, I was not trying to suggest that you did not affirm those things, but trying to flush out the logical conclusions of being a Calvinist.

It is true that if a person believes, they MUST have been regenerated by God. But it is still my contention, that Arminians do not believe the same gospel we do. Theirs is one of works (making their own will their savior) and the true gospel is one of grace (God effectually saving...and hence HE is the savior).

Our faith must be in Christ alone lest we perish.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> C'mon. You know what I mean; in the context of what I have been saying, it is not vague. Here, hows this: I would endorse Fred greco, I would not endorse Warren. I would endorse Chris Blum, I would not endorse CC. I would endorse PB, not TBN and Comfort. I would endorse Mcmahon, not Geisler. I would endorse Calvin, not Westley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like we may have to agree to disagree here, since, while I would not tell unbelievers or new believers to look to any of the latter you mentioned for sound advice on much of Christian doctrine and living, I still could not in good conscience tell them to not not listen to their message altogether, as Christ can still be savingly heard by believing their message in full.
Click to expand...


I'm good with that. However, it will pigeon-hole you ultimately because you must remain consistant with the premise. Hence, you could not as well, in good conscience, tell anyone to not listen to Warren, CC, Graham, Geisler and Hunt. 

And for the record, N. Geisler calls the God of Calvinism a 'divine rapist'. Why would you want to endorse such things as this?

I have no problem telling people to avoid that stuff. There is far too much healthier stuff out there to prescribe.


[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Our faith must be in Christ alone lest we perish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Jeff, I'm not an Arminian! STOP!
Click to expand...


----------



## Arch2k




----------



## Cuirassier

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Oh, yeah? Well , ,



Now THAT is Armeniansim at its finest!! 

Great discussion gents,

dl


----------



## Will

Matthew 25:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father.....For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me......"

There appear to be many people in the Salvation Army that seem to focus much more on helping people than on studying theology. Worse, many of these people seem to be Armenian. 

Are these people doomed for damnation?

Can a person with a sincere desire to help people be doomed because they are a 4 point Calvinist? 

Is it better to be a unloving Calvinist or a loving Armenian in the eyes of God?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Will_
> Matthew 25:
> 
> "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father.....For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me......"
> 
> There appear to be many people in the Salvation Army that seem to focus much more on helping people than on studying theology. Worse, many of these people seem to be Armenian.
> 
> Are these people doomed for damnation?
> 
> Can a person with a sincere desire to help people be doomed because they are a 4 point Calvinist?
> 
> Is it better to be a unloving Calvinist or a loving Armenian in the eyes of God?



Please define 'loving' or biblical love. When I correct my two year old with the rod is that unloving? Or when God chastens a saint and the saint is put to 'sleep'; is that unloving? Was what happened to Job unloving? 

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 

I seem to believe that most equate truth with being unloving???

As far as the salvation army goes, they are as apostate as apostate goes. They have little to do with Christ. As well, if we are weighed along the lines of works, then Christ died in vain and the Jehovahs Witnesses have a hands up on all of us!.

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Will

Scott,

Are you saying that the Salvation Army is not Christian?

I have never heard this charge. I disagree with this group over Calvinist issues, however, I never thought they were unChristian.

Am I interpreting you correctly, Scott?


----------



## Will

Scott,

I have a second question if you do not mind.

By applying "the rod" are you suggesting that you would strike your 2 year old with a wooden stick in such a way as to cause pain and bruises?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Will_
> Scott,
> 
> Are you saying that the Salvation Army is not Christian?
> 
> I have never heard this charge. I disagree with this group over Calvinist issues, however, I never thought they were unChristian.
> 
> Am I interpreting you correctly, Scott?



They are Arminian and ecumentical w/ relationship w/ Rome. Do some research and you will see. They have woman preachers, do not believe in the need for the sacraments (even though they have church services), give moneys to homosexual groups.

http://www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uk...C28E39B2CA06E8F98025708A003D9FAC?openDocument

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Will_
> Scott,
> 
> I have a second question if you do not mind.
> 
> By applying "the rod" are you suggesting that you would strike your 2 year old with a wooden stick in such a way as to cause pain and bruises?



I do what God has commanded..........


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Will_
> Scott,
> 
> I have a second question if you do not mind.
> 
> By applying "the rod" are you suggesting that you would strike your 2 year old with a wooden stick in such a way as to cause pain and bruises?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do what God has commanded..........
Click to expand...



"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. " (Proverbs 23:13)


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> A confused gospel the Arminian gospel is. Confused on the point of exactly who is the savior...Christ or man.



Hogwash. Arminians believe Christ is the only savior. I used to be an Arminian and I never thought I could save myself.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> If 100% Christ...then the biblical gospel (the only gospel) and hence a person is saved.
> 
> If 1% Man...then a false gospel and one worthy of damnation forever. To add one work to the work of Christ makes the CoG the CoW and makes man the savior, not Christ.



That's funny, my Bible say that there ARE conditions man has to meet to be saved. No matter what Jesus did on the cross, you cannot be saved unless YOU believe, repent, etc.

Now, if I were to just stop there, I'd be a full-fledged Arminian. And yet everything I just said, as far as it goes, is correct.

However, there is *additional* knowledge needed to better understand salvation. That *additional* knowledge is that God gives me my faith as a gift, He causes me to believe, and He grants me repentence.

This is all very important theology. But it is not required for salvation. It never was, and it never will be.



Ironically, you are the one adding to the Gospel, not the Arminians. You don't believe faith in Christ's death is enough to be saved. You believe that you need faith in Christ PLUS a theological understanding of where repentance comes from, where belief comes from, etc.

To be saved, you need to believe that Christ's death pays the penalty for your sins and purchases your entry into Heaven.

To be saved, you do NOT need to know that His death also purchased your very belief & repentance itself.


I am a Calvinist. You are talking like a hyper-Calvinist. There is a difference between the two.

You are adding to the Gospel, Jeff. Please stop that.



[Edited on 3-18-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Will

Scott,

I am a relatively new Christian.

I apply the Bible to mean that "the rod" is something that comforts, protects and guides sheep as in "thy rod and staff comfort me."

I got into a discussion once about someone who applied the Bible in such as to suggest that "the rod" is to discipline (or strike) a child in such a way as to cause bruising and pain. I can not find the Biblical backup for this. 

In some states I believe spanking a child with a rod is illegal. We are obliged to obey the law of land. If the Govenor says no spanking, then that means we should not spank, doesn't it.


----------



## Will

Joseph,

Yes, but when you "beatest" your child there would only be the embarrassment of a spanking right. There would not be pain or bruising. I believe that would be illegal in some states. I think in California spanking with "rods" is illegal.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Will_
> 
> I apply the Bible to mean that "the rod" is something that comforts, protects and guides sheep as in "thy rod and staff comfort me."
> 
> I got into a discussion once about someone who applied the Bible in such as to suggest that "the rod" is to discipline (or strike) a child in such a way as to cause bruising and pain. I can not find the Biblical backup for this.



Will, 

Scripture states: *"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)*

Notice here that the rod is something used to beat the child, not tenderly woo him. Pain is inflicted. This is very Biblical.

As someone once told me: "Don't slap your children in the face; God has prepared a better place . . ."




> _Originally posted by Will_
> 
> In some states I believe spanking a child with a rod is illegal. We are obliged to obey the law of land. If the Govenor says no spanking, then that means we should not spank, doesn't it.




No, that is incorrect. You obey the government as far as you can *Biblically*. But whenever the government commands you to disobey Scripture, then you are Biblically *required* to disobey the government. You must obey God, not man.

Parents who do not spank their children hate their children (cf. Proverbs 13:24).

This is also an important verse:
"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15).


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Will_
> Joseph,
> 
> Yes, but when you "beatest" your child there would only be the embarrassment of a spanking right. There would not be pain or bruising.



Will, the Hebrew word for "beatest" here is _"nakah "_. It is repeatedly used in the Bible in the context of *killing* people. It's first use is in Genesis 4:15 . . . "lest anyone finding him should _kill_ (nakah) him". It is used again in Genesis 8:21, where God promises that He will not again "smite" (nakah) the earth with a flood, killing everything in sight. The 3rd time the word is used in Scripture is Genesis 14:5, and once again the word _nakah_ is used in the context of smiting people to the point of death.

It is NOT a gentle word! In fact, in the context of the Proverbs passage itself, it is significant that it says, "when you beatest him . . . *he will not die*." This brings us to an important question:

Why would the author of Proverbs even bring up this point about it not bringing the child to the point of death? If "beatest" just was in reference to a light tap on the hiney, causing no pain, but merely embarrasment, then death wouldn't even be a concern. The point is that the Hebrew word _nakah_ is so stringent and so serious that the Scriptures actually put in a clause to tell us that it *wouldn't* kill our children! The child may scream, and his hiney may feel like he's dying, but God designed that rump with plenty of padding for a reason.

Will, you simply cannot make the Hebrew word _nakah_ mean anything less than a real whipping. Often, the word meant _death_, so merely using the word to describe a bad beating is actually a *soft* version of using that word.



[Edited on 3-18-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Arch2k

Joseph,

I take personal offense at your charge that I am adding to the gospel.

I have said it over and over and over and over...belief in Christ alone is the only thing necessary for salvation....Arminians reject it and therefore do not believe the only biblical gospel.

If this is adding to the gospel in your opinion, then I would rethink what you believe the gospel to be. 

How many ecumenical synods need to happen before we completely reject the Arminian heresy?


----------



## Scot

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Arminianism isn't harmful, it is deadly. Hold to it and you perish. Only God knows who are His. *I am not judging them personally. However, if they preach a synergistic gospel, I will not, as a reformed man, advocate it, suggest it, not give kudos to anyone attached to it.*


----------



## Scot

> _Originally posted by Will_
> I got into a discussion once about someone who applied the Bible in such as to suggest that "the rod" is to discipline (or strike) a child in such a way as to cause bruising and pain. I can not find the Biblical backup for this.



"The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly." Proverbs 20:30

Although I don't spank my children with the intention of causing a bruise, it sometimes happens. Scripture says it cleanses away evil.


----------



## Will

Joseph,

If the government says we are not to inflict physical punishment upon a child, then how can we? Jesus paid taxes and Jesus did not tell the Jews to disobey the Romans. 

Many states have laws against brusing or inflicting physical pain upon a child. That means we can not does it not. That would be rebellion against God-appointed authorities.

Now I realize that different states have different laws regarding this. I don't 
know about Texas.

I suspect that many states such as California, New York and New Jersey do not allow a parent to "discipline" a child with physical force causing pain.


----------



## Scot

Will,

If our government made a law that stated we could not have anymore than 2 children per family and started enforcing abortion as birth control, should we as christians go along with it? Should we always obey the government even when it goes against the clear teaching of scripture?


----------



## Will

Dan,

I see your point, however those two examples are generally only found in really evil regimes like Nazism. Many states in the U.S. have anti-corporal punishment laws for more loving reasons.


----------



## Scot

Will,

As Joseph pointed out above, those that don't use the rod hate their children.

Proverbs 13:24 says "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Godly parents spank their children because they understand the awfulness of sin and the holiness of God. They do it out of love for their children and obedience to God. Society may frown upon it and try to say it's unloving but what does God say?

This article may be helpful:
http://www.rsglh.org/rod_and_reproof.htm 

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scot]


----------



## Scott Bushey

*Previously posted by jenson75*



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> That's why I simply asked you one question.
> 
> Do you equate drinking a beer, smoking a cigar, or watching a fight to presenting the gospel incorrectly or even falsely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I did not think you were asking me a question...
> 
> This is a big digression.
> 
> Put it this way, I teach Sunday School. I tell children about sin and their need for repentance and faith in Christ. If I step out of the class, and play football, drink, smoke and watch a fight.... and the boys see me doing all that, what kind of a testimony is that??? They will laugh, and so would their unbelieving parents as well...
> 
> My problem is not about Arminianism vs Calvinism. I would like to see those who profess Doctrines of Grace to practice it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not certain what it is you are teaching them....
Click to expand...



Bible lessons based on Lessons for Life by Mrs. Jill Masters (my Pastor's wife)... highly recommended for Sunday School work. You can find it here - http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/products.asp?category=Sunday+School&subcategory=Lesson+Notes

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## john_Mark

A few questions. 

Where any of us Christians prior to becoming Reformed?

Are Cameron and Comfort on their way to hell?

If one were in a public gathering preaching to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit of God" would that lack the presentation of the Gospel?

From a cursory reading of this thread it seems those opposed to Cameron/Comfort would answer no, yes and no respectively. Though I could be wrong.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> A few questions.
> 
> Where any of us Christians prior to becoming Reformed?
> 
> Are Cameron and Comfort on their way to hell?
> 
> If one were in a public gathering preaching to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit of God" would that lack the presentation of the Gospel?
> 
> From a cursory reading of this thread it seems those opposed to Cameron/Comfort would answer no, yes and no respectively. Though I could be wrong.



John-Mark,
The Jehovahs Witnesses do that; are they correct.

We are not questioning Cameron and Comforts position in Christ, but their message, which is Arminian. Should we the reformed endorse it when there are much better choices to endorse.

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## john_Mark

So if I am reading correctly the answer to question two is a no or probably not. Question number one nor three were answered. Question three isn't much different from what they are preaching and is a loose paraphrase of Acts 2:38.

If I unpack what you are saying I get this: You're not necessarily questioning whether or not C&C are Christians, but you are concerned that they are preaching an Arminian Gospel which is false. Given that they are preaching a Gospel they believe which you say is false so in essence you are questioning their position in Christ. Yes?

Or to state it more simply.

Arminianism's Gospel can't save,
C&C believe an arminian gospel,
Therefore C&C aren't saved.

Yes?

I'm not really concerned with JWs since these two men are not JWs. Even if they were Mormon I would be concerned with Mormonism and still not with JWs.

I agree there are much better people to endorse, however, I don't know of any that do street evangelism in this way.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> So if I am reading correctly the answer to question two is a no or probably not. Question number one nor three were answered. Question three isn't much different from what they are preaching and is a loose paraphrase of Acts 2:38.
> 
> If I unpack what you are saying I get this: You're not necessarily questioning whether or not C&C are Christians, but you are concerned that they are preaching an Arminian Gospel which is false. Given that they are preaching a Gospel they believe which you say is false so in essence you are questioning their position in Christ. Yes?



Trying to pigeon-hole me? 
God saves Arminians; they do not remain in the error. Arminianism is heresy and those whom hold to it are heretics. Heresy damns. If Comfort et. al. are believing and holding to an Arminian god, they are in trouble. God only knows........



> Or to state it more simply.
> 
> Arminianism's Gospel can't save,



Correct. However, God can use the elements of his truth to even save in a distorted gospel presentation.



> C&C believe an arminian gospel,
> Therefore C&C aren't saved.



If the shoe fits........Jesus said, you will know a tree by it's fruit. 




> I agree there are much better people to endorse, however, I don't know of any that do street evangelism in this way.



This is the problem. Who told them to do what they are doing? Are they ordained, called to preach the gospel?

Oh and by the way, the JW's can be and must be considered in this context. They preach repentance, acceptance, Christ is the truth etc. The Arminian god is no less the god they worship.......

Have you read Matt's paper on Arminianism?

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## john_Mark

No offense, but as I see it if anyone is pigeon-holing anyone it's you doing it to yourself. Based on everything you said C&C do not show fruits of being born again at this time so we shouldn't count them among the brethren. Although, if they truly are Christians in time they will not remain in error and will become Reformed. After reading this thread a friend of mine mentioned, "I guess Adrian Rogers is not in heaven either." I digress.

You keep trying to shift the arguement to JWs or Mormons, etc. which doesn't matter. Heresies are addressed in different contexts rather than as a lump sum. If not then why not just right one apologetics book against a particular group and use it for every group? Voila...done! Anyways, this gets us off track.

I don't believe they are ordained, no. This also isn't the main issue though. I suppose it better that I never defend my faith nor share the Gospel either. No more lay-apologetics, etc. 

No, I haven't read Matt's paper on Arminianism. Maybe I will...we'll see. 

Anyways.....I need to go to my office now....later.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> Based on everything you said C&C do not show fruits of being born again at this time so we shouldn't count them among the brethren.



No, I said that IF they are holding to an Arminian premise, then they are yet to be regenerated. Only God knows that. I have never spoken to either of them on the subject.




> Although, if they truly are Christians in time they will not remain in error and will become Reformed.



Correct.



> After reading this thread a friend of mine mentioned, "I guess Adrian Rogers is not in heaven either."



I know nothing of A. Rogers, but as I have said, if he held to an Arminian premise..........It can't be both ways. You see, if it is both ways, none of us would be able to 'judge a tree by it's fruit'. The statement by Christ would be fruitless. We would have to take the premise to it's furthest conclussion which ultimately lead us into universalism.



> You keep trying to shift the arguement to JWs or Mormons, etc. which doesn't matter. Heresies are addressed in different contexts rather than as a lump sum.



Wrong! God does not grade on a curve; error is error. A little cancer is no better than a lot. The JW's are in error and so are the RC's. Arminianism is heresy and it damns no less than what the RC's believe or the JW's. Sort of like Christian does not a Christian make.



> If not then why not just right one apologetics book against a particular group and use it for every group?



Thats been done. Have you read Turretin's book "Justification"?



> I don't believe they are ordained, no. This also isn't the main issue though. I suppose it better that I never defend my faith nor share the Gospel either. No more lay-apologetics, etc.



There is a diffence between giving a reason for the hope that is in you and what they are doing..........ask your pastor. 



> No, I haven't read Matt's paper on Arminianism. Maybe I will...we'll see.
> 
> Anyways.....I need to go to my office now....later.



I suggest you read it.


----------



## ReformedWretch

All this and I miised it! Was it on? How did they do? Anything sad or embarassing?


----------



## Scott Bushey

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/


----------



## ReformedWretch

Found this

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1735434&page=1


----------



## believer

after reading that ................I'm convinced........they're on their way to Hell.....


----------



## ReformedWretch

I don't believe they are going to Hell. I do believe they are in error and stand in danger of judgment if they teach error. For years I taught Arminian error to others with great zeal. I mean no harm at all! In fact I was convinced I was doing God's work. I am now convinced that I actually lead others astray. What I mean to do does nothing to make up for that. I know that no one will go to Hell that God wants to save, but I didn't do what I meant to do.

I actually assured several of their salvation because they said the "sinners prayer".


----------



## Pergamum

What about the Indonesians (or...replace with any newly evangelized people-group) who have never heard of the five points and have barely heard of the name of Christ?

They do not know any of these theological categories. They know that they are sinners and that Christ is the savior. 

Would you deny that they lack a vital Christianity even though they study the Bible free from hundreds of years of scholastic Christianity and an experienced Christian "lingo"? 


They pray, they go out and tell their neighbors, they do works of mercy and charity with only the small light that they possess.


What are you doing with your light?



Would you not desire that Ray Comfort and KC go and help these people...and if not, would you be willing to go instead? 



And why are the Arminians beating many of you precise-dot-your-theologocial-I's-just-right-or-else-I-will-condemn-you Calvinists! 


I believe in the Five Points and the Five Solas without apology. But give me an evangelistic Arminianism over a dead orthodoxy any day! 


Let us bring people to Christ, not necessarily Geneva. A presentation of the Gospel need not be a presentation of TULIP.

The Gospel is, indeed, fairly simple.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Trevor,
I believe you are missing the point. Dead orthodoxy saves; Arminianism damns, period. No one is questioning C&C's eternal position. The issue has been that we the reformed have better alternatives to endorse and suggest.


----------



## Pergamum

DEAD orthodoxy saves?

Christ saves, even through the errors of men. Most Arminians pray for conversion like Calvinists. Lord, please save me. Many trust in Christ in a saving manner. 

EVERY Arminian Christian that I know at least gives lip service to "Grace Alone." They speak of the Lord saving them. Sadly, they are inconsistent. But they are not heretics, but brothers possessing less light.


I see the point you are making: Let us support "our own". Amen to your point, as long as it comes in an irenic package that prays for these brothers instead of counting them as heretics on the same level as Arians.



Let us be happy for God's blessings upon all sorts of Christians who are preaching Christ savingly. 

And by "savingly" I mean that they preach our sin and our need and Christ's mercy received through faith to save us. 

Let us not say, "well...they state that God saves us solely due to grace but let us ask them if regeneration precedes conversion or not to see if their Gospel is really The True Gospel or Not."


I do endorse sound men. Also, however, if a growing believer takes a liking to Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron, I encourage them and point out the good things that they ARE saying. Why pour cold water on their warm zeal? They are learning much and are discovering much and there is room for gentle and gradual correction instead of shooting down every doctrinal deviation that comes down the pike.





I would rather phrase it this way, however, so that I do not appear to condemn the good work that makes up a large part of their ministry. 

Instead of : 

"Thanks be to God for the good that they do do. God bless their efforts and sanctify them further. Thank you for their zeal and use them despite themselves. More fully reveal Yourself to them and give them continued strength.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> DEAD orthodoxy saves?



Trevor, please. You know what I mean! Orthodoxy implies that someone has truth. We are not talking about someone who has _tradition_.



> Christ saves, even through the errors of men.



I've said that a number of times in this thread; have you read that?




> Most Arminians pray for conversion like Calvinists.



I understand; however, they don't hold to Gods sovereignty over the situation as you or I do. Their gospel is synergistic. Men, then God.......



> Many trust in Christ in a saving manner.



This is an assertion you cannot prove, and based upon their theology, that could be challenged.



> EVERY Arminian Christian that I know at least gives lip service to "Grace Alone." They speak of the Lord saving them. Sadly, they are inconsistent. But they are not heretics, but brothers possessing less light.



Trevor,
Was Arminius a Christian or a heretic?




> I see the point you are making: Let us support "our own". Amen to your point, as long as it comes in an irenic package that prays for these brothers instead of counting them as heretics on the same level as Arians.



I don't believe anyone called C&C heretics. We did say though that Arminianism is heresy and those whom die holding to such a notion will perish.




> Let us be happy for God's blessings upon all sorts of Christians who are preaching Christ savingly.



But this is not what the Arminian is doing. The Arminian Christ is a weakling, unable to even hold his people......... 



> And by "savingly" I mean that they preach our sin and our need and Christ's mercy received through faith to save us.



However, the Christ of the Arminian is a synergy that is initiated by men and held together by men. 



> Let us not say, "well...they state that God saves us solely due to grace but let us ask them if regeneration precedes conversion or not to see if their Gospel is really The True Gospel or Not."



Trevor,
You are missing it. 



> I do endorse sound men. Also, however, if a growing believer takes a liking to Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron, I encourage them and point out the good things that they ARE saying.



I can do that with the Church of Christ as well. Or the Mormons (They ride their bikes all over town witnessing). I used to watch Copeland years ago. he has a lot of good things to say. Look at his theology though and you will see hell; in all it;s glory! This is just silliness. I get it, eat the meat and spit out the grissle??? Wrong. Error is viral. I would bypass endorsing them and suggest Owen, calvin, Turretin etc.



> Why pour cold water on their warm zeal? They are learning much and are discovering much and there is room for gentle and gradual correction instead of shooting down every doctrinal deviation that comes down the pike.




You're looking at this in the wrong light. They are wrong, period. If I was left in my error back in high school, I would have never passed math. Would this have been right of the teacher to pass me nonetheless? Or leave me in my error?







> I would rather phrase it this way, however, so that I do not appear to condemn the good work that makes up a large part of their ministry.
> 
> Instead of :
> 
> "Thanks be to God for the good that they do do. God bless their efforts and sanctify them further. Thank you for their zeal and use them despite themselves. More fully reveal Yourself to them and give them continued strength.



I prefer, God, if they are yet unregenerate, by your spirit, regenerate them, give them sight so that they may see the kingdom of God, see your truth, for your glory alone.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> What about the Indonesians (or...replace with any newly evangelized people-group) who have never heard of the five points and have barely heard of the name of Christ?
> 
> They do not know any of these theological categories. They know that they are sinners and that Christ is the savior.
> 
> Would you deny that they lack a vital Christianity even though they study the Bible free from hundreds of years of scholastic Christianity and an experienced Christian "lingo"?
> 
> 
> They pray, they go out and tell their neighbors, they do works of mercy and charity with only the small light that they possess.



Trevor, this is an appeal to pity. Nobody has ever said that one must be a Calvinist to be saved, and zeal counts for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as far a justification is concerned.

This verse suits well for most Arminian "evangelists":

Rom 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God´s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> What are you doing with your light?



Believing it.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Would you not desire that Ray Comfort and KC go and help these people...and if not, would you be willing to go instead?



1. Absolutely not.
2. Willing if God sent me...sure. Is it wrong not to want to be a missionary...absolutely not. 

Eph 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> And why are the Arminians beating many of you precise-dot-your-theologocial-I's-just-right-or-else-I-will-condemn-you Calvinists!



What do you mean "beating me?" They are in no way "beating me." Evangelism is not the "chief end of man", but to glorify God in whatever you do, this is the chief end of man.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> I believe in the Five Points and the Five Solas without apology.



This is commendable, but do you believe the scriptures as they condemn salvation by works as heresy? Do you believe the conclusion Dort came to naming Arminians as heretics? If not...why? Because they "evangelise"?



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> But give me an evangelistic Arminianism over a dead orthodoxy any day!



You can have it! "Dead orthodoxy" is just an abusive ad hominem by the way.

Would you take Mother Theresa over "dead orthodoxy"? How about the even better "evangelists" the Jehovah's Witnesses?



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Let us bring people to Christ, not necessarily Geneva. A presentation of the Gospel need not be a presentation of TULIP.



Nobody in this discussion has sad that.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> The Gospel is, indeed, fairly simple.



True, but it is not the Arminian gospel.


----------



## Pergamum

Well brother.... You appear to slice your pie a little narrower than I do....

I do truly see what you are trying to guard against. There is much truth in what you are saying. I say hooray for your zeal.

But please grant that there are many sincere Arminian Christians who excel us in understanding many other points of doctrine and are far superior in practical holiness than many of us. 

Many Arminains are saved. Most believers do not even know how to define Calvinism versus Arminianism...yet they are believers, and dear ones at that.



I, too, identify myself and label myself very narrowly as to my own beliefs. Yet, I believe in more cooperation for the sake of evangelism, missions and outreach. 

And Ray Comfort appears to get out and about and speak a basic Gospel message to many folks.... more than I suppose most of us here come into contact with (we are too busy bashing him here on the Puritan Board to go out and speak Christ to our neighbors maybe). 

I applaud him for his zeal. I even like basically everything I have heard from him so far? He speaks of sin, rightouesness, God's unwavering standard of holiness, man's depravity and God's solution in the substitutionary atonement of Christ.


Are you comparing Ray Comfort to the Mormons? Sorry, but that seems just a little bit silly, doesn't it? 


I am sure that he has his errors. Here is a summary of Phil Johnson's review of Comfort's site, which I found very balanced and helpful:




"Living Waters
I couldn't quite decide whether to categorize this site under "Helpful" or "Bad Theology," so I put it here in a neutral category.

This is the ministry of Ray Comfort, who has built his entire ministry on the strength of one message, "Hell's Best-Kept Secret." 

The message is indeed superb. 

It demonstrates how God's law is designed to make our sin appear exceedingly sinful (cf. Romans 7:13). Comfort makes excellent use of the Ten Commandments for that purpose. Indeed, the main substance of virtually all Comfort's teaching, and his central message, is all about the importance of preaching the law to sinners. I agree, and Comfort is certainly having an important ministry correcting one of the major imbalances of contemporary Christianity.

What concerns me, however, is that he never seems to get around to preaching the gospel with the same kind of clarity and force. In all Comfort's books, tapes, and other resources, there is scarcely any mention of the doctrine of justification by faith, no thorough explanation of substitutionary atonement, and (in my view) insufficient emphasis on the meaning of the cross. This is surely a glaring deficiency and a major imbalance in a ministry devoted to evangelism."



Phil Johnson both seems to applaud Comfort on his good points and take him to task concerning his bad points. 

I.e. it is a balanced review and not merely a diatribe against the man. Even though Johnson has reservations about Comfort, he does credit him where credit is due. 

I just want to do the same for Comfort (credit him where it is due and critique him where it is due...there is a little of both to be done).



I rub elbows with several Reformed folks that preach to me a Gospel of "not this" or "not this". They are such "Precisionists" that they seem to find the small point of disagreement and make that the pivot point of conversation everytime they meet someone. For the sake of "being zealous for the truth" many unsaved folks get the wrong impression of Christian love and charity from these folks. So much energy is expended bashing others that it sometimes takes effort to actually find out just what they believe. 

I am sure that this does not characterize you, brother, but it is a trap that is easily fallen into?


I, for one, have heard Ray Comfort speak basic Gospel to sinners. He presented their sin to them, God's response and the need for Christ. He stressed the need for faith, but isn't faith needed? He stressed repentance, but isn't repentance needed? 

I have watched his "Way of the Master" tv program many, many times and came away with a generally positive view of him. He did not go deeply into theology, but he presented the basics clearly, accurately (from what I saw) and with a heart for the lost.


Good day Scott, sorry that we disagree on this one....


----------



## tdowns

*Good thoughts.*

I rub elbows with several Reformed folks that preach to me a Gospel of "not this" or "not this". They are such "Precisionists" that they seem to find the small point of disagreement and make that the pivot point of conversation every time they meet someone. For the sake of "being zealous for the truth" many unsaved folks get the wrong impression of Christian love and charity from these folks. So much energy is expended bashing others that it sometimes takes effort to actually find out just what they believe. 


Brother Trevor, I've seen this, and lived this and done this.....it is def. a trap all need to be wary of in my opinion.

Thanks.


----------



## Will

An observation:

Debating who will and who will not be saved seems to occupy a lot of discussion on this board.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Will_
> An observation:
> 
> Debating who will and who will not be saved seems to occupy a lot of discussion on this board.



For the tenth time, I have evaded, for the obvious, judgment at this level. I have however strongly urged that the reformed remain consistant in their theology and stick to suggesting reputable men of God for their examples to the unbeliever or weaker Christian. Error will do nothing more than perpetuate a problem that is so greatly prevalent in our age. 

Will, Your post above is not at all helpful; in fact, as I have emphasized, we are not addressing C&C personally but their theology. Their relationship with Christ is their relationship. Arminism is heresy and those whom hold to it will be damned. Arminianism was rejected at Dordt as heresy; there are many strains of this error today; whether you want to agree with that or not is irrelevent to the fact. 

For the record, it has been said on many occasion that there are individuals being saved (even) in the heretical rank and file. Those individuals abandoning the erred theology for truth and life. Do we openly reject and anathemize those groups that are enemies of Christ? We do! Do we pray for those blinded by the lies that are prevalent in these groups? Absolutely. Are we gracious to these people in person? Absolutely. As groups, we HATE these situations with the same vigor expressed in the book of Psalms:

Psa 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. 

It will be a personal choice on your end to decide whether or not this venue is for you; you may find it edifying. Maybe not. Since you are new here, I gracefully suggest to spend some time here before leveling charges that you cannot defend. If a subject upsets you, i.e. soteriology, covenant theology, baptism issues, you should make it a point to avoid those topics with titles that you find uneasy. There are many other general threads that you can benefit from; things that will indeed benefit your walk with Christ.

Regards,

Scott Bushey/Administrator PB


[Edited on 3-19-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------

