# What Ideologies are Liminally Damnable?



## Arch2k (Nov 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I don't really know, nor ever heard, Mr. Rogers. Lawrence, you said he was not a Calvinist. What was he? Being in the SBC, I'd roll the dice and gamble Arminian. Is that right?



I mean no dis-respect to the man or his family during this time, but I have heard Adrian speak against Calvinism with such flare that it makes me want to . See this article for more. Here is an excerpt:



> Rogers' theology is best described as conservative and evangelical. Rogers held to Scriptural inerrancy, dispensationalism, and eternal security of the believer. Rogers was staunchy opposed to Reformed theology and Calvinism. As a traditional Baptist, he opposed the use of alcohol (one sermon told a story of a father who learned his daughter died from drinking while driving, vowed revenge at whoever sold her the alcohol, only to discover she had taken the bottle from his own liquor cabinet).


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 17, 2005)

Not to be disrespectfull. But Im concerned on how I should take this. Was this man preaching against the work of Christ(Atonement etc...)??

Just concerned. 

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 17, 2005)

Oh, absolutely not, Nathan.


----------



## pastorway (Nov 17, 2005)

James White, who has analyzed several of Dr. Rogers sermons about issues that deal with Calvinism, posted this on his blog:



> On a very sad note, Adrian Rogers has died. Chemotherapy is a rather barbaric way of dealing with cancer, and while it can work, it likewise has lots of complications, in this case, double pneumonia. His website asks for prayers for the Rogers family. All theological disagreements aside, as I noted a few years ago when reviewing his sermons on Romans 8 and 9, when it came to justification, he was spot-on, and we can be thankful for his life and ministry.



Also, Phil Johnson (PyroManiac), definitely a strong Calvinistic voice and one who has sttod firm against NPP etc, posted this:



> I want to say something about the passing of Adrian Rogers. I had the highest respect for him, a great love for his preaching ministry, and a special appreciation for the courage and diligence he showed in resisting the erosion of confidence in the Scriptures in some SBC circles.



Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary posted this:



> The news from Memphis brings to a close one of the greatest pulpit ministries of our times. Dr. Adrian Rogers died early this morning after a brave fight against cancer. Few men have left such an impact on a church, a denomination, and the larger world.
> 
> Dr. Rogers was a lion in our midst -- the man God used to serve as leader and voice for a great resurgence of biblical Christianity. He was a man of tremendous gifts, whose booming voice was matched by a gift for words and a powerful delivery. He dominated the pulpit as few men ever have, preaching the Word and calling sinners to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a modern-day "Prince of Preachers" whose personal example served to encourage thousands of others to greater faithfulness in preaching the Word of God.
> 
> ...




So while he was not a Calvinist, he was a CHRISTIAN, a great pastor and preacher, a defender of the Word of God, and a man used of God to bring many into the kingdom. It is too bad that we do not have more preachers with his ability to communicate the truth of the gospel to those who need to be saved.

Phillip


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> <snip>
> 
> So while he was not a Calvinist, he was a CHRISTIAN, a great pastor and preacher, a defender of the Word of God, and a man used of God to bring many into the kingdom. It is too bad that we do not have more preachers with his ability to communicate the truth of the gospel to those who need to be saved.
> ...



Amen!


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

Arminianism is NOT the gospel.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Arminianism is NOT the gospel.



So anathema according to Galatians?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Arminianism is NOT the gospel.



Agreed.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8)


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Arminianism is NOT the gospel.



You are right, but then again, neither is Calvinism.



> I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word: by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.
> 
> II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God
> for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
> ...



The gospel is not any "ism", it is faith in the work and lordship of Jesus Christ. 

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Posted by Saiph:_
> "You are right, but then again, neither is Calvinism."





> "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."
> *Charles H. Spurgeon*



By the way, I'm not making any statement against Adrian Rogers, I'm sure he is in heaven if he trusted in the work of Christ alone for his salvation by faith. I'm just speaking objectively that Arminianism is not the gospel in any sense of the word.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

* I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works;* nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 17, 2005)

I agree. I think most professing Arminians are really Calvinists in application.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

Calvinism is not the gospel.

We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone.

Every single arminian I have ever spoken with agrees with that statement. 

Most arminians I encounter are monergistic, they simply do not like or understand predestination, and limited atonement.


----------



## BrianBowman (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Calvinism is not the gospel.
> 
> We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone.
> ...



... I wish I could say that most "Arminians" I've met are truly monergistic. Most assert that God gives up some of His sovereignty so we can make "the final choice".

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



An Arminian that is monergistic is a contradiction. I agree with you Brian.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

I agree too Jeff. 
Arminianism is a doctrine of contradictions. 


But God sovereignly saves us in spite of our many contradictions.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I agree too Jeff.
> Arminianism is a doctrine of contradictions.
> 
> ...



Jehovah's witnesses is a doctrine of contradictions, as well as Roman Catholicism and every other false religion.

Does God save them in spite of their many contradictions?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



RC's possibly.
Jw's no.

JW's are Arian.

1Jo 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Why not? God saves despite our contradictions right?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

Jeff, lets not get into it on this thread. We can start a new one.

Arminians contradictions are not the same as gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, Apollinarian, Docetist, Cerinthianist, contradictions

(Sorry Josh, posted right after you)

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## pastorway (Nov 17, 2005)

I honestly suggest you prune the thread and DELETE the posts off topic. They are disgraceful....


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

How about:

"What ideologies are liminally damnable ?"


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the truth hurts sometime.....



Yes it does. Talking about heresy that has been debated over the centuries, tried by councils and proved by forefathers is one thing. To call one who defends them an idiot for doing so...well, let's just say I won't resort to calling you names.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

Arminianism is naive and immature, but not damnable unless taken to a degree of works-based righteousness.

Gal 3:9-10 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 

Most evangelicals that claim to be arminian, or have arminian tendancies, I find, have never read the works of Arminius, nor thought out the full implications of his doctrines.


----------



## crhoades (Nov 17, 2005)

There are two distinct issues here:

1. An individual believing contradictory/Arminian doctrines and still being justified.

2. Being a teacher of the Word and openly attacking the doctrines of grace and leading others astray.

We all fall into theological error or incompleteness in respect to #1. #2 is the kicker for me. I do not think we should take a light stance on it.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

Chris, which is worse ? Denying the diety of Christ, or misunderstanding the attributes of His diety ?

Arminianism is a misunderstanding of God's sovereignty.


----------



## crhoades (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Chris, which is worse ? Denying the diety of Christ, or misunderstanding the attributes of His diety ?
> 
> Arminianism is a misunderstanding of God's sovereignty.



No arguments there. Should people who misunderstand God's sovereignty (which we both would declare is plain in Scripture) stand in pulpits leading others astray? For me it is a matter of shepherds feeding sheep unhealthy briars that chokes a sheep out.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

No they should not Chris. But, sadly, Christianity in America is rampant with this. So, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater and label every congregation and minister a heretic ? If they were teaching Tritheism or some other denial of the Trinity I would be more alarmed.

One could argue I suppose that the depth of laxity within American Christianity is due to this though I suppose.


----------



## crhoades (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> No they should not Chris. But, sadly, Christianity in America is rampant with this. So, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater and label every congregation and minister a heretic ? If they were teaching Tritheism or some other denial of the Trinity I would be more alarmed.
> 
> One could argue I suppose that the depth of laxity within American Christianity is due to this though I suppose.



I nowhere labeled it heresy or ministers heretics. I guess I'm pleading that ministers stay faithful to God's Word and be held accountable. Nothing more, nothing less. (especially in the context of what brought all of this up.)


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

I agree Chris. And now, that shepherd Adrian Rogers who taught such things has repented, and understands God's sovereignty better than any of us reformed people do now with our libraries full of books. And we both know that God uses anyone He chooses to build His church. (including teachers we despise like Dave Hunt)


----------



## crhoades (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I agree Chris. And now, that shepherd Adrian Rogers who taught such things has repented, and understands God's sovereignty better than any of us reformed people do now with our libraries full of books. And we both know that God uses anyone He chooses to build His church. (including teachers we despise like Dave Hunt)





I guess I'm emphasizing the man's responsibility side of the God's Sovereignty/Man's Responsibility Coin. Yes God can and does use men like Dave Hunt et. al. God is sovereign. Yet as the church militant we don't do a good enough job of appointing faithful commanders that can interpret the battleplans and battlefield maps. I know, I know- we also spend too much time engaged in friendly fire. Going back into my foxhole now.


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> * I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works;* nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.



Yes, but Spurgeon also wrote:



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


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 17, 2005)

People like Adrian Rogers, John Piper, RC Sproul, and ChristopherPaul will be judged for what they teach others (cf: James 3:1).


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Arminianism is naive and immature, but not damnable unless taken to a degree of works-based righteousness.



All Arminians hold to a synergistc and hence a works-based salvation. 



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Most evangelicals that claim to be arminian, or have arminian tendancies, I find, have never read the works of Arminius, nor thought out the full implications of his doctrines.



They may have not thought out the full implications of their theology, but that does not negate the fact that their theology is one of works, and therefore not based upon Christ alone. This is a damning gospel.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Chris, which is worse ? Denying the diety of Christ, or misunderstanding the attributes of His diety ?
> 
> Arminianism is a misunderstanding of God's sovereignty.



It is much more than "just a misunderstanding." When you boil it down it comes down a merit based theology. This is the heresy of Rome, and the heresy of every false religion. Christianity is the only gospel that relies on Christ Alone.

Westminster Confession of Faith
14:2 


> By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. *But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.*


 


Westminster Larger Catechism
Question 72: What is justifying faith?


> Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, _*and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*, _ not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

As a calvinist, I have a tendancy to trust in calvinism and not Christ alone. I have to repent of this often. I guess I am not so much different than them.
I struggle with trusting in my understanding of dogma, and not the risen redeemer.


P.S. Every arminian church I have ever been in sings Amazing Grace.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

FYI, this has been discussed at length on another thread. 

Here is a relevant post I made there:



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> In short, an Arminian is a person who believes in the doctrines of Arminianism, most commonly in the "five-points" of Arminianism, or the five-points of the Remonstrance.
> 
> Are Arminians regenerate? This must NOT be an exercise of condemnation, or "playing God," but at the same time, we are called to judge a saving faith from a NON-saving faith. This discussion should not be about a game of "heretic-hunting," but about serious matter of judging "What is the TRUE gospel?" Is the true gospel compatable with the 5pts. of Arminianism?
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> As a calvinist, I have a tendancy to trust in calvinism and not Christ alone. I have to repent of this often. I guess I am not so much different than them.
> I struggle with trusting in my understanding of dogma, and not the risen redeemer.



It cannot be our understanding that we trust, because that would be confusing the end with the means.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> P.S. Every arminian church I have ever been in sings Amazing Grace.



So do many JW's and other cultic groups. Just because they sing this song, or even profess the solas does not mean they believe them.

If I said "I believe 2+2=4" but every single time I went to add 2+2 in my check book I put 5, would you believe me? I should hope not. You would call me a liar.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Just so I am not misunderstanding. Jeff, was I a non-Christian as an Arminian? Sincere question...not loaded.



Josh. I love you brother, you know that. The only reason to think you were a Christian back then was "well I just felt that I was saved" or "I just know it." When it comes down to it though, the gospel of Arminianism does not hold up to the Bible's definition of Saving Faith.



> Q72: What is justifying faith?
> A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, *and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]
> 
> 1. Heb. 10:39
> ...



the Puritans agreed with this idea. See A Puritan Quiz. Here's the relevant question:



> 4. The Puritans would agree that a person could be saved without believing and apprehending the Doctrine of Total Depravity. TRUE FALSE



What answer is given?



> 4. The Puritans would agree that a person could be saved without believing and apprehending the Doctrine of Total Depravity. *FALSE*



They were right. To believe that YOU make the ultimate decision on if you go to heaven or hell is the EXACT OPPOSITE of trusting Christ ALONE!

Does that answer your question?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Well, Jeff, all I can tell you is that when I trusted Christ to save me, I trusted *Christ* and Him alone to do so. That didn't clear up God's sovereignty, etc. for me, that would come with time. However, I do know that I experienced sanctification, conviction of sin, hatred of sin, etc. during this time. I also exhibited the fruit of the Spirit in various ways. It wasn't just what I "FELT", although I can certainly tell you I DID in fact experience God emotionally and experimentally. So, despite my lack of theological prowess, I do believe that I trusted in Christ and Christ alone.



Did you trust yourself to choose? To make the right choice?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

I whole-heartedly agree with Owen here. 



> "One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit,"”"œmors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJero<n po>lemon, [4] "œa holy war," to such enemies of God´s providence, Christ´s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters. [5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,"”"œthe depths and crafts of Satan;" we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,"”like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,"”give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed."



Jihad! 

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

Jeff, is there nothing you do not have a precise analytical answer for ?
I notice in your signature you are a mechanical engineer. Your approach to theology matches your occupation I suppose.

I agree with you if I take the generic American form of Arminianism to a _reductio_ level. But practically, I was an arminian for several years and trusted in Christ even though my thinking was wrong in the area of free will and works. I was on a path Jeff. I still am. We are saved by grace in spite of ourselves.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Jeff, is there nothing you do not have a precise analytical answer for ?
> I notice in your signature you are a mechanical engineer. Your approach to theology matches your occupation I suppose.
> 
> I agree with you if I take the generic American form of Arminianism to a _reductio_ level. But practically, I was an arminian for several years and trusted in Christ even though my thinking was wrong in the area of free will and works. I was on a path Jeff. I still am. We are saved by grace in spite of ourselves.



We are not saved despite what we believe though. God saves through the gospel, and not a false one. 

Either Christ makes the difference between a person going to heaven or hell (Solo Christo) or Free Will does (works).


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Jeff, is there nothing you do not have a precise analytical answer for ?



The Puritans were also called the Precisionists! 

Really, I have learned alot on this board, and I know that there is many things I have left to learn. If I come across as prideful, please forgive me.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> I believed I was a lost sinner worthy of death and hell. I believed I was hopeless without Christ and cried out for His mercy, acknowledging my sin and absolute need for Him.



I don't mean to pick on your rememberance of a 9-year old conversion experience. I first of all think it is hard for a person to remember exactly what they did or did not believe at 9. Maybe not (It's hard for me to remember what happened yesterday!). However, if you merely believed the above (without qualification) you could be a Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, or a multitude of other non-saving religions. 

What do all these false religons have in common? They leave some of the saving work up to themselves. To cast onself on Christ alone is to reject ourselves totally. You cannot do one without doing the other.



> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Now, obviously Jeff, I could have never discerned such things without Him regenerating me, right? Thus, I didn't have to have some pre-existing knowledge of all the attributes of God's sovereignty to "gain" my salvation. Rather, what I needed to know, He revealed through the preaching of His Word. Blessed Be His Name.



Nobody is saying that one needs to have an "existing knowledge of all the attributes of God's sovereignty." The gospel is simple, believe that Christ alone gets you into heaven by his work on earth, and the cross. Again, this is different from saying "I couldn't do anything WITHOUT Christ, but he helps ME get to where I need to go." This is the idea of free will.

If you ask an Arminian "What makes you different from a non-saved person? Why will you end up in heaven, and they won't?"

They'll answer "I chose Christ."

Their decision is the ULTIMATE DECIDING FACTOR in salvation. This is works.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 17, 2005)

Not so much prideful Jeff, but fastidiously severe at times in your critique of certain doctrines. This might be a good attribute. But for myself, it leads to some alienation from others that I might have otherwise stayed, or prevented altogether had I mercifully pointed out the dangers of such doctrines and not jumped headlong into a private inquisition.

You are not offending me brother, but I think Pastorway was nettled a little by your comments.


----------



## Peter (Nov 17, 2005)

I think this is ignorance not unbelief Jeff. If God required a perfect confession for salvation there would be very few people in heaven, and that would exclude every Christian prior to the Reformation. Though I do recognize there is a difference between an unenlightened Christian who will acquiesce to the Doctrines of Grace when correctly expouned and a heretic who knows it and obstinately denies it.

[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Peter]


----------



## gwine (Nov 17, 2005)

Luke, chapter 23: (ESV)

39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,[d] saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" 
40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 
41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 
42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 
43 And he said to him, *"Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."*


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I think this is ignorance not unbelief Jeff.



I agree that there is a position of ignorance. People often think that Arminianism and Calvinism are the only positions. This is simply not true. If a person is neither, we should refrain from judging. I have never said that one must positively be a professing 5-pt. Calvinist to be saved. I have been declaring what a Christian _may not be._ 



> _Originally posted by Peter_
> If God required a perfect confession for salvation there would be very few people in heaven, and that would exclude every Christian prior to the Reformation.



Again, I have never said that a person's confession must be perfect. My confession has many holes in it for sure. However, there are certain holes that are damning. Works righteousness is one of those.



> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Though I do recognize there is a difference between an unenlightened Christian who will acquiesce to the Doctrines of Grace when correctly expouned and a heretic who knows it and obstinately denies it.



I agree if the person is neither Arminian nor Calvinist.  We must take these people one at a time, and do it in love.

An Arminian however, has already made a judgment regarding the cross, atonement, and salvation. They have decided that they provide the last step necessary to be saved. This is not resting on Christ alone, and therefore we can safely say that it is damning.

I was an Arminian, and the time of conversion, was the time I believed that Christ alone saved me. That did not happen, until I counted all things as dung, for the sake of gaining Christ. This includes my so called "free will."


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 18, 2005)

Proving that they are no Christians in their Hearts Who are Arminians, Anabaptists, Socinians, Romanists, Antinomians, Erastians, and the like, in their Heads by George Gillespie.


----------

