# Practical applications for the Arminian error.



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

I think I have read enough contention on whether or not the Arminian error is damnable heresy or not. The real question that we should be asking ourselves (we as in laymen) is how do we interact with those who hold this error (>90% of Christians probably hold this error to some degree)? I would like to hear from both sides. 

Here is an interested example; I just got back from a "farewell lunch" for someone that had been in the company for over 15 years. In fact, he is an elder at the previous Church I was a member of (dispensational). In my opinion, he is a very Godly man in how he conducts himself at work, his family, etc. I actually look to this man as a good example of a Christian, while I abhor some of what he believes.

At the end of our lunch, which included mostly unbelievers, my friend gave a short Gospel presentation which had alot of metaphors about lifeboats, etc. At the core of the message was that Christ died for those sinners that would rest their trust on Him. While this was the essential message, there was error mixed with truth. He spoke of ability, free-will, and universal atonement. Of course he didn´t directly discuss these things, but they were implied in his theology. Not only that, he is leaving a technical job to go into the ministry (an admin position), so I doubt he is ready to reconsider leaving his theological paradigm.

Shall I go rebuke my friend, and tell him he must repent of his heresy lest he burn in hell fire? I don´t intend to tell him that nor do I tend to offer him any criticism as he already knows what I believe and why I believe it. We just don´t agree on these issues, and we still consider each other brethren. 

If this friend were a Mormon, a Muslim, or even a Catholic, I believe I would tell him that he must convert, but I don´t see how I can tell someone who obviously believes in the cardinal doctrines of the faith, and believes that he is saved by grace through faith alone that he must turn from his evil heresy.

The reason I brought this story out is that our beliefs have very real consequences about how we act around other believers and how unbelievers see us. Also, this is an absolutely true story.

On a side note:
I notice that many of those that would hold to this view that Arminians are damned (true only of course) are post-millennial (I´m not). What are the practical ramifications of that? If that is true, it would seem as if God´s kingdom has shrunk rather than grown.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 13, 2006)

> Shall I go rebuke my friend, and tell him he must repent of his heresy lest he burn in hell fire? I don´t intend to tell him that nor do I tend to offer him any criticism as he already knows what I believe and why I believe it. We just don´t agree on these issues, and we still consider each other brethren.



Well, if you really believe your friend is in error, then of course you should rebuke him. What kind of friend are you anyway that you do not seek to correct him in love? It seems to me that perhaps the problem lies more with you then with your friend. You obviously don´t think his caricature of the gospel is serious enough to risk your friendship over. Also, I don´t think the conversation has to go; "œrepent or burn in hell, by the way I really enjoyed working with you." Should the opportunity present itself by God´s providence and you can talk to him about spiritual matters, then if you two really are brethren you can raise your concerns in a manner that doesn´t have to be akin to a frying pan over they head. 



> If this friend were a Mormon, a Muslim, or even a Catholic, I believe I would tell him that he must convert, but I don´t see how I can tell someone who obviously believes in the cardinal doctrines of the faith, and believes that he is saved by grace through faith alone that he must turn from his evil heresy.



Again, you clearly don´t think the errors of Arminianism are at all serious or that they undermine the "œcardinal doctrines of the faith." I just have wonder if you would be so cavalier with your friend if he was having an affair with his secretary? Maybe you think adultery from his wife is a more serious sin than adultery from the truth? For what it's worth I think Dr. McMahon´s piece, "œThe "œgod" of Arminianism is Not Worshippable" is excellent and something you should consider asking your friend to read. It reminded me of a piece by G. A. Chan (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=124) on the five points which concluded: 




> Are Arminians Christians? Sproul answers, " "˜Yes, barely.´ They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency" (25). Another theologian thinks that Arminians are saved by "blessed inconsistency." But what is to prevent the equally possible, and perhaps more Biblical, conclusion, that Arminians are lost by cursed inconsistency? Did not the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, curse everyone, even an angel, who teaches a false gospel? (See Galatians 1:8, 9.) Arminianism has a false gospel; it is not Christianity; and if a member of an Arminian church makes it to Heaven, he does so despite his church´s teaching, not because of it. There may be some Christians in Arminian churches, just as there may be some Christians in Roman Catholic churches, but they are Christians despite their churches´ teachings.
> 
> "May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father´s right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, bring to the truth those who err, shut the mouths of the calumniators of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful minister of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. Amen." (The Conclusion of the Articles of Dort)




in my opinion if we take the cardinal doctrines of the gospel seriously then we should not let those we consider even our brothers to distort or twist the truth. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Well, if you really believe your friend is in error, then of course you should rebuke him. What kind of friend are you anyway that you do not seek to correct him in love? It seems to me that perhaps the problem lies more with you then with your friend. You obviously don´t think his caricature of the gospel is serious enough to risk your friendship over. Also, I don´t think the conversation has to go; "œrepent or burn in hell, by the way I really enjoyed working with you." Should the opportunity present itself by God´s providence and you can talk to him about spiritual matters, then if you two really are brethren you can raise your concerns in a manner that doesn´t have to be akin to a frying pan over they head.




The repent or burn in hell was hyperbole, but that is essentially the message some would like to convey. Perhaps that is not what you think, but that is really the central question here. Otherwise, you are assuming way too much here. In fact, I have discussed the issues of the doctrines of Grace with my friend very extensively. It was his answers that led me out of that denomination/movement. He knows that I consider his view to be serious error, but he doesn´t agree. The point is, how do I handle this now? He is either to be treated like a Brother or someone on the outside. I believe he is my brother. He is not under any ecclesiastical discipline as he was never in a reformed Church to begin with.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Again, you clearly don´t think the errors of Arminianism are at all serious or that they undermine the "œcardinal doctrines of the faith." I just have wonder if you would be so cavalier with your friend if he was having an affair with his secretary? Maybe you think adultery from his wife is a more serious sin than adultery from the truth? For what it's worth I think Dr. McMahon´s piece, "œThe "œgod" of Arminianism is Not Worshippable" is excellent and something you should consider asking your friend to read. It reminded me of a piece by G. A. Chan (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=124) on the five points which concluded:



Ok, this conversation is done. Your answers were just too silly. Have a nice day. 

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_...
> 
> Ok, this conversation is done. Your answers were just too silly. Have a nice day.
> 
> [Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]



Not sure if you are being serious or not. The wink indicates you are joking, but I don't see the humor. I hope you are kidding just the same.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_...
> ...



I am really done with that conversation. The answers were very silly and don't deserve a reply. There were several accusations directed at me, and I will not engage is such a discussion.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

Brett -

I'd encourage you to praise God that people heard of their need to repent and trust in Christ alone for their salvation, that they will be damned if they don't and given eternal life if they do. 

I'd encourage you to praise God that your friend was bold - and concerned - enough to actually present the Gospel in such a situation. 

As for the error in his message: Remember that no presentation is perfect. Remember that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp. 

If you have the opportunity and an established relationship, I'd encourage you to maybe consider taking him under your wing to explain a more correct theology to him. 

Other than that, I'd let it slide. Just thank God that these people heard of their need and God's provision... it may be the only time they ever hear.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Brett -
> 
> I'd encourage you to praise God that people heard of their need to repent and trust in Christ alone for their salvation, that they will be damned if they don't and given eternal life if they do.
> ...


 
Thank you Ben. I don't know if I would have been able to do what he did in a professional setting. The fact that he testifies of Christ and His work is a strong indicator to me. 

Unfortunatly, he doesn't want to talk about theology. 

Funny, he is very high Church when it comes to the role that Pastors should take in deciding which doctrines are taught.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 13, 2006)

> Ok, this conversation is done. Your answers were just too silly. Have a nice day.



Suit yourself, but why are my answers silly? You said you have no intention of correcting your friend even though you consider him to be in error. How else am I to understand you? It´s clear you don´t think his Arminianism is serious enough, whereas it seems to me the problem is your own Calvinism is the problem. You say you think this man is your brother, but you don´t know that, instead you are willing to sacrifice the purity and truth of the gospel. Maybe this conversion should be done, but not for the reasons you suggest.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > Ok, this conversation is done. Your answers were just too silly. Have a nice day.
> ...



Go back and reread your post. Your answers are silly because they take a real life situation and turn it into mere accusations of my character. Do you think ad-hominem arguments are adequate, especially considering the nature of this post?

I will be glad to interact with you, but first you need to remove your ad-hominem rant. Actually, you have repeated this ad-hominem here.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > Ok, this conversation is done. Your answers were just too silly. Have a nice day.
> ...



I'm sure you are not a perfectionist, since that would be unorthodx and we would have to correct you; but your post has not only an all-or-nothing tone that is out of proportion to what you are responding to in my opinion, but you seem to be speaking to motive which you can't judge. To be blunt, your posts seem uncharitable, and not just in Bret's opinion. Unless the tone changes, I'm not saying anything further to you either. It's been said, if the Spirit doesn't bring you to repent, I certainly can't. My job has been done.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 13, 2006)

> Remember that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp.
> 
> If you have the opportunity and an established relationship, I'd encourage you to maybe consider taking him under your wing to explain a more correct theology to him.
> 
> Other than that, I'd let it slide.



While it´s certainly true that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp, it seems to me the real problem is that many have forgotten, including more than a few pastors, that the truth is not manifold, but one. No wonder so-called Evangelicalism, or, better, what´s left of it, is so flaccid and anemic. But, I guess I´ll let it slide.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > Remember that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp.
> ...



Perhaps that is not what I believe? You haven't bothered to explore that, so you wouldn't know. You just assume I am milquetoast. Like I said, I encourage you to reread what you wrote. It is inherently illogical and not suitable for decent discourse.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 13, 2006)

> Go back and reread your post. Your answers are silly because they take a real life situation and turn it into mere accusations of my character. Do you think ad-hominem arguments are adequate, especially considering the nature of this post?



First, strictly speaking ad-hominem arguments are not necessarily fallacious, whereas abusive ad-hominem ones are. I did not engage in either, but merely shared my own thoughts and observation which is what you requested after all. Yes, I am a bit critical of how you handled the situation, but I´m not saying I might not have handle it the same way. If so, shame on me. My point is that too many professing Calvinists act like Arminians are their retarded little brothers and this is arrogance and pride. Arminianism is a false gospel. It is a system as hostile to the truth as is Romanism and far more insidious.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > Go back and reread your post. Your answers are silly because they take a real life situation and turn it into mere accusations of my character. Do you think ad-hominem arguments are adequate, especially considering the nature of this post?
> ...



Let's see....

I am cavalier and I'm willing to sacrifice the purity of the Gospel?

That isn't ad-hominem, but rather Gospel truth, huh?

I don't think they are my retarded little brothers, that is actually the argument from your side (go read the thread on that article). That is the exact thing I have been arguing against. I kept reading that Arminianism is damnable, but there aren't really any Arminians. The problem is that most don't want to go down the logical conclusions of their theology. The fact that you seem to be willing to do so is at least consistent, but in this case it gives me great concern for the Body.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 13, 2006)

> I am cavalier and I'm willing to sacrifice the purity of the Gospel?
> 
> That isn't ad-hominem, but rather Gospel truth, huh?


 

No, it wasn´t an ad-hominem argument in the slightest. It´s clear you took offense to what I said, but that´s a different issue. As for being cavalier, etc., yes, I think so. You said: 




> If this friend were a Mormon, a Muslim, or even a Catholic, I believe I would tell him that he must convert, but I don´t see how I can tell someone who obviously believes in the cardinal doctrines of the faith, and believes that he is saved by grace through faith alone that he must turn from his evil heresy.



You said this friend of yours "œspoke of ability, free-will, and universal atonement" therefore it doesn´t seem to follow that he believes he is saved by grace through faith alone, certainly not saved by grace alone, yet if he were a Catholic, Mormon or a Muslim you would be right there correcting him telling him he must convert. Yes, to me that seems a bit cavalier. You evidently don´t consider things like ability, free-will, and universal atonement sinful departures from the truth of the gospel message. in my opinion the inclusion of these false doctrines, even by implication, distort the truth and presents another gospel, certainly not the gospel that is found in Scripture, yet such things don´t seem to cause you or Ben any offense at all. That´s fine, I´m quite sure you both are in the majority anyway. Safety in numbers and all that. 




> I don't think they are my retarded little brothers, that is actually the argument from your side (go read the thread on that article). That is the exact thing I have been arguing against. I kept reading that Arminianism is damnable, but there aren't really any Arminians.



Well, from what you described, it sounds to me like your friend fits the bill, but that doesn´t seem to give you any heart-burn. Now, it may be in spite of the nonsense he boldly proclaimed, and in spite of the implications of his belief in his own ability, free will and universalism, he might yet, _ in spite of his Arminianism_, still hold to the truth of justification by mere belief alone in the finished work of Christ alone and be saved. I have no way to tell and it´s certainly not implied by anything you´ve described. However, that is neither my point or my concern. Look, if someone were to get up and describe my wife in ways that were patently inaccurate and untrue, I would have no problem correcting him, but it seems that one can present a distorted picture of Jesus Christ equally as false and we have pastors and fellow pew-ons lining up to applaud such a man for being bold and presenting the gospel. From what you described that was no gospel and perhaps that´s where we differ.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > I am cavalier and I'm willing to sacrifice the purity of the Gospel?
> ...



Am I necessarily cavalier or do I just not subscribe to the same notion of TULIP being the gospel? I don't mind you challenging me, but I don't like accusations.



> > If this friend were a Mormon, a Muslim, or even a Catholic, I believe I would tell him that he must convert, but I don´t see how I can tell someone who obviously believes in the cardinal doctrines of the faith, and believes that he is saved by grace through faith alone that he must turn from his evil heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> You said this friend of yours "œspoke of ability, free-will, and universal atonement" therefore it doesn´t seem to follow that he believes he is saved by grace through faith alone, certainly not saved by grace alone, yet if he were a Catholic, Mormon or a Muslim you would be right there correcting him telling him he must convert. Yes, to me that seems a bit cavalier. You evidently don´t consider things like ability, free-will, and universal atonement sinful departures from the truth of the gospel message. in my opinion the inclusion of these false doctrines, even by implication, distort the truth and presents another gospel, certainly not the gospel that is found in Scripture, yet such things don´t seem to cause you or Ben any offense at all. That´s fine, I´m quite sure you both are in the majority anyway. Safety in numbers and all that.



Do you not think you are being defensive with your safety in numbers jab? You are being extremely hostile towards me without any cause at all.

Regardless, how does the peripheral view of believing in free will or universal atonement detract from the Gospel of Christ and Him crucified? How is preaching Christ crucified a different Gospel? That is what I am unclear on. On the other hand, if you are saying that TULIP is actually the Gospel, I think you may be wrong. Can you show me in scripture where Paul taught that the doctrine of election was the Gospel message?



> > I don't think they are my retarded little brothers, that is actually the argument from your side (go read the thread on that article). That is the exact thing I have been arguing against. I kept reading that Arminianism is damnable, but there aren't really any Arminians.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, from what you described, it sounds to me like your friend fits the bill, but that doesn´t seem to give you any heart-burn. Now, it may be in spite of the nonsense he boldly proclaimed, and in spite of the implications of his belief in his own ability, free will and universalism, he might yet, _ in spite of his Arminianism_, still hold to the truth of justification by mere belief alone in the finished work of Christ alone and be saved. I have no way to tell and it´s certainly not implied by anything you´ve described. However, that is neither my point or my concern. Look, if someone were to get up and describe my wife in ways that were patently inaccurate and untrue, I would have no problem correcting him, but it seems that one can present a distorted picture of Jesus Christ equally as false and we have pastors and fellow pew-ons lining up to applaud such a man for being bold and presenting the gospel. From what you described that was no gospel and perhaps that´s where we differ.



Are you saying that TULIP is a Christological issue? Are you really saying that? If TULIP or the rejection of it is a Christological issue, you need to explain that to me.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

Since magma2 is brand new on this board I'm willing to take what he writes and subtract the way he says it until he has about 1000 posts (I mean, just as a fellow board member). I write strongly myself, and have had to apologise for intemperate rhetoric (not cursing or anything) about four or five times, just to turn the volume down if anything.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

What I mean is many here will admire your zeal, but if a person takes acception to how you've said something there's an art to saying things that doesn't cause needless friction while at the same time doesn't compromise what you mean and intend to say. (I'm not lecturing anybody, just passing on things I've picked up.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2006)

People who think that the "truth is the truth" and never has to be seasoned with grace are either not married or immature or both. When I say immature it is not meant to be pejorative. I mean that with good experience comes wisdom, restraint, and an ability to express oneself and have insight into people's lives. Those who give flippant answers to relationship issues express an immaturity of the faith that they need to work on if they ever aspire to be an Elder in Christ's Church.

OK, to the point at hand...

I would caution you, Brett, in assuming that your Arminian friend has it "together" as much as you suspect. If there is one thing that leadership has taught me over the years is that people can live lives of apparent external happiness or piety while there is a literal disaster area within their spirit and their home. 

You ask about the "practical applications for the Arminian error." One of them is that your friend, who externally seems very pious and happy and devoted, may struggle mightily with doubt. I read a statistic that about 50% of missionaries surveyed for a broadly evangelical ministry were in the mission field out of some sense of guilt. They were desirous to show their worth. I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bath water and, insofar as Christ's name is proclaimed I rejoice, but severe doubt and restlessness is very common among Christians who are in Arminian Churches.

Notice the appetite that they have for talismans or "How to" books. Whether it is WWJD bracelets or _The Prayer of Jabez_, they are always trying to figure out why they aren't being blessed. The Promise Driven Life and 40 Days of Purpose is but the latest method to fill the restlessness of spirit that they feel. Why doesn't Promise Keepers pack stadiums and fill the Mall in D.C. anymore? Because it got tired and people needed something new. People will still be reading the Promise Driven Life in a few years but something else will have taken its place with the same promise of fixing the feeling that most Evangelicals feel today.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not saying it to be smug. I worship among them. I counsel some of them. As a sort of a "magistrate" I have had detailed information into the lives of many of them.

That Christ is proclaimed I always rejoice but that Arminian doctrines mute the message and rob people of the ability to wonder at the Grace of their salvation so that they don't know how to cry: Abba! Father is terrible. That Arminian doctrines have robbed them of the sense of God's majesty and most Churches exchange wonder of a Holy God preached from the Word for gnostic experiences in repetitious and banal "praise songs" is reprehensible. That Arminian doctrines have moved so much preaching into practical advice or piety that they no longer sense a need to Protest Rome makes me weep.

Again, when Christ's name is proclaimed I rejoice, but when the message reveals to me predictable patterns of decay it is lamentable to see.

Personally I say what I can where I can within the bounds of the friendship or relationship. I've told my family that the Church they worship in is a false one (but I think they began to figure that out when I wasn't Roman Catholic anymore). They've heard it and I season certain discussions with good theology and contradict bad stuff politely but, in the end, I'm not going to break contact with them. It's the same thing with former close friends who are in bad Churches. They know where I stand on certain things. I say them politely but it's not my job to damn them.

Work relationships that are merely casual friendships (all my close friendships are in the Church) are a bit different. I season my speech with faith at times but it is not always appropriate, in all circumstances, to offer unsolicited theological critique. In the middle of a staff meeting I can't interrupt the Chaplain and tell her I don't believe the Scriptures allow the ordination of women for instance. I'm also in a position of authority where it is inappropriate to use my influence to require people to listen to me tell them about the Gospel. I don't have any set rules but let Prudence be my guide.

If your friend is truly close then ask him if you could sit down and talk about his faith with him. I think a good point to draw out would be self-doubt as I spoke of above. I'd be surprised if he was not struggling with some secret sin that, combined with his doctrine, would be causing him to wrestle mightily with assurance. He may even be joining the ministry convinced that, if he takes that leap of faith, that it will be the thing he needs to give him purpose and fill that restlessness in his heart. Don't bog him down with issues of election and reprobation. Focus on our utter sinfulness and inability and show him that God saved him in spite of Himself. 

Express to him the wonder of Galatians 3 and 4 that causes Paul to exclaim "Abba! Father!". That's getting good theology in the bloodstream. All the other doctrinal stuff is important but isn't the immediate issue. Minister to the Arminian where they need it - preach Peace to him.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> While it´s certainly true that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp, it seems to me the real problem is that many have forgotten, including more than a few pastors, that the truth is not manifold, but one. No wonder so-called Evangelicalism, or, better, what´s left of it, is so flaccid and anemic. But, I guess I´ll let it slide.



You are right: there is one truth. The one truth of the Gospel is that we are dead in our sins and we must repent and confess faith in Christ alone for our salvation. Apparently, that truth was proclaimed!

Allow me to press you a little: you grant that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp... then how can you deny the validity of the Gospel message preached by those who are not Reformed? 

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> ...yet such things don´t seem to cause you or Ben any offense at all.



I never said that. Just because I am able to look at the larger picture doesn't mean that hearing an evangelical (because it was most likely not a classical Arminian) presentation of the gospel doesn't irk my Reformed understandings.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 13, 2006)

> Do you not think you are being defensive with your safety in numbers jab? You are being extremely hostile towards me without any cause at all.



Jab? It was just a point of fact. in my opinion that your position and Ben´s represent the vast majority of those in most P&R churches which find nothing particularly offensive about the lies offered up in the name of Christ by ersatz-Evangelicals. For what it's worth I tend to think most P&R churches are in large measure Arminian and share a very similar and incoherent view of salvation and the cross work of Christ. 




> Regardless, how does the peripheral view of believing in free will or universal atonement detract from the Gospel of Christ and Him crucified?



The belief in free will implies that salvation is not of the Lord and universal atonement implies that Jesus failed to atone for the sins of those He presumably died for. In both scenarios God´s plan of salvation is portrayed as ineffectual and God impotent and pleading.



> How is preaching Christ crucified a different Gospel?



Well, the Arminian has a different message, doesn't he?  




> On the other hand, if you are saying that TULIP is actually the Gospel, I think you may be wrong.



No kidding. I told you I was in the minority, but in good company I think. 
"Calvinism IS the Gospel, and nothing else." (C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. I: The Early Years)



> Can you show me in scripture where Paul taught that the doctrine of election was the Gospel message?



I don´t recall saying that Paul taught that the doctrine of election is the Gospel message? Care to show me where I said this? Of course election is hardly the peripheral doctrine as you make it out to be. Eph 2:8-10; "œFor by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Seems to me the Arminian gospel gives men plenty to boast in.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 13, 2006)

> You are right: there is one truth. The one truth of the Gospel is that we are dead in our sins and we must repent and confess faith in Christ alone for our salvation. Apparently, that truth was proclaimed!



You didn´t read very closely. Brett said at the core of his friend´s the message was that Christ died for those sinners who would, through their own innate ability and free will, rest their trust on Him. Maybe we just have a different understanding of what it means to be dead in trespass and sin, but being dead in our sins doesn´t seem to be a necessary component of his friend´s gospel. Also, I don´t want to pick on his friend either, I spent many years wandering the wasteland of what passes for Evangelicalism. I guess I was Dr. McMahon´s class three Arminian:



> Thirdly, it may be that you are a staunch Arminian. You are sure Arminius was right. Or maybe you have never even heard of "œArminianism" but your theology is the same as Arminius. Regardless of whether he came up with his theologically deformed ideas, or you came up with those same deformed ideas, they are still heresy and have been condemned by the orthodox church for hundreds of years. Yet, if you took but an hour or two to skim through Arminius´ works, you would find 1) that he probably thought through all this far more intricately than you have, and 2) that your theology is much the same as his and of his Remonstrant disciples. Repentance for you is even harder since you have been serving and worshipping an idol for so long. The longer one remains in idolatry, the harder it is for them to break free from it, especially if their theology is going to have to be relearned and remolded to conform to the Truth of the Word of God. Your whole world will be turned upside down. It is difficult to believe that everything you have believed is really a lie. http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/McMahonArminianGodNotWorshippable.htm



I tell you it was pretty unsettling when, by God´s grace, I finally renounced the lies I had been taught for years and God brought me to my senses only to have a bunch of P&R types basically tell me I had it just about right all along. 




> Allow me to press you a little: you grant that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp... then how can you deny the validity of the Gospel message preached by those who are not Reformed?



I would refer you again to the G. A. Chan quote I posted above.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 13, 2006)

> Seems to me the Arminian gospel gives men plenty to boast in.



*ABSOLUTELY!*

So many accuse reformed believers of arrogance because they claim to be of the "elect" yet it is the Arminian belief (or a shade of it, what ever...) tahat is truely arrogant as I once was. 

I CHOSE Christ!!!!

Now allow me to show you why you must choose Christ!!

Just open your eyes and make the decision that is right in front of you!

Jesus stands with His arms open wide to all of you and all you have to do is allow Him to take hold of you!

Stop saying no to God!



Can you not see the arrogance there? Can you not hear the man centeredness of that belief? Yes, I was ignornace at the time, I did this in total innosence believing I was taking on the great comission. 

Was I saved? I believe I was. Was I following the true gospel..I think it's obvious that I was not. The results of my ministry reflected that I was not as all I saw was seen sewn amongst the thorns. It was frustration over that, that began to open my eyes to the truth.

Now, if one who believes as I did continues along his way never hearing or understanding the DoG, or at the very least total depravity then I believe they are saved. However, I have to honestly doubt where one stands with God when taught and shown the truth of total depravity and our lack of involvemnet in our salvation and not only rejects it, but stands up against and speaks out against it passionately.

How can one insist in the face of bold gospel truth that they had ANYTHING to do with thier salvation? How can they not only not see it, but when shown it, reject it and preach against it as sin?

How can we say these people are "saved" when they attribute their salvation to their ability and action?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> You didn´t read very closely. Brett said at the core of his friend´s the message was that Christ died for those sinners who would, through their own innate ability and free will, rest their trust on Him.



That is _not_ what Brett wrote... Perhaps you need to read more closely. 





[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Magma2_
> ...



You are correct Ben. My friend rightly realized that Christ atoned for those that would trust in Him. Sounds like Gospel to me.




[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura] [/quote]

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by raderag]


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > Do you not think you are being defensive with your safety in numbers jab? You are being extremely hostile towards me without any cause at all.
> ...



So, I am an Arminian?

Brother Sean, you are wrong about me.


> > Regardless, how does the peripheral view of believing in free will or universal atonement detract from the Gospel of Christ and Him crucified?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How so, Sean?



> > On the other hand, if you are saying that TULIP is actually the Gospel, I think you may be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Spurgeon is definitly not scripture (he believed the Baptist trail blood myth), but if you read him in context he is not saying what you are saying. Spurgeon considered Arminians his Brothers.


> > Can you show me in scripture where Paul taught that the doctrine of election was the Gospel message?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



TULIP is essentially about the election. So are you conceding the debate then?

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by raderag]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> So many accuse reformed believers of arrogance because they claim to be of the "elect" yet it is the Arminian belief (or a shade of it, what ever...) that is truely arrogant as I once was.



You find arrogance in any theological tradition. Some of the folks here are among the most arrogant I've ever encountered: at least as venemous towards Arminians as anything I've ever heard from Arminians regarding Calvinists.



> I CHOSE Christ!!!!



We must! You can't be saved without doing so!



> Now allow me to show you why you must choose Christ!!


This sounds like the same concerned attempt to convince that motivated Paul in Acts 28:23!



> Just open your eyes and make the decision that is right in front of you!


 Again, we must make a decision! God doesn't save us against our will!



> Jesus stands with His arms open wide to all of you and all you have to do is allow Him to take hold of you!


Absolutely! just like Jesus longed to save _all_ the "children" of Jerusalem!



> Stop saying no to God!


Amen! Sinners must stop "kicking against the goads!" As Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, they're always resisting the Holy Spirit! They must stop!



> Can you not see the arrogance there? Can you not hear the man centeredness of that belief?



No I don't. There is very little wrong with the propositions themselves. In fact, if an appeal to believe is lacking from a Gospel presentation then _evangelism_ has not occurred. 
What? Do you seriously think that God saves us against our will? This leads to the Arminian claim that God "rapes the will!" These propositions are all true because of what actually happens: God gives us new hearts to believe, but we must engage our wills in response. (In fact, the only evidence that we have been given new hearts is that we choose to respond!)



> Was I saved? I believe I was. Was I following the true gospel..I think it's obvious that I was not.


Then I believe you are misguided. You were believing the true gospel, otherwise you weren't saved. The problem is that you were minimizing God's glory by not fully understanding the the power to believe comes from him. 



> The results of my ministry reflected that I was not as all I saw was seen sewn amongst the thorns. It was frustration over that, that began to open my eyes to the truth.


I'm glad you became convinced of Calvinism, and to that end "whatever" started to convince you is fine... but just because you saw little fruit doesn't disprove the system... heck, most Calvinists see far less evangelistic fruit than Arminians... because we're so busy navel gazing that we fail to actaully preach the gospel to sinners!



> How can we say these people are "saved" when they attribute their salvation to their ability and action?



A word about this: this is not what an Arminian of either the classic or modern evangelical variety would say. This is simply your Reformed interpretation of what they say. If you show me an "Arminian" who stands up and says, "I saved myself!" Then I'll show you someone who has abandoned historic Arminianism or modern evangelicalism. Quit lumping these together!
Despite all our protests about what their logic actually implies, true evangelical Arminians will always say that God saved them not by anything they did. They always give God the credit. They don't see the exercising of faith as being a "work." They see it as being their response to God's gracious offer of salvation, which came first.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 14, 2006)

> A word about this: this is not what an Arminian of either the classic or modern evangelical variety would say.



My point has been it's what I said, and it's what everyone I attended church with still says.

Many here are going on and on about what they believe others feel or believe. I am telling you what I personally believed and what those who still attened the churches I attended still believe. I am not speaking from opinion but experience.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 14, 2006)

> We must! You can't be saved without doing so!



How do we chose Him? Why do we chose Him? Is the answer to that question important? Why or why not?



> This sounds like the same concerned attempt to convince that motivated Paul in Acts 28:23!





Yet see what Paul also said in the same passage!

26"'Go to this people, and say,
You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
27For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.'



> Again, we must make a decision! God doesn't save us against our will!



How do we obtain the desire or will to seek "salvation"? Does it just come to us of our own natural will, or does God "do something"?



> Absolutely! just like Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem!



But what? Human will trumped God's will? He wanted something He couldn't have?



> Amen! Sinners must stop "kicking against the goads!" As Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, they're always resisting the Holy Spirit! They must stop!



Yes Paul "kicked against the goads" but what was it that caused him to stop? Was it not a direct revelation from Christ Himself? Would Paul have willfully stopped his actions and became a Christian?




> What? Do you seriously think that God saves us against our will? This leads to the Arminian claim that God "rapes the will!" These propositions are all true because of what actually happens: God gives us new hearts to believe, but we must engage our wills in response. (In fact, the only evidence that we have been given new hearts is that we choose to respond!)



Who wills them self to be saved?

Who has been given by God a new heart yet still resists Him? You answered that youself! We choose to respond because what God has given us. We did nothing but what we could do! God is the author of the ENTIRE process.



> The problem is that you were minimizing God's glory by not fully understanding the the power to believe comes from him.



I was taking credit for it.



> I'm glad you became convinced of Calvinism, and to that end "whatever" started to convince you is fine... but just because you saw little fruit doesn't disprove the system... heck, most Calvinists see far less evangelistic fruit than Arminians... because we're so busy navel gazing that we fail to actaully preach the gospel to sinners!



I used to see much fruit if you see fruit as I used to see it. I lead many in the "sinners prayer". The Gospel accounts seem to show us that Christ saw little conversions, and on a few ocasions went away kind of sad because of it. I believe your charge against Calvinists is false. We preach the gospel, the TRUE gospel and as such many are turned away like the rich young ruler.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I believe your charge against Calvinists is false. We preach the gospel, the TRUE gospel and as such many are turned away like the rich young ruler.



At this point the empirical evidence is against you. Sure, Calvinists preach the gospel... but not nearly as often as our Arminian brothers. 

Your responses to my other comments demonstrate what Phillip was trying to say: You are going beyond the actual propositions of the gospel and adding certain components of understanding or meaning that must accompany those propositions before you will accept them as true. It seems like a classic display of insecurity: you chafe at the language of "choose Christ" yet that is biblical language! 
The same thing is not found in Scripture: They don't shy away from general proclamations of the gospel focusing on the significance of human volition in turning to Christ. 

Also: if you were trusting in yourself, as you claim, then you were not saved... though I'd be interested to know if this verdict is just your present understanding being imposed on your former understanding, or if you actually used to say, "I saved myself!" And if your church was explicitly trusting in themselves, as you claim, then they are not saved. Was this a hyper Charismatic church or something?

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > This sounds like the same concerned attempt to convince that motivated Paul in Acts 28:23!
> ...




I wanted to respond to this since this is actual Bible. My hope is that you, Adam, will see that you should be a little more careful in your use of Scripture...

Here is the passage beginning at verse 23:
Acts 28:23-28 
23 When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and _trying to convince them_ about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. 24 And _some were convinced by what he said_, but others disbelieved. 25 And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers *through Isaiah the prophet:* 26 "'Go to this people, and say, _You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive._ 27 For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes *they have closed;* lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and _understand with their heart and turn_, *and I would heal them.'* 28 Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; *they will listen."*

Get this? Paul seeks to convince the entire group, some are convinced, others not... Paul quotes Isaiah saying how the people have hardened themselves and how they intentionally do not see or hear... because they do not want to turn and be healed. As a result, God sends the gospel to the gentiles because they will respond.
This passage actually highlights the human element of salvation. This passage is stuffed full of human responsibility for 1) not believing and 2) for believing.

Of course, there is more to biblical soteriology than this passage... but this passage does stress the human element.

Since the Bible is not afraid to emphasize the human, volitional, aspect of salvation... neither am I. 

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> So, I am an Arminian? Brother Sean, you are wrong about me.



How do I know if you´re an Arminian? You and Ben seem very dedicated in defending Arminians and Arminianism.	



> Well, the Arminian has a different message, doesn't he?
> 
> How so, Sean?



You´re kidding, right? I guess not. Maybe this will help, it´s from Boettner´s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:



> Arminianism, "” which holds that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual of mankind, for those who perish no less than for those who are saved: that election is not an eternal and unconditional act of God; that saving grace is offered to every man, which grace he may receive or reject just as he pleases; that man may successfully resist the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit if he chooses to do so; that saving grace is not necessarily permanent, but that those who are loved of God, ransomed by Christ, and born again of the Holy Spirit, may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the contrary) throw away all and perish eternally.





> Spurgeon is definitly not scripture (he believed the Baptist trail blood myth), but if you read him in context he is not saying what you are saying. Spurgeon considered Arminians his Brothers.



I agree there are serious problems in Spurgeon, but it was still a good quote


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 14, 2006)

From my personal experience today's Arminian or Evangelical feels that everyone can choose Christ. They believe that the only thing one must to in order to obtain salvation is believe the biblical testimony and say that out loud.

Yes, I believe what the bible teaches, that Jesus is God, and died for the sins of mankind. Absolutely.

That's it, once you've done this you are on your way to Heaven.

Look, my daughter will say that! She knows the truth and even believes the truth but she refuses place Christ as Lord of her life. She lives as she chooses, and while that doesn't mean she's evil, she certainly does not live for Chirst. She certainly does not desire Him and His ways above all else. I am confident that she is NOT saved.

You are concerned that some of us refuse to use biblical language like "choose Christ", but the problem with that is this, like the term "Christian" it's abused, and abused heavily. To "choose Christ" today means simply to believe in His story. Even Satan believes, and trembles right?

As for what I used to say, I used to say and believe that I chose to be saved and that it was my responsability to see that others chose salvation for themselves as well.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> How do I know if you´re an Arminian? You and Ben seem very dedicated in defending Arminians and Arminianism.



What? I'm only defending Arminians and Arminianism from those who would consign them to hell!


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> Absolutely! just like Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem!



Really? Seems to me that you and Brett´s Arminian friend have a lot in common. You both seem to profess the same impotent Christ. I confess, I can´t seem to find that Christ in Scripture. 


> No I don't. There is very little wrong with the propositions themselves. In fact, if an appeal to believe is lacking from a Gospel presentation then evangelism has not occurred.



Quick question; does Redeemer Church, PCA, have alter calls?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> How do I know if you´re an Arminian? You and Ben seem very dedicated in defending Arminians and Arminianism.



What? I'm only defending Arminians and Arminianism from those who would throw them out of the orthodox camp!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 14, 2006)

Wait...so they are not only NOT going to Hell, but they are also orthodox as well?!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> From my personal experience today's Arminian or Evangelical feels that everyone can choose Christ. They believe that the only thing one must to in order to obtain salvation is believe the biblical testimony and say that out loud.
> 
> Yes, I believe what the bible teaches, that Jesus is God, and died for the sins of mankind. Absolutely.
> ...



I think what you're alluding to here is the doctrine known as "easy believism," and not actual Arminianism. 
"Easy believism" is, I think, even more dangerous than Arminianism because it seeks to give assurance of salvation on the basis of a one-time mental assent to the propositions of the Gospel.
I hope you realize that an Arminian would never say this: Arminians stress the importance of perseverance. 

This is why I really dislike popular evangelical soteriology: it tries keep Arminian notions of salvation except for at the point of assurance.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 14, 2006)

Well, my easy believism friends all claim Arminian ideals as well.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> From my personal experience today's Arminian or Evangelical feels that everyone can choose Christ. They believe that the only thing one must to in order to obtain salvation is believe the biblical testimony and say that out loud.
> 
> Yes, I believe what the bible teaches, that Jesus is God, and died for the sins of mankind. Absolutely.
> ...



I think what you're alluding to here is the doctrine known as "easy believism," and not actual Arminianism. 
"Easy believism" is, I think, even more dangerous than Arminianism because it seeks to give assurance of salvation on the basis of a one-time mental assent to the propositions of the Gospel.
I hope you realize that an Arminian would never say this: Arminians stress the importance of perseverance. 

This is why I really dislike popular evangelical soteriology: it tries to keep Arminian notions of salvation except for at the point of assurance.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> What? I'm only defending Arminians and Arminianism from those who would throw them out of the orthodox camp!



Don´t get me wrong Ben. I can see you share a considerable amount of theological territory with the Arminians you defend. Perhaps Brett can now understand what I meant when I said most P&R churches are in large measure Arminian. You´ve been a great aid to me and hopefully a benefit to Brett. Thank you.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > What? I'm only defending Arminians and Arminianism from those who would throw them out of the orthodox camp!
> ...



Sean, I have been in many R&P churches, and have yet to meet an Arminian or hear a sermon with Arminian leanings.

You do realize that our denom (PCA) allows Arminians membership in the Church?


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > So, I am an Arminian? Brother Sean, you are wrong about me.
> ...



Actually, I believe that I am defending the Gospel. The logic you are using to anathamatzie Arminians from Christianity actually distorts the Gospel. You should know I am not an Arminian by taking my word for one (I believe in the WCF).




> > Well, the Arminian has a different message, doesn't he?
> >
> > How so, Sean?
> 
> ...



Right, they have a serious error on soteriology, but how is that denying the Gospel? You keep providing me quotes from fallible men, and have yet to offer any scripture that demonstrates that ARminians deny the Gospel. What is the Gospel in your view?




> > Spurgeon is definitly not scripture (he believed the Baptist trail blood myth), but if you read him in context he is not saying what you are saying. Spurgeon considered Arminians his Brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there are serious problems in Spurgeon, but it was still a good quote


[/quote]

I like Spurgeon fine, but he didn't believe what you are trying to prove. You need to stop misrepresnting me just because I don't agree with you.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Quick question; does Redeemer Church, PCA, have alter calls?



LOL, I go to a Redeemer Pres also. Anyway, we are about as far from the American evangelical scale as you get. We have liturgical worship, weekly communion, etc. I have never heard of any PCA having an alter call, but I am sure it has happened somewhere.

Once again Sean, you are assumming way too much.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 14, 2006)

A Coletti rule for debate:

When you perceive an jab from your opponent, and you respond (either by crying foul, or by returning the favor) you lose a point.

I know because I get caught doing this often. I read a perceived insult, a negative tone, a jab or a snipe, and I whine about it or return the favor - and lose points. But when I ignore the jab, and carry on as if my opponent post was nothing more than a dry technical argument, then I win points. If I can actually complement my opponent, he will lose some of his sting. But if he get worse, he will be taken less seriously by others too. And half the time is was not a jab anyway and just my reading between the lines, so I will look foolish by complaining about it.

So my suggestion to all you cry-babies, buck up, take it on the chin, smile at your opponent, and carry on as if it were so inconsequential that you did not notice it. 


A related rule for discussion:



Ignore tone if it bothers you. Luther was a jerk. Calvin was too. Some of the best theologians of our past were harsh and offensive. Some of the people you can learn the most from, will use uncompromising terms - take no prisoners - fire and brimstone. God kills people. The damed will suffer eternal punishment. Atheists are morons, Agnostics are fools. If we whine about the tone of a person, then we betray that we are whimpy emasculated American men who have given in to the sensitivity soul searching fuzzy-whuzzy image that liberals have hoisted upon us. Rather, let us gird up our loins and go to battle.



P.S. I need some trumpet blowing smilies.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> Sean, I have been in many R&P churches, and have yet to meet an Arminian or hear a sermon with Arminian leanings.



I get the impression it wouldn´t even raise an eyebrow. Then again perhaps you need to hear Ben´s sermon on Mat. 23:37. 



> You do realize that our denom (PCA) allows Arminians membership in the Church?



No, I didn´t realize that. I thought membership in the PCA was based on a credible profession of faith? When did they amend the BOC? Of course and For what it's worth, I welcome Arminians as well. After all, they need to hear the gospel too.



> LOL, I go to a Redeemer Pres also.



Well look at that! So you do. That explains a lot. 

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > Sean, I have been in many R&P churches, and have yet to meet an Arminian or hear a sermon with Arminian leanings.
> ...



LOL, you are a hoot. I don't approve of Arminianism, and if I heard a PCA pastor preaching what I thougth was free will, I would confront that issue. 



> > You do realize that our denom (PCA) allows Arminians membership in the Church?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn´t realize that. I thought membership in the PCA was based on a credible profession of faith? When did they amend the BOC? Of course and For what it's worth, I welcome Arminians as well. After all, they need to hear the gospel too.



THey have to answer 5 questions, and it has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism. So, it is the PCA you have a problem with. Perhaps you should contact your Presbytery?



> > LOL, I go to a Redeemer Pres also.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 [/quote]

What does that explain? I guess you have me all figured out. What do you suppose my Church is like?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Look, my daughter will say that! She knows the truth and even believes the truth but she refuses place Christ as Lord of her life. She lives as she chooses, and while that doesn't mean she's evil, she certainly does not live for Chirst. She certainly does not desire Him and His ways above all else. I am confident that she is NOT saved.



So is she a child of the devil or an adopted child of God?

My intent is not to cause sorrow with truth, but to point out some inconsistencies that are becoming apparent. Along with Civbert's excellent post, I would say we need to be consistent with our bold approach to scripture. You seem to be confident to "gird up our loins and go to battle" with the Arminian heresy, yet you will say that someone who is not saved is not evil by nature.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Ignore tone if it bothers you. Luther was a jerk. Calvin was too.



Civbert, I appreciate your thoughts here. You are probably right. 

Anyway, you are right about Luther and Calvin, but at least they knew what they were talking about. Also, they tried to at least learn what their opponents believed.


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 14, 2006)

> People who think that the "truth is the truth" and never has to be seasoned with grace are either not married or immature or both. When I say immature it is not meant to be pejorative. I mean that with good experience comes wisdom, restraint, and an ability to express oneself and have insight into people's lives. Those who give flippant answers to relationship issues express an immaturity of the faith that they need to work on if they ever aspire to be an Elder in Christ's Church.
> 
> OK, to the point at hand...
> 
> ...


- SemperFideles

This is one of the best posts I've ever read here. I have nothing to add, just thought it could use an appearance on the second page


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by smhbbag_
> 
> 
> > People who think that the "truth is the truth" and never has to be seasoned with grace are either not married or immature or both. When I say immature it is not meant to be pejorative. I mean that with good experience comes wisdom, restraint, and an ability to express oneself and have insight into people's lives. Those who give flippant answers to relationship issues express an immaturity of the faith that they need to work on if they ever aspire to be an Elder in Christ's Church.
> ...



Looks like you were one post too late.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> People who think that the "truth is the truth" and never has to be seasoned with grace are either not married or immature or both. When I say immature it is not meant to be pejorative. I mean that with good experience comes wisdom, restraint, and an ability to express oneself and have insight into people's lives. Those who give flippant answers to relationship issues express an immaturity of the faith that they need to work on if they ever aspire to be an Elder in Christ's Church.
> 
> OK, to the point at hand...
> ...



I just saw your post Rich. I appreciate your advice, but I don't think you know the situation. I do desire to convert him to my line of thinking, but I will consider him a brother never the less.

Having said that, I think you have him all wrong. He would certainly admit being a sinner in need of God's saving grace. Anyway, the problem with your posts is that you don't have any idea where he is at or who he is.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...





That's not what I said. I wasn't speaking of her "nature" I simply didn't want to imply that she was living some horrid life style that is shameful to me. While she is not a Christian, she lives a moral, decent life. I never want to imply that she is out whoring it up, or hurting others on purpose, etc.

Of course her NATURE is evil.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



Ok, fair enough.

A child of wrath can be someone living some horrid life style that is shameful to you OR they could be someone who actually casts out demons in the name of Jesus.

Either way, those "whoring it up, or hurting others on purpose" and those who appear to be moral but are not indwelt with the Spirit of Christ are both shameful to God.

If you are not careful it can appear that a professing Arminian is more shameful to you than a moral child of wrath. *shrug*

But I understand you now, Adam.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Wait...so they are not only NOT going to Hell, but they are also orthodox as well?!



Sure! Well, maybe my definitions are off, but as I understand it, orthodox is the opposite of heretical. Thus, "orthodox" is the label attached to doctrine that is within the bounds of legitimate Christian belief. By that definition, if something is _un_orthodox, then it is outside the bounds of legitimate Christian belief and is, therefore, heretical.

As you can see, "orthodoxy" is relatively broad. By "orthodox" we don't mean "one who has all their theological ducks in perfect alignment with Reformed theology." Thus, Presbyterians can be orthodox, Lutherans can be orthodox, Anglicans can be orthodox, Dispensationalists can be orthodox, Baptists can be orthodox, Methodists can be orthodox... even Pentecostals and charismatics can be orthodox. 

Of course that doesn't mean that any of these groups necesarily affirm doctrine so as to be able to fellowship with us in regular ecclesiastical relationships, but that doesn't mean we consider them as being other than brothers and sisters in Christ.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Notice that I go to *a* Redeemer Pres, and not the same one Ben goes to. I see in your U2U that you assumed Ben was my interim Pastor. I have never even met Ben as he goes to a PCA in a different State. I was just commenting on the name. YOu could have known from our signatures, but you would rather hastily judge. 

This is demonstrable of your inability to read what someone writes.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > Absolutely! just like Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem!
> ...



Give me a break. You're obviously the type of person who gives Calvinism a bad name. It seems you won't allow a passage to speak for itself. Respond to the text. Jesus is not impotent, but as the God-man he is a good model for the type of brokenness we should have.



> > No I don't. There is very little wrong with the propositions themselves. In fact, if an appeal to believe is lacking from a Gospel presentation then evangelism has not occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question; does Redeemer Church, PCA, have alter calls?



No... and to sort of reiterate the point that I made above about Calvinists and evangelism: I can't recall one evangelistic message being preached at my church since I've been there. Not that the rudimentary points of the gospel have been utterly absent, but I do not recall ever having heard a single sermon whose intent was to present the gospel with the explicit intent of leading them to make a confession of faith. 

The problem with "alter calls" is not one of principle. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with using an "alter call." The problem lies with those who use them so routinely with the result being that they cannot conceive of someone giving an invitation to recieve Christ apart from the use of it.

A quick question for you, magma2 (by the way, your name is aptly suited to you!): When was the last time you shared the gospel with a nonbeliever with the intent of leading that person to faith in Christ? (In case, by some chance you just so happened to do it yesterday...) How often do you actually present the gospel to unbelievers with the intent of leading those persons to faith in Christ?

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



If by orthodox, you mean true believers, I agree. On the other hand, what the ARminians teach is unorthodox according to the Western Church even predating the reformation. I do not think Synergism is orthodox, nor does it lead to orthopraxy.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> If by orthodox, you mean true believers, I agree. On the other hand, what the ARminians teach is unorthodox according to the Western Church even predating the reformation. I do not think Synergism is orthodox, nor does it lead to orthopraxy.



Again, my definition of "orthodox" may be a bit off.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> If by orthodox, you mean true believers, I agree. On the other hand, what the ARminians teach is unorthodox according to the Western Church even predating the reformation. I do not think Synergism is orthodox, nor does it lead to orthopraxy.



Again, my definition of "orthodox" may be a bit off.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Didn't you say that already.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> YOu could have known from our signatures, but you would rather hastily judge.
> 
> 
> 
> This is demonstrable of your inability to read what someone writes.




And this demonstrates you don´t know what a non_sequitur is. While it´s true that when you wrote; "œLOL, I go to a Redeemer Pres also" I wrongly assumed it was Ben´s church since I honestly paid no attention to your affiliation below your name. However, it doesn´t follow from this example that my other remarks and observations concerning other things you have written are therefore invalid. But if it makes you feel better, you got me. 



For what it's worth, it seems clear that you and Ben have a considerable amount in common concerning Arminianism. So let me ask you directly, do you agree with Ben that Arminians are orthodox, that they do a "œbetter job" preaching the gospel than Calvinists, and that Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem (but evidently was impotent and incapable to accomplish what He longed for)?


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, it seems clear that you and Ben have a considerable amount in common concerning Arminianism. So let me ask you directly, do you agree with Ben that Arminians are orthodox, that they do a "œbetter job" preaching the gospel than Calvinists, and that Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem (but evidently was impotent and incapable to accomplish what He longed for)?



Sean, you are welcome to ask me any direct question you like. But, you should stop ascribing views to me when you don't know.

I do not agree that Arminians are orthodox (I said as much in a post above). I am not sure what it means to do a better job preaching the Gospel. Quantitatively, maybe, qualitatively, I doubt it. Sean, as I said before, I think Arminianism is a very serious error and heretical in an ecclesiastical sense, but I don´t think someone believing it is damned by it. Believing Arminianism doesn´t necessarily deny the Gospel facts whereas denying Christ´s divinity does. That is the difference in my view.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> For what it's worth, it seems clear that you and Ben have a considerable amount in common concerning Arminianism. So let me ask you directly, do you agree with Ben that Arminians are orthodox, that they do a "œbetter job" preaching the gospel than Calvinists, and that Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem (but evidently was impotent and incapable to accomplish what He longed for)?



You are truly amazing.  I cite a Bible passage where Jesus says, "How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling," and you accuse me of Arminianism! Wow! I cite the Bible, and in your estimation I'm akin to an Arminian! 

Evangelical Arminians do a "better job" of evangelism only in that they actually do it! If pointing this out and commending evangelicals for actually preaching the gospel, while lamenting that my fellow Calvinists are all too often complacent in their gospel preaching makes me "friendly" to Arminianism in your mind... then so be it.

Evangelical Arminians are "orthodox" in that their views do not fall outside the realm of salvation. They are not heretics and damned simply because they say "Jesus loves you" to everyone and because they actually expect people to choose to repent and call on Jesus when challenged to do so by the evangelist.


It is a sad, sad day when a "Christian" laments the proclamation of the Gospel. You oppose the spreading of the Good News! You resist the building of Christ's Body! 
Are such things truly evidences that one has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and had manifest saving faith?


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> It is a sad, sad day when a "Christian" laments the proclamation of the Gospel. You oppose the spreading of the Good News! You resist the building of Christ's Body!
> Are such things truly evidences that one has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and had manifest saving faith?



Ben, perhaps Sean would be happy if in their altar calls, they asks the sinner to accept John Calvin in their Heart.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> Ben, perhaps Sean would be happy if in their altar calls, they asks the sinner to accept John Calvin in their Heart.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> For what it's worth, it seems clear that you and Ben have a considerable amount in common concerning Arminianism. So let me ask you directly, do you agree with Ben that Arminians are orthodox, that they do a "œbetter job" preaching the gospel than Calvinists, and that Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem (but evidently was impotent and incapable to accomplish what He longed for)?



You are truly amazing.  I cite a Bible passage where Jesus says, "How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling," and you accuse me of Arminianism! Wow! I cite the Bible, and in your estimation I'm akin to an Arminian! 

Evangelical Arminians do a "better job" of evangelism only in that they actually do it! If pointing this out and commending evangelicals for actually preaching the gospel, while lamenting that my fellow Calvinists are all too often complacent in their gospel preaching makes me "friendly" to Arminianism in your mind... then so be it.

Evangelical Arminians are "orthodox" in that their views do not fall outside the realm of salvation. They are not heretics and damned simply because they say "Jesus loves you" to everyone and because they actually expect people to choose to repent and call on Jesus when challenged to do so by the evangelist.


It is a sad, sad day when a "Christian" laments the proclamation of the Gospel. You oppose the spreading of the Good News! You resist the building of Christ's Body! 
Are such things truly evidences that one has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and had manifest saving faith?


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> For what it's worth, it seems clear that you and Ben have a considerable amount in common concerning Arminianism. So let me ask you directly, do you agree with Ben that Arminians are orthodox, that they do a "œbetter job" preaching the gospel than Calvinists, and that Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem (but evidently was impotent and incapable to accomplish what He longed for)?



Sean, I have a question for you? Is it heresy for Calvinists believe that Arminians are brothers? What about believing that Calvinist that believe this are brothers?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 14, 2006)

Why are almost ALL of Ben's post showing up twice????


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Why are almost ALL of Ben's post showing up twice????



Because he really believes it. 

I was wondering the same thing though. Maybe he is exercising his free will.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

I don't know what's going on. My computer is acting very sluggish on this and another site. I apologize!


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 14, 2006)

[MOD ON]

Okay guys this discussion would not be considered in any manner seasoned with "salt and light". This subject obviously hits home for a number of folks on the board. We need to be a bit more considerate of that. This is an open forum for anyone to read and this discussion is starting to dissolve into something that is hardly edifying. If you don't have anything edifying to say then move on. Remember the rules of this board.

[MOD OFF]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> On a side note:
> I notice that many of those that would hold to this view that Arminians are damned (true only of course) are post-millennial (I´m not). What are the practical ramifications of that? If that is true, it would seem as if God´s kingdom has shrunk rather than grown.



Just for the record, I am post-millenial, and I DO believe that many Arminians are Christians. I do not hold to hyper-Calvinism like some people on this board.

At the moment, it looks to me like a lot of Arminians are winning the world to Christ, while many "Reformed" brothers sit around and debate doctrine. (I feel convicted even as I type this paragraph.)

Arminians are confused Christians. They are our brothers and sisters. They need our help and guidance, not our condemnation.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> At the moment, it looks to me like a lot of Arminians are winning the world to Christ, while many "Reformed" brothers sit around and debate doctrine. (I feel convicted even as I type this paragraph.)
> 
> Arminians are confused Christians. They are our brothers and sisters. They need our help and guidance, not our condemnation.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> Give me a break. You're obviously the type of person who gives Calvinism a bad name.



I´m sorry you feel that way, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.



> It seems you won't allow a passage to speak for itself. Respond to the text. Jesus is not impotent, but as the God_man he is a good model for the type of brokenness we should have.



I don´t see how I have failed to let the passage speak for itself and I don´t gather from that lament that Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem. I think it irresponsible to not consider the verse in context. Matthew 23:37 comes at the end of a long passage where Jesus upbraids and excoriates the religious leaders calling them serpents and vipers who will not escape the sentence of hell. The metaphor of the Christ as a hen gathering her chicks is further condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees who instead of proclaiming the truth killed God´s prophets. Ironically, much like the Arminian preachers you praise that I see on TV and hear on the radio almost daily, who make a mockery out of the work of Christ and reduce the truth of the gospel to nothing more than a farce.

I can only guess Calvin too was the type of person who, in your mind, gives Calvinism a bad name, as Reymond Blacketer writes: 

"Calvin's treatment of Matthew 23:37 ("O Jerusalem...how often I have longed to gather your children together.., but you were not willing") employs the decretive_preceptive distinction even more explicitly. Hoekema adduces this passage as further support of the well_meant offer. On this text, however, he does not claim Calvin's support, and for good reason. Calvin warns that ''we must define the will of God now under discussion." The opponents of predestination contend that "nothing agrees less with God's nature than that he should be of a double will." But not only do they fail to see that Christ, speaking on behalf of the Godhead, condescends to the human level by employing an anthropopathic figure of speech, they also fail to recognize that, although God's will is one and simple in himself, our perception of it is manifold. Thus God "strikes dumb our senses until it is given us to recognize how wonderfully he wills what at the moment seems to be against his will." 



> Quick question; does Redeemer Church, PCA, have alter calls?
> No... and to sort of reiterate the point that I made above about Calvinists and evangelism: I can't recall one evangelistic message being preached at my church since I've been there. Not that the rudimentary points of the gospel have been utterly absent, but I do not recall ever having heard a single sermon whose intent was to present the gospel with the explicit intent of leading them to make a confession of faith.



Maybe you´re just in the wrong denomination or perhaps you have a different understanding of exactly what the gospel entails? Along the lines of your rather odd defintion of orthodoxy. So much for ordination vows I suppose.



> The problem with "alter calls" is not one of principle. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with using an "alter call." The problem lies with those who use them so routinely with the result being that they cannot conceive of someone giving an invitation to recieve Christ apart from the use of it.



The problem with alter calls is that they are an addition to Scripture and an implicit denial that the message of the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. What it tells people is that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner takes the first step. But you have no problem with that, in principle of course.



> A quick question for you, magma2 (by the way, your name is aptly suited to you!): When was the last time you shared the gospel with a nonbeliever with the intent of leading that person to faith in Christ? (In case, by some chance you just so happened to do it yesterday...) How often do you actually present the gospel to unbelievers with the intent of leading those persons to faith in Christ?



Last I checked, I´m not a preacher nor have I been so called. However, frequently God in His providence has provided opportunities to share my faith with friends and co-workers. But the better question is, why is this important to you? Do such things count as notches on your belt? Should I stand on the street corner and tell people that Jesus loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives?


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 14, 2006)

The biggest problem for me with consistent Arminians (mainly those from Methodist and Pentecostal churches) that teach someone can be truly saved and then lost is this: What is the object of their faith? Is it in Christ alone, or are they trusting in their own efforts? Usually those in the latter category base their assurance on adherence to man-made rules like dress, abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, etc. Breaking the extra-biblical rules is backsliding in their view. I think there are some having Arminian beliefs that trust in Christ in spite of them, but that there are others that may trust in their own faith, obedience, etc.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 14, 2006)

One more time.
Sean, with all due respect, you are not even treating your fellow Calvinists on this board as brothers, or even as heathens who deserve the respect any human deserves as an image-bearer of God. One might wonder if you respect their Creator. I'm going to extend the judgment of charity and assume that you do respect Him, and the moderators of this board as well, and ask you to argue your point charitably.

You are acting just like the sort of person who makes unbelievers think Calvinists have unresolved anger issues. Who are you really angry at?


----------



## turmeric (Feb 14, 2006)

Oops! The curse of the double-post, sorry!

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> One more time.
> Sean, with all due respect, you are not even treating your fellow Calvinists on this board as brothers, or even as heathens who deserve the respect any human deserves as an image-bearer of God. One might wonder if you respect their Creator. I'm going to extend the judgment of charity and assume that you do respect Him, and the moderators of this board as well, and ask you to argue your point charitably.
> 
> You are acting just like the sort of person who makes unbelievers think Calvinists have unresolved anger issues. Who are you really angry at?



 ... with emphasis on the last sentence.
My biggest mistake was responding to this "Christian." 

He is venemous and meanspirited to all who don't share his hyper-Calvinism. I sure hope no evangelicals read his remarks... or they'll print it out and run around to all their friends saying, "See! Calvinism is dangerous!"


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> One more time.
> Sean, with all due respect, you are not even treating your fellow Calvinists on this board as brothers, or even as heathens who deserve the respect any human deserves as an image-bearer of God. One might wonder if you respect their Creator. I'm going to extend the judgment of charity and assume that you do respect Him, and the moderators of this board as well, and ask you to argue your point charitably.
> 
> You are acting just like the sort of person who makes unbelievers think Calvinists have unresolved anger issues. Who are you really angry at?



 ... with emphasis on the last sentence.
My biggest mistake was responding to this "Christian." 

He is venemous and meanspirited to all who don't share his hyper-Calvinism. I sure hope no evangelicals read his remarks... or they'll print it out and say "See! Calvinism is dangerous!"


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> You are acting just like the sort of person who makes unbelievers think Calvinists have unresolved anger issues. Who are you really angry at?



Hi Meg. For what it's worth I don´t care what unbelievers think of Calvinists or much else for that matter. Seems that if you say Arminianism is heresy and Arminians heretics you mark yourself for derision, ridicule and vitriol. But to answer your question, I´m not angry in the least. 

On a different note, I very much agree with the observations of Chris Poe above. I think he brings out some of the real dangers of the Arminianism praised by a number of folks on this thread, pastors included who ought to know better. Excellent post! 


[Edited on 2-15-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 14, 2006)

> Sean, I have a question for you? Is it heresy for Calvinists believe that Arminians are brothers?



No, I don´t think it is. It is presumptuous and perhaps shows a lack of compassion and concern for the eternal destinies of those who arguably deny the gospel which is by God´s grace alone through mere belief alone. Again, I would recommend the piece by Dr. McMahon; "œThe "œgod" of Arminianism is Not Worshippable." I think his concluding admonitions are very powerful. Also, I recommend the piece I cited early by G. A. Chan on the 5 points. I think it is possible that many are saved by "œblessed inconsistency," but I think Chan makes a very compelling argument that it´s also equally possible, "œand perhaps more Biblical . . . that Arminians are lost by cursed inconsistency." Instead of showing concern, the attitude by many professing Calvinists, even pastors, seems to be, as I´ve said earlier, cavalier indifference. That´s not so much directed at you, but really at those who should know better.



> What about believing that Calvinist that believe this are brothers?



You can´t pick your family  Of course, many beliefs turn out to be false. In this case when most of us will find out, it will be too late.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 14, 2006)

Arminianism is dangerous because it all too often leads to spiritual pride and self appreciation. It all too often results in spiritual pragmatism. It inherently diminishes the glory of God in salvation by its implications.

However, Calvinism can be dangerous when it becomes a tool for nit-picking fellow Christians, or when it results in a spiritual arrogrance that spreads like a cancer until it actually laments the preaching of the gospel.

Rightly appropriated, Calvinism's strength lies in the fact that it provides comfort and assurance to the evangelist because we know that God is in charge of the results. It provides comfort to the Christian because it teaches us that God loves us so much that He did everything it took to effectually "woo" (as Augustine and Edwards said) us to the Cross. Rightly appropriated, Calvinism is not a hammer to beat up other Christians... it is a warm embrace to encourage us when the going gets tough by its teaching that we chose God because He first chose us. 
Wrongly appropriated, Calvinism kills evangelistic efforts. (Just read Magma2's excuses!) Rightly appropriated, Calvinism leads to increased evangelistic outreach because we know that we go with God's promise that His word will not return void!
God's sovereignty is not undermined or usurped by an Arminian presentation of the Gospel: anyone who repents and responds with saving faith has received regeneration to enable and effect such repentance! The fact of this truth remains even if the notion is not understood or even rejected.


----------



## raderag (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > Sean, I have a question for you? Is it heresy for Calvinists believe that Arminians are brothers?
> ...



So, I shouldn't know better. 

This thread is about Dr McMahons article and how to apply it. I wonder if Mathew agrees how you are applying it?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 14, 2006)

How long can one be misguided and confused? How many times may they hear the truth and reject it? How many times can they speak out against the truth while teaching a lie? How many books may they write supporting a false belief? How many people may they assure in their salvation (falsely)?

Seriously...how often may one do these kinds of things and still call themselves "saved"? All of their life?


----------



## turmeric (Feb 15, 2006)

Adam,
Are we talking about the people writing the books, like Dave Hun and Bruce Wilkinson, et al or;
Are we talking about people like the guy who lives at the rescue mission who thinks he has "victory" over alcohol because Jesus wasn't a drunk? He's half-right, you know.
In any case, only God knows. We just keep proclaiming the Gospel, which I think Matt was trying to do, and praying.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I just saw your post Rich. I appreciate your advice, but I don't think you know the situation. I do desire to convert him to my line of thinking, but I will consider him a brother never the less.
> 
> Having said that, I think you have him all wrong. He would certainly admit being a sinner in need of God's saving grace. Anyway, the problem with your posts is that you don't have any idea where he is at or who he is.


Brett,

I hope I didn't give you the impression that you shouldn't consider him a brother by my lengthy post. I affirm repeatedly that I consider all who believe in Christ for salvation are saved. Your question as I read it was this:


> I think I have read enough contention on whether or not the Arminian error is damnable heresy or not. The real question that we should be asking ourselves (we as in laymen) is how do we interact with those who hold this error (>90% of Christians probably hold this error to some degree)? I would like to hear from both sides.
> 
> Here is an interested example;


Notice, the first question you ask is "How do we interact with those who hold to this error?" and then you proceeded to give a specific example.

I tried to paint a very broad brush and not pretend like I knew the friend in question. In that he knows his need for Christ I rejoice. I was only trying to point out that some who say they are sinners and need Christ sometimes struggle with assurance and getting the Gospel in their bloodstream because of their doctrine. I pointed out a few consequences of Arminian doctrine where real brothers are not made un-Brothers by Armininianism but it does affect them.

They were in the end meant to be general observations for a general question with a specific example. Insofar as some or none of the observations apply to your specific friend I wouldn't know and I apologize if you got the impression that I assumed I knew your friend based on the little information received.

I just want to reiterate my point that people's lives are much different than what they appear to be from the outside looking in. I used to confess that I was a sinner and saved by Christ but was plagued with restlessness until I _really_ understood the Gospel. People who knew me back then had no idea what thoughts of doubt plagued me...

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Adam,
> Are we talking about the people writing the books, like Dave Hun and Bruce Wilkinson, et al or;
> Are we talking about people like the guy who lives at the rescue mission who thinks he has "victory" over alcohol because Jesus wasn't a drunk? He's half-right, you know.
> In any case, only God knows. We just keep proclaiming the Gospel, which I think Matt was trying to do, and praying.



More so Hunt and his ilk, but also those who sit under them and also reject anything other than what these men write. I honestly see little difference between them and those in religions we would proudly proclaim as cultic.


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> How long can one be misguided and confused? How many times may they hear the truth and reject it? How many times can they speak out against the truth while teaching a lie? How many books may they write supporting a false belief? How many people may they assure in their salvation (falsely)?
> 
> Seriously...how often may one do these kinds of things and still call themselves "saved"? All of their life?



Sure, many of the ECFs were misguided and confused on these issues and yet were able to give their life for their faith. I would say some reformed are misguided and confused on some issue such as eschatology, but wouldn't say they were damned.


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



I wasn't sure whay you though, but I believe I needed to reiterate that point. 


> > I think I have read enough contention on whether or not the Arminian error is damnable heresy or not. The real question that we should be asking ourselves (we as in laymen) is how do we interact with those who hold this error (>90% of Christians probably hold this error to some degree)? I would like
> > to hear from both sides.
> >
> > Here is an interested example;
> ...


[/quote]

I do appreciate your thoughts, but I think I would have needed to given you more details for you to give advice on the specific situation. As it is, I am not soliciting advice, but giving an example so that others can expound on how they would handle it. I agree that peoples lives can be different than they appear, and I also believe to be a pretty good judge of character. Anyway, it is always possible that it isn't as it appears, but I am assuming not. 

Anyway, I still haven't heard how others interact with ARminains/evangelicals.


----------



## tdowns (Feb 15, 2006)

*Great!*



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


----------



## blhowes (Feb 15, 2006)

To what extent do you guys think we should cut those with Arminian leanings slack (if any), just based on the tendancies many (myself included) of us have of holding onto our own belief system?

Case in point. On this board, those who hold to CT and infant baptism have on multiple occasions had baptistic teachings presented to them, yet they don't accept it. They have a CT mindset and, even if the baptistic teachings are correct, would have a difficult time relinguishing their beliefs and switching camps.

The same is true on the flip side with those who hold to CT teachings trying to convince baptists that CT is correct. Baptists have a baptist mindset and, even if the CT teachings are correct, would have a difficult time relinguishing their beliefs and switching camps.

Some on this board have switched camps one way or the other and some in the past have switched one way, only to switch back after further study. In each case, it wasn't without considerable struggle.

Am I comparing apples and oranges, or shouldn't we cut them some slack as well? Does John 3:7,8 give us any kind of "wiggle room" when it comes to these kinds of things?

Joh 3:7,8 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 

Hopefully not branded 'too Arminian',
Bob


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> To what extent do you guys think we should cut those with Arminian leanings slack (if any), just based on the tendancies many (myself included) of us have of holding onto our own belief system?
> 
> Case in point. On this board, those who hold to CT and infant baptism have on multiple occasions had baptistic teachings presented to them, yet they don't accept it. They have a CT mindset and, even if the baptistic teachings are correct, would have a difficult time relinguishing their beliefs and switching camps.
> ...



Interesting points, but I do see a difference between the two issues as soteriology deals directly with how the Gospel is presented. Reformed Baptist and Reformed agree on the purpose of baptism (more or less), but disagree on the timing and mode. Having said that, credo-baptism is heretical in an ecclessastical sense.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 15, 2006)

In reflecting on all the things that have been posted on the subject of Arminianism, For what it's worth, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of posts are talking at 2 levels; Arminianism as a system of doctrine and the effects of Arminianism on a particular person.

Hopefully we can all agree that Arminianism as a system of what the Bible teaches about salvation is wrong. In fact it is, in and of itself, heretical, ie; outside of orthodoxy. If one is going to condemn Roman Catholicism, one would have to condemn Arminianism, since the major tenants of these two systems are the same, ie; they revolve around works righteousness.

When it comes to the individual sitting in the pews, its a whole different story. The vast majority of RC's sitting in the pews have never read the Catholic Catechism. They don't buy everything the pope says and couldn't explain transubstantiation in a million years. But this also applies to Arminians. As has been noted in a variety of threads, what Jacob Arminius started ain't what we have today in the vast majority of evangelical churches. Those in the pews under true Arminian teachers, probably don't understand the majority of what is being taught! For crying out loud, most folks in Reformed churches don't get all of it either! I know RE's in Presbyterian churches who have never read the Standards!

So Brett, in your situation, I would recommend being patient with your friend. Stand up for what you know as the truth whenever the discussion gets into theology and be ready with Scripture to back up what you say. I think that is all anyone can do.

Well that's my


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> Hopefully we can all agree that Arminianism as a system of what the Bible teaches about salvation is wrong. In fact it is, in and of itself, heretical, ie; outside of orthodoxy. If one is going to condemn Roman Catholicism, one would have to condemn Arminianism, since the major tenants of these two systems are the same, ie; they revolve around works righteousness.



Wayne, I am inclined to disagree with this statement. The most serious problems in the Roman system are its sacradotalism, which is developed from their semi-Pelagian view of Grace. Arminianism has most of this stuff stripped away, so I think we could see Arminianism as an error on a lesser scale than Catholicism and still be consistent.



> When it comes to the individual sitting in the pews, its a whole different story. The vast majority of RC's sitting in the pews have never read the Catholic Catechism. They don't buy everything the pope says and couldn't explain transubstantiation in a million years. But this also applies to Arminians. As has been noted in a variety of threads, what Jacob Arminius started ain't what we have today in the vast majority of evangelical churches. Those in the pews under true Arminian teachers, probably don't understand the majority of what is being taught! For crying out loud, most folks in Reformed churches don't get all of it either! I know RE's in Presbyterian churches who have never read the Standards!



Once again, the difference is that the Catholic Church teaches that one obtains grace through the sacraments, and the ARminian system teaches one objtains grace through faith. While both are incorrect, the Catholic System leads one directly to trust the wrong thing.



> So Brett, in your situation, I would recommend being patient with your friend. Stand up for what you know as the truth whenever the discussion gets into theology and be ready with Scripture to back up what you say. I think that is all anyone can do.
> 
> Well that's my



Thanks, and I agree with you. I am trying to keep the lines open, and even hope get him to read some books. One thing is that our relationship isn't really one of peers as he is older and wiser than I. Today is his last day.



[Edited on 2-15-2006 by raderag]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Magma2_
> ...



I came across this today over at Monergism and thought of all you little rascals:




> Come learn what the great Baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon meant when he said, "œ"¦to deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ."



This was said in promotion of the apologetics DVD set titled, _Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism_.

What were they thinking by writing such an exclusive statement!


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 15, 2006)

Ben writes:


> God's sovereignty is not undermined or usurped by an Arminian presentation of the Gospel: anyone who repents and responds with saving faith has received regeneration to enable and effect such repentance! The fact of this truth remains even if the notion is not understood or even rejected.



The above is so obviously false that it is quite amazing (although not particularly surprising) that it´s coming from a pastor in the PCA. Of course I agree God´s sovereignty is not undermined or usurped by the Arminian gospel. 2Th 2:10,11; "œAnd with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." The Arminian gospel is a false gospel with a false hope and pathetic Christ. It calls men to look to themselves, not to true Christ of Scripture as the source and sustainer of their "œsalvation." It is a completely man centered message and I admit it plays very well for men who want their ears tickled. For the Arminian human volition is sine qua non of salvation. That is not the gospel of Christ.

So it is pure unadulterated presumption that those who respond to the false gospel of the Arminan are repenting and responding with saving faith and have received regeneration. Pastor Ben might be a smart man but he certainly cannot peer into the hearts of men. I will say, Arminians most certainly believe something, but it is not the truth. So which truth remains even if it´s not understood or even rejected? Is salvation now in the PCA predicated on implicit faith? If someone doesn´t understand the truth how can he believe it and if he understands the truth and rejects it how can he be saved? Or, is it true that God can and even does accomplish His purposes even through the preaching of the false gospel of the Arminian? If this is what is meant then I agree, but I disagree that it is always the purpose Pastor Ben supposes. Can someone come to true saving faith IN SPITE of the false preaching of the Arminian? Of course, but that´s certainly not the argument of Pastor Ben and those who so eagerly side with him. The problem is that most people never hear the truth of the Gospel and it seems many never will, at least from some pulpits.

Brett writes


> So, I shouldn't know better.



Of course you should, but you´re not held to the same standard as a TE or an RE.



> This thread is about Dr McMahons article and how to apply it. I wonder if Mathew agrees how you are applying it?



I thought this thread was about the practical applications of the Arminian error? I think the practical application of the Arminian error is that it should make us fear for the souls of our Arminian friends and relatives. However, I can see I´m in the minority. So if this thread is about some article by Dr. McMahon perhaps you should have stated that up front with a link so that we might discuss it. In the meantime, maybe you should change the title of the thread or just start a new one.

Trevor writes:


> So we can approach our Arminian tainted friends with love, with that attitude of seeking to free them, not seeking to damn them. If they are elect, they will come to understanding with patience, if they are not, they will probably solidify their Arminian beliefs.
> 
> We're not going to WIN our Buddhist neighbor to Christ with attacks, but with Truth presented as the Spirit leads and with kindness. Most here seem to understand it's not our job to WIN converts, so we let God do the work, is it not the same with persuading those brethren who may be confused.



Good post Trevor, but I think you miss the point. We don´t have to win our Arminian neighbors to Christ for they already have Christ. There is no need to seek to free them for Pastor Ben assures us that Arminians are free already.


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> Brett writes
> ...



Sean, it was a carryover, and meant to be distinct, yet an extension of the discussion. Regardless, this thread stands on its own as a discussion of practical Arminianism. I would like to restate my thesis that I don't think you are taking away from Dr McMahon's article what he would want you to. Then again I could be wrong...


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Ben writes:
> 
> 
> ...




Sean, so you are saying that Arminianism has a different Christological foundation than that Calvinism, and that the real Gospel is not contained in their system? Is that about right?

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by raderag]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 15, 2006)

First of all, here is yet more proof that Magma2 isn't really interested in reading the posts of those who disagree with him: he keeps referring to me as "Pastor." My signature line clearly says "pastoral intern."

Second, the molten man seems to equate _acknowledging_ God's sovereignty with God actually being sovereign! He's more Arminian than the Arminians, he's almost a process theologian! Apparently, his God is only sovereign if we say he is! No wonder he's so angry: He wants God to be sovereign, and he believes that the fact of God's sovereignty is threatened when it isn't acknowledged or even denied! 

Third, My post was an attempt to reiterate the point that though those dear Christian brothers and sisters of non-Reformed belief err by not acknowledging God's sovereignty in salvation (though it should be pointed out that these brothers will protest this because they say they do believe in God's sovereignty), their lack of acknowledgment does not actually take away God's sovereignty: As a Calvinist I know, and am comforted, knowing that when a sinner is converted under the preaching of a non-Reformed evangelist it was because God the Holy Spirit regenerated that person and drew him/her to Christ... even if that person isn't aware of this truth.

I say again:

Arminianism is dangerous because it all too often leads to spiritual pride and self appreciation. It all too often results in spiritual pragmatism. It inherently diminishes the glory of God in salvation by its implications.

However, Calvinism can be dangerous when it becomes a tool for nit-picking fellow Christians, or when it results in a spiritual arrogrance that spreads like a cancer until it actually laments the preaching of the gospel.

Rightly appropriated, Calvinism's strength lies in the fact that it provides comfort and assurance to the evangelist because we know that God is in charge of the results. It provides comfort to the Christian because it teaches us that God loves us so much that He did everything it took to effectually "woo" (as Augustine and Edwards said) us to the Cross. Rightly appropriated, Calvinism is not a hammer to beat up other Christians... it is a warm embrace to encourage us when the going gets tough by its teaching that we chose God because He first chose us. 
Wrongly appropriated, Calvinism kills evangelistic efforts. (Just read Magma2's excuses!) Rightly appropriated, Calvinism leads to increased evangelistic outreach because we know that we go with God's promise that His word will not return void!
God's sovereignty is not undermined or usurped by an Arminian presentation of the Gospel: anyone who repents and responds with saving faith has received regeneration to enable and effect such repentance! The fact of this truth remains even if the notion is not understood or even rejected. 


[Edited on 2-15-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 15, 2006)

The following is an extract from Dr Lloyd-Jones's booklet, *What is an Evangelical?* published by _Banner of Truth_. It can also be found in *Knowing the Times*, also published by BoT.

*These are some of the reasons for drawing a distinction between essentials and non-essentials. Let me mention a few things, therefore, which I put into the category of non-essentials. 
One is the belief in election and predestination. Now I am a Calvinist; I believe in election and predestination; but I would not dream of putting it under the heading of essential. I put it under the heading of nonessential. Mark you, I would condemn Pelagianism; I would say that Pelagianism is a denial of the truth of the Scripture with regard to salvation - that goes out. But I am thinking of Arminianism in its various forms, and therefore I do not put this into the category of essential. I do not for the reason that this, for me, is a matter of understanding. You are not saved by your precise understanding of how this great salvation comes to you. What you must be clear about is that you are lost and damned, hopeless and helpless, and that nothing can save you but the grace of God in Jesus Christ and only Him crucified, bearing the punishment of your sins, dying, rising again, ascending, sending the Spirit, regeneration. Those are the essentials. 

Now when you come to ask me, How exactly do I come to a belief in this? I say that that is a matter of the understanding of the mechanism of salvation, not of the way of salvation. And here, while I myself hold 
very definite and strong views on the subject, I will not separate from a man who cannot accept and believe the doctrines of election and predestination, and is Arminian, as long as he tells me that we are all saved by grace, and as long as the Calvinist agrees, as he must, that God calls all men everywhere to repentance. As long as both are prepared to agree about these things I say we must not break fellowship. So I put election into the category of non-essentials. 
Another matter I would put into the same category is the age and the mode of baptism: the age of the candidate, and the mode of administering the rite of baptism.......'*

It may be worth adding that for a few years after 1938, Lloyd-Jones shared the pastorate of Westminster Chapel with Dr Campbell Morgan, who was Arminian. This joint ministry seems to have blessed those who heard it and not to have caused confusion to them. See D.M.Ll-J's biography by Iain Murray.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> The following is an extract from Dr Lloyd-Jones's booklet, *What is an Evangelical?* published by _Banner of Truth_. It can also be found in *Knowing the Times*, also published by BoT.
> 
> *These are some of the reasons for drawing a distinction between essentials and non-essentials. Let me mention a few things, therefore, which I put into the category of non-essentials.
> ...



Thanks for posting this Martin. It was very well said.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I do appreciate your thoughts, but I think I would have needed to given you more details for you to give advice on the specific situation. As it is, I am not soliciting advice, but giving an example so that others can expound on how they would handle it. I agree that peoples lives can be different than they appear, and I also believe to be a pretty good judge of character. Anyway, it is always possible that it isn't as it appears, but I am assuming not.
> 
> Anyway, I still haven't heard how others interact with ARminains/evangelicals.


Brett,

OK so it wasn't advice but my expounding on how I would handle it...  

I made a suggestion that was reflective of how I would approach a friend. I also gave at least 4 different examples of acquaintances/co-workers/friends/church members and how I interact differently with all of them. I even qualified that, _if_ I was close to your friend then I'd sit down with him and talk out some of those things.

If the generalized observations I made don't help then that's OK. My post was nothing more than my observations about the practical applications of the Arminain error (which you asked about) as well as how I interact with them. I neither criticized your handling of the situation, your observations, nor your question.

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## raderag (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



No problem. I didn't think you were being critical. I just wanted to talk about this in a more abstract way.

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 16, 2006)

Some might recall that recently in defense of Arminian orthodoxy, Intern Pastor Ben made an implied reference to Mat. 23:37 & Luke 13:34 by claiming along with those he defends that "œJesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem!" Well, while going through some of my files looking for something else entirely, I came across this from Augustine which some might find helpful: 



> When our lord complains that though he wished to gather the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but she would not, are we to consider that the will of God was overpowered by a number of weak men, so that He who was Almighty God could not do what He wished or willed to do? If so, what is to become of that omnipotence by which He did whatsoever pleased Him in Heaven and in earth? Moreover, who will be found so unreasonable as to say that God cannot convert the evil wills of men, which He pleases, when He pleases, and as He pleases, to good? Now, when He does this, He does this in mercy; and when He doeth it not, in judgment He doeth it not.




I also came across this from John Owen:



> The second end at which the new doctrine of the Arminians aimeth is, to clear human nature from the heavy imputation of being sinful, corrupted, wise to do evil but unable to do good; and so to vindicate unto themselves a power and ability of doing all that good which God can justly require to be done by them in the state wherein they are,--of making themselves differ from others who will not make so good use of the endowments of their natures; that so the first and chiefest part in the work of their salvation may be ascribed unto themselves;--a proud Luciferian endeavour! To this end,--
> 
> First, They deny that doctrine of predestination whereby God is affirmed to have chosen certain men before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy, and obtain everlasting life by the merit of Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace,--any such predestination which may be the fountain and cause of grace or glory, determining the persons, according to God's good pleasure, on whom they shall be bestowed: for this doctrine would make the special grace of God to be the sole cause of all the good that is in the elect more than [in] the reprobates; would make faith the work and gift of God, with divers other things, which would show their idol to be nothing, of no value. Wherefore, what a corrupt heresy they have substituted into the place hereof see chapter the sixth.
> 
> ...


----------



## CDM (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> A Coletti rule for debate:
> 
> When you perceive an jab from your opponent, and you respond (either by crying foul, or by returning the favor) you lose a point.
> ...








(I need a "Hit the nail on the head" emoticon)


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Some might recall that recently in defense of Arminian orthodoxy, Intern Pastor Ben made an implied reference to Mat. 23:37 & Luke 13:34 by claiming along with those he defends that "œJesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem!"




Basically, what you mean is that the passage doesn't mean what it seems to mean at face value...
I bet you also think Jesus was a liar when he said that he didn't know the time of the end.

Even Gill acknowledges the reality of what Matt 23:37 is saying, though he says that Jesus is speaking from his human nature and not his divine nature...
I find the words of Ryle to be most helpful:



> We learn, in the last place, from these verses, that those who are lost forever, are lost through their own fault.
> 
> The words of our Lord Jesus Christ are very remarkable. He says, "I would have gathered your children together--and YOU would not."
> 
> ...




What I gather from your insistence on pressing this point from my original reference, is that you're _so_ anti-Gospel that you chafe at the very notion of the offer of salvation being extended to all. In my original reference to the passage I was pointing out that it is okay for us to make general proclamations of Jesus' willingness to save those who repent by pointing to a passage in which he actually makes reference to this willingness. 

For the third time:
Arminianism is dangerous because it all too often leads to spiritual pride and self appreciation. It all too often results in spiritual pragmatism. It inherently diminishes the glory of God in salvation by its implications.

However, Calvinism can be dangerous when it becomes a tool for nit-picking fellow Christians, or when it results in a spiritual arrogrance that spreads like a cancer until it actually laments the preaching of the gospel.

Rightly appropriated, Calvinism's strength lies in the fact that it provides comfort and assurance to the evangelist because we know that God is in charge of the results. It provides comfort to the Christian because it teaches us that God loves us so much that He did everything it took to effectually "woo" (as Augustine and Edwards said) us to the Cross. Rightly appropriated, Calvinism is not a hammer to beat up other Christians... it is a warm embrace to encourage us when the going gets tough by its teaching that we chose God because He first chose us. 
Wrongly appropriated, Calvinism kills evangelistic efforts. (Just read Magma2's excuses for his lack of evangelism!) Rightly appropriated, Calvinism leads to increased evangelistic outreach because we know that we go with God's promise that His word will not return void!
God's sovereignty is not undermined or usurped by an Arminian presentation of the Gospel: anyone who repents and responds with saving faith has received regeneration to enable and effect such repentance! The fact of this truth remains even if the notion is not understood or even rejected. 



[Edited on 2-16-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 16, 2006)

> What I gather from your insistence on pressing this point from my original reference, is that you're so anti-Gospel that you chafe at the very notion of the offer of salvation being extended to all.



If by Gospel you mean the anti-gospel of the Arminian which you unequivocally defend and endorse, then, yes, I am opposed to the false gospel of the Arminian. Further, if by offer you mean as it is derived from the Latin as "œto present for acceptance or rejection" then, of course, I neither chafe nor object in the slightest to the promiscuous and universal proclamation of the Gospel. OTOH, if you mean as the Arminians you so ably defend that Christ´s blood is ineffectual in procuring the desired result for all whom it was split, then I reject such notions as an affront to the finished work of Christ on the cross.

[snip your repetitive cut and past of something neither profound, helpful or particularly insightful]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> [snip your repetitive cut and past of something neither profound, helpful or particularly insightful]



Well... if you followed your own advice you'd have to just erase all your posts, now wouldn't you?  

Actually, my repetitive posting of those helpful words is to show a watching non-Reformed Christian world that Calvinism is a good thing, and not something opposed to the free and universal proclamation of God's forgiveness offered in the gospel... Such a reminder is not for you, because you are beyond convincing. It is for those who have not made up their minds about Calvinism.


The bottom line is that evangelical Arminians preach THE Gospel. They proclaim that all are dead in their sins and that God has made a way. They proclaim that faith in Jesus Christ is the only basis for salvation. The proclaim the necessity of holiness as bearing evidence to the reality of one's profession...
In short, they proclaim everything that is needed.

Now, why don't you quit trying to oppose the Gospel and actually join in the work of spreading it? Go out and share the Gospel with someone! 
Oh... I almsot forgot... that's not "your calling." 

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## raderag (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> For the third time:
> Arminianism is dangerous because it all too often leads to spiritual pride and self appreciation. It all too often results in spiritual pragmatism. It inherently diminishes the glory of God in salvation by its implications.
> 
> However, Calvinism can be dangerous when it becomes a tool for nit-picking fellow Christians, or when it results in a spiritual arrogrance that spreads like a cancer until it actually laments the preaching of the gospel.



Ben, you might want to reconsider this line of thought as it is straight from the pages of post-modernity. I agree that Calvinism can be misapplied, but if in fact it is the truth it isn't really dangerous. The real problem with Calvinism is the world view from which it is seen. If one sees it from modernity or post-modernity, there are big problems.


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 16, 2006)

I'm sorry if this seems like Kindergarten stuff, but I think it needs saying.

John 6:37. *'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me, I will not turn away.' *

The first part of that statement is pure Particular Redemption. The Father has given a people to the Son, the Son will redeem them with His bood upon the cross, and they will come to Him, by the Spirit's power, for salvation.

But the second part tells us that Christ will receive all those who come to Him without exception. *'Whoever calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved'* (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13 ). If people will not come, it is not God's fault but theirs (John 3:19 ).

We must hold firmly to both parts of this verse if we are to have a rounded theology. Read Spurgeon. His sermons are the perfect illustration of this.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I agree that Calvinism can be misapplied, but if in fact it is the truth it isn't really dangerous. The real problem with Calvinism is the world view from which it is seen. If one sees it from modernity or post-modernity, there are big problems.



True... I guess I was pointing to the misapplication of Calvinism that non-Calvinists would see as a _systemic_ problem with Calvinism. I also chose those words because some people believe they are holding to "true" Calvinism when, I think you and I would agree, they are actually holding to a flawed understanding and application of true Calvinism. 
But your point is well taken: Calvinism is true and as such is not in any way dangerous... it is only poorly construed understandings (caricatures) of Calvinism and/or misapplications of Calvinism that are dangerous.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I'm sorry if this seems like Kindergarten stuff, but I think it needs saying.
> 
> John 6:37. *'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me, I will not turn away.' *
> ...



Absolutely!


----------



## CDM (Feb 16, 2006)

> Actually, my repetitive posting of those helpful words is to show a watching non-Reformed Christian world that Calvinism is a good thing, and not something opposed to the free and universal proclamation of God's forgiveness offered in the gospel... Such a reminder is not for you, because you are beyond convincing. It is for those who have not made up their minds about Calvinism.



Free and universal proclamation of God's forgiveness? Do you mean universal atonement like the 3-4 point Arminians do? 



> The bottom line is that evangelical Arminians preach THE Gospel. They proclaim that all are dead in their sins and that God has made a way. They proclaim that faith in Jesus Christ is the only basis for salvation. The proclaim the necessity of holiness as bearing evidence to the reality of one's profession...
> In short, they proclaim everything that is needed.



I think we should be clear here. I apologize if this has already been addressed. A 5 point "real" Arminian is in no way preaching THE gospel. Now, you may be talking about the average arminian/evangelical type you find in conservative baptistic churches.

Maybe the Arminian churches you've known. The one I attended taught:

-We are not dead is sin; we are just sick like a cancer patient from sin
-God loves everyone equally
-He predestines a plan not a people
-Heathen that haven't heard the gospel can be saved (through "light" that as given to them and how they respond to it)
-
-
-



> John 6:37. 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me, I will not turn away.'
> 
> The first part of that statement is pure Particular Redemption. The Father has given a people to the Son, the Son will redeem them with His bood upon the cross, and they will come to Him, by the Spirit's power, for salvation.
> 
> ...



The "one who comes to me" are the ones the Father has given to the Son, right? These "ones" are one group of people, correct? They're not a separate category of people. 

Are you saying there are the ones the Father has given the Son and then there are others the Father has NOT given the Son that will come to Christ?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Free and universal proclamation of God's forgiveness? Do you mean universal atonement like the 3-4 point Arminians do?



I mean proclaiming to all people, without exception, God's forgiveness offered in the Gospel to be received by faith and repentance. 



> I think we should be clear here. I apologize if this has already been addressed. A 5 point "real" Arminian is in no way preaching THE gospel.



I am in the middle of writing a piece regarding why Classic Arminianism is NOT heresy. The jist of the point I attempt to make is that the reason Arminianism is NOT heresy is because Classic Arminianism stays within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy by means of necessary systemic contradiction. (Though they would say "tension.") My point is that even a "consistent 5-point Arminian" is not _really_ a *consistent* 5-point Arminian, because in order to be truly consistent they must actually _depart_ Classical Arminianism in favor of either Pelagianism, Open Theism, or universalism. 

In other words, there is no such thing as a truly consistent Arminian, because to be an Arminian is to necessarily hold theological contradictions and dichotomies. To be a consistent "Arminian" one must actually stop being an Arminian and become something else, like I mention above.

Thus, Arminians become heretical at precisely the point at which they stop holding the necessary and implicit (and to be honest: often explicit!) contradictions within Arminianism and instead opt for consistency in one of the forms mentioned above. In short: Arminians become heretics when they stop being Arminians and actually become theologically consistent with their total theology. 

However, as long as they retain the theological contradictions/tensions necessary for them to remain in the Arminian camp, they are a part of the true Body of Christ... thus, their Gospel presentation, though flawed, is still true Gospel.



[Edited on 2-16-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 16, 2006)

Chris asked:-


> The "one who comes to me" are the ones the Father has given to the Son, right? These "ones" are one group of people, correct? They're not a separate category of people.
> 
> Are you saying there are the ones the Father has given the Son and then there are others the Father has NOT given the Son that will come to Christ?


Chris, don't filter the word through your own preconceptions. You sound as if you're worried that one of the non-elect is going to sneak into heaven while God's not looking! Whoever will may enter! Preach this great truth for all you're worth! But do it knowing that whoever does enter will find that God has loved him from the foundation of the world, and has been drawing him to Himself (Jer 31:3 ). Listen to Spurgeon.

*'Sinners, let me address you with words of life; Jesus wants nothing from you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless,just as you are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good leelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out"' *(MTP. Vol 9, pp.537-8 ). 

*"'Him that cometh to me:" '" the man may have been guilty of an atrocious sin, too black for mention; but if he comes to Christ he shall not be cast out. He may have made himself as black as night - as black as hell ... I cannot tell what kind of persons may have come into this Hall to-night; but if burglars, murderers, and dynamite-men were here, I would still bid them come to Christ, for he will not cast them out. No limit is set to the extent of sin: any "him" in all the world -- any blaspheming, devilish "him" that comes to Christ shall be welcomed. I use strong words that I may open the gate of mercy. Any "him" that comes to Christ - though he come from slum or taproom, betting ring or gambling-hell, prison or brothel- Jesus will in no wise cast out.' * (MTP. Vol 30, pp. 54-5 ). 

Oh for preaching like that today!

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Chris asked:-
> 
> 
> ...


 

Well said Martin. Let it be said that I do agree with you on the most important things. We share Christ Brother. 

In Christ's Love,

Rich


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 16, 2006)




----------



## CDM (Feb 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Chris asked:-
> 
> 
> ...



How am I filtering the word through my own preconceptions? How do I err when I was asking you questions in light of the Doctrines of Grace? 

With your Spurgeon citation, you are talking about _how_ to preach (of which I agree) I was seeking clarification of what you wrote earlier. You cleared it up, thanks. BTW, God willing, this is _exactly_ how I will preach. Yes, of course, "Whoever will may enter!" 

My general point was, no one comes to the Son that the Father hasn't given the Son from the foundation of the world. I know, this is very basic Calvinism and maybe that's why you misunderstood my questions. In retrospect, my questions are suited for a confused Calvinist, not you. 

"You sound as if you're worried that one of the non-elect is going to sneak into heaven while God's not looking!" 

No, I'm not worried about that happening at all. Because it is I M P O S S I B L E. The ones willing are the same as the ones that WILL come to the Son. Why? Those are the ones that the Father has given him.

We all agree on these truths so I'll just end it here.


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 17, 2006)

Hi Chris,
I'm sorry if I came across a bit sarcastic in my last post.
You and I are clearly on the same page here. That's great!

God bless,

Martin


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 18, 2006)

I have met some Arminians who believe that the penalty of sin can be paid for twice. They believe that those who reject Jesus will pay the penalty of sin even though Jesus actually paid it for them. Their view of Christ's atonement leads to the conclusion that God's justice is violated and that man has something to contribute to his salvation. They still insist that man contributes nothing to his salvation and that Christ alone saves sinners. They do not see the inconsistency in their beliefs.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 18, 2006)

I've backed out of this for a while but I have one more thing to contribute.

Look, there are so many here far more educated than me, and we don't want to insinuate (especially me) that one has to have a certain level of "knowledge" in order to be saved. But...it seems to me that the biggest problem with most Arminians today is that they lack education in the word of God. They think they know and understand it, but they don't. I know because that was me for many years.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I've backed out of this for a while but I have one more thing to contribute.
> 
> Look, there are so many here far more educated than me, and we don't want to insinuate (especially me) that one has to have a certain level of "knowledge" in order to be saved. But...it seems to me that the biggest problem with most Arminians today is that they lack education in the word of God. They think they know and understand it, but they don't. I know because that was me for many years.


I agree.

I think the "Arminian problem", in my feeble mind, boils down to this:

1. Is one worried about their lack of knowledge because one is concerned about the damage it is doing to sheep? Is the concern out of love? Are you grieved for the sake of emaciated sheep that need food and it tears you up that shepherds are starving them?

OR

2. Is one unable to stomach the fact that there are those who call themselves Christians that don't have their theology straight? Who do they think they are not understanding full-orbed Reformed, paedobaptist, infralapsarian, Van-Tillian, Puritan, and Presbyterian THEOLOGY! May they burn in the acid of their ulcerated stomach acid!!

Sorry, just being a bit hyperbolic.

It's not that error isn't error and that error isn't harmful. I think what Ben (and others) have been concerned about is not calling sheep by the name of goats. Let's think of them as sheep and then think loving thoughts of concern for them.

For the record, Adam, I think you have the right heart. Insofar as others demonstrate a lack of charity, God judges the heart and not I. I do believe, however, that some ought to take stock of where their concern lies.


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 20, 2006)

> Look, there are so many here far more educated than me, and we don't want to insinuate (especially me) that one has to have a certain level of "knowledge" in order to be saved. But...it seems to me that the biggest problem with most Arminians today is that they lack education in the word of God. They think they know and understand it, but they don't. I know because that was me for many years.



I agree and am reminded of Hosea 4:6,7; "œMy people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame."

I think the real shame is that we have pastors who in their ordination vows swear that they "œsincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture," yet they expend their efforts defending a system of doctrine completely antithetical and hostile to the one they vowed to uphold. Which reminds me of another passage:

2 Tim 4:3,4; "œ For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths."

I notice on your avatar that it says "œdon´t lie to kids." I think that has some application here too. Arminianism is a lie. Your observations are spot on Adam and it doesn´t take a ThD in theology to identify rank hypocrisy when it´s right under your nose. Good post :bigsmile:


----------



## Saved sheep (Feb 20, 2006)

On Arminians:

Gal. 1, 6-9

Two groups are adressed here: them that are teached arminianism and them that are teaching that heresy. This is crucial; for the first is hope, for the others is no hope.

Why?

If you ever REALLY INSISTED by Scripture and by reasonable, logical arguments based on Scripture concerning TOTAL depravity and unconditional election, then you know that only three things can happen:

1. After teaching, rebuking, withstanding two, maybe three times the arminian suspect sees his error and admits it (and hopefully repents).
2. After issuing most of the well-known humanistic-arminianistic arguments based on twisted verses (if at all based on Scripture) the suspect will become long wolf-teeth. In effect, he is resisting the Holy Spirit (in refusing the clear Word of Scripture)
3. Ignorance, which is in fact the same as in the second case. Here, his spiritually deadness is just more obvious. He does not receive the truth, too.

The pupils may err and repent after hearing the truth. The teachers are damned.

Romans 16, 17 (This is not an "žoption"œ, do it!)
Romans 16, 18 (the ever-smiling and most-pious arminian. Do you recognize him?)
1. Timotheus 6, 3-5 (Leave the false teachers)
2. Timotheus 3, 1-7 (Not only arminians)
Titus 3, 10-11 (ThatÂ´s why there is hope for the pupils till rebuked two times)
1. Peter 2, 7-8 (They think their decision is their rock. They are predestinated so.)

This is what Scripture says. There is no room for "žprivat interpretations"œ about false brethren called arminians. Some may say: "žoh, but ARMINIANS are not mentioned."œ If this is the case, then please let me know what groups can be meant.

Again: if you ever REALLY insisted on Scripture in an argument with an arminian than you know: they are God-haters. They then show their real faces. They hate God, Scripture and you.

But they preach! "“ Yes, but another Gospel.
But people come to faith! "“ Yes, because itÂ´s God, the Holy Spirit who bloweth where He wills!

And please consider:

Math. 7, 22-23
Mark 9, 38-40
Luke 9, 49-50

This is no teaching, but please consider it.

If not free-willers in all their forms are meant by Scripture, then what is? Tell me.

Real Arminians are unsaved, but their pupils can be teached the truth. Then they ultimately show their true father. 

What do you fear? If an arminian repents, then he will in the end THANK you for beeing "žharsh"œ. (Every opposition is harsh to them.) If he repents not, so you did your job!

Who did "žcall"œ me to say this and interpret Scriptue that way?
ItÂ´s simply sola scriptura. I need no inner voice, heavenly revelation besides scripture or a calling by a vision.

The question boils down to this: are you TRULY reformed or not? Do you respect Scripture as the only Holy Revelation?

Ok, pick up the stones.

[Edited on 2-20-2006 by Saved sheep]

[Edited on 2-20-2006 by Saved sheep]

[Edited on 2-20-2006 by Saved sheep]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 20, 2006)

As heated as this thread has gooten, I have enjoyed it very much. I appreciate everyone who has discussed this issue with me and allowed me to speak my mind on it as well.


----------



## Scot (Feb 20, 2006)

The 'god' of Arminianism by Augustus Toplady

I dare say, that, in such an auditory as this, a number of Arminians are present. I fear, that all our public assemblies have too many of them. Perhaps, however, even these people, idolaters as they are, may be apt to blame, and, indeed, with justice, the absurdity of those who worship idols of silver and gold, the work of men's hands. But let me ask: If it be so very absurd, to worship the work of other men's hands what must it be, to worship the works of our own hands? Perhaps, you may say, 'God forbid that I should do so. Nevertheless, let me tell you, that trust, confidence, reliance, and dependence, for salvation, are all acts and very solemn ones too, of divine worship: and upon whatsoever you depend, whether in whole or in part, for your acceptance with God, and for your justification in his sight, whatsoever, you rely upon, and trust in, for the attainment of grace or glory; if it be any thing short of God in Christ, you are an idolater for all intents and purposes. 

Very different is the idea which Scripture gives us, of the ever-blessed God, from that of those false gods worshipped by the heathens; and from that degrading representation of the true God, which Arminianism would palm upon mankind. Our God (says this Psalm, verse the third) is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he pleased. This is not the Arminian idea of God: for our free-willers and our chance- mongers tell us, that God does not do whatsoever he pleases; that there are a great number of things, which God wishes to do, and rags and strives to do, and yet cannot bring to pass ... Is their god the Bible-God? Certainly not. Their god 'submits' to difficulties which he 'cannot help' himself out of, and endearours to make himself 'easy' under millions and millions of inextricable embarrassments, uncomfortable disappointments, and mortifying defeats. ...This said scheme ascends, on the ladder of blasphemy, to the mountain top of atheism; and then hurls itself from that precipice, into the gulph of blind, adamantine necessity, in order to prove mankind free agents! 

... One great contest, between the religion of Arminianism, and the religion of Christ, is, who shall stand entitled to the paise and glory of a sinner's salvation? Conversion decides this point at once; for I think that, without any imputation of uncharitableness, I may venture to say, that every truly awakened person, at least when he is under the shine of God's countenance upon his soul, will fall down upon his knees, with this hymn of praise ascending from his heart, Not unto me, O Lord, not unto me, but to thy name, give the glory: I am saved not for my righteousness, but for thy mercy and thy truth's sake.


----------



## Ron (Mar 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> Allow me to press you a little: you grant that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp... then how can you deny the validity of the Gospel message preached by those who are not Reformed?



Sola,

This caught my eye. I'm going to assume that you are paedobaptist. If you're not you will still catch the point. "You grant that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp, then how can you deny the validity of" re-baptism?

Peace,

Ron


----------

