# Who most hostile: Calvinists or Arminians?



## thistle93

Hi! Why does it seem that Calvinists are always the ones accused of being hostile to those they disagree with? I do believe this was true in the past and is still the case in rare instances but overall I see the floodgate of hostility today coming from the Arminian side and no one seems to take notice. Differently seems a double standard. 

Any thoughts? 

Who do you find most hostile in your circle?

Why can't Calvinists & Arminians, while they disagree on very important issues, come together in unity over the essentials and start treating each other like brothers and sisters in Christ? 

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Notthemama1984

I think both sides are equally hostile.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

In my experience, no one is more hostile than the convinced anti-Calvinist, particularly the Independent Fundamental Baptist type. It is truly an abject, obnoxious, seething hatred of Reformed theology -- or, more often than not, what they think Reformed theology is. The Romanists get better treatment.


----------



## NB3K

The Arminian and Calvinist can never be reconciled, one makes God's grace dependant upon free will, and the other proclaims that Grace Reigns and destroys the free will. The Arminain is heretical. 

A DISPLAY OF ARMINIANISM: BEING A DISCOVERY OF THE OLD PELAGIAN IDOL FREE-WILL, WITH THE NEW GODDESS CONTINGENCY, 

John Owen (2010). A Display of Arminianism (Kindle Locations 2-3). Unknown. Kindle Edition. 

That is a wonderful book to read. Also read the cannons of Dort.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.


----------



## NB3K

Reformed Thomist said:


> The Romanists get better treatment.



That's what they don't understand. They don't see that they are ROMANISTS in a Protestant clothing!


----------



## Reformed Thomist

NB3K said:


> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Romanists get better treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they don't understand. They don't see that they are ROMANISTS in a Protestant clothing!
Click to expand...


Fundamentally, yes, you are correct. As was A.A. Hodge when he wrote, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession, that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on salvation since the Council of Trent is essentially Arminianism.


----------



## NB3K

Joseph Scibbe said:


> First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.



So you are saying that Arminianism is the Gospel, and Calvinism is the Gospel?

"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon

Therefore what we have in Arminianism is nothing short than what Paul dealt with at the Galatian Church. (The Judaizers) I would label an Arminain as a Gentile Judaizer because they're mixing Law with Grace, and if one adds condition to grace, grace will than no longer be grace, but it will be debt! And we know that the only debt God owes to man is eternal damnation. In order for grace to be grace it must be gratuitous. This is the message of Augustine, Luther, Calvin and all the rest that have brandished the name of "Calvinist".


----------



## pianoman

NB3K said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Arminianism is the Gospel, and Calvinism is the Gospel?
> 
> "The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon
> 
> Therefore what we have in Armianism is nothing short than what Paul dealt with at Galatian Chuch. (The Judaizers) I would label an Arminain as a Gentile Judaizer because they're mixing Law with Grace, and if one adds condition to grace, grace will than no longer be grace, but it will be debt!
Click to expand...


agreed here. I once went on a mission trip with Armenians and once we got to talking about TULIP it got pretty hostile I guess you could say. The conversation was very strained when they told me they do not sin everyday. I had never heard this before. I guess if they sinned everyday they would "fall away." But one thing I noticed was legalism among them. From prayer, to music, to dress, etc., everything was legalistic. Of course one of them had tattoos from head to toe from before his salvation, they condemned him for that. And whether tattoos are wrong or right, it isn't right to condemn some one especially after they are trying to follow God. I just felt sorry for the guy. They just thought I was crazy from believing in eternal security. I showed them several scriptures to which they had no argument. They didn't like that very much. Yes, very much like independent fundamental baptists.


----------



## NB3K

pianoman said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Arminianism is the Gospel, and Calvinism is the Gospel?
> 
> "The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon
> 
> Therefore what we have in Armianism is nothing short than what Paul dealt with at Galatian Chuch. (The Judaizers) I would label an Arminain as a Gentile Judaizer because they're mixing Law with Grace, and if one adds condition to grace, grace will than no longer be grace, but it will be debt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> agreed here. I once went on a mission trip with Armenians and once we got to talking about TULIP it got pretty hostile I guess you could say. The conversation was very strained when they told me they do not sin everyday. I had never heard this before. I guess if they sinned everyday they would "fall away." But one thing I noticed was legalism among them. From prayer, to music, to dress, etc., everything was legalistic. Of course one of them had tattoos from head to toe from before his salvation, they condemned him for that. And whether tattoos are wrong or right, it isn't right to condemn some one especially after they are trying to follow God. I just felt sorry for the guy. They just thought I was crazy from believing in eternal security. I showed them several scriptures to which they had no argument. They didn't like that very much. Yes, very much like independent fundamental baptists.
Click to expand...


Yeah I actually can get along better with professed unbelievers than I can with my so-called Arminian brothers. When one of them found out that I like Yuengling Lager my faith was automatically questioned.


----------



## Wayne

If I can cut the issue a bit differently :

The more one's theology views salvation as dependent upon works, the more one is willing to resort to violence. The tendency to violence may be tempered by circumstances, but the tendency is always there. If salvation depends upon works, then the faithful see themselves as being faithful, in part, by working to make everyone else tow the line. In that scheme, violence becomes an acceptable tool to advance the cause. 

By contrast, a thoroughly grace-based theology will (or should) eschew violence. It is the inconsistent Calvinist who gets angry and argumentative when proclaiming the Gospel before unbelievers or others. Anger proceeds from thinking that the result depends on his or her efforts, rather than upon the monergistic work of a sovereign God.


----------



## Jack K

As gently as I can, allow me to point out that if we make sweeping generalizations about Arminians, like suggesting most of "them" are legalistic or condemning, then we are the ones being hostile. Helpful dialogue includes being fair in how we represent another's position. It's better to defend right doctrine than to attack by harping on the bad behavior of one group of people in the opposing camp. Remember, there are Calvinists who behave badly too.

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------




Wayne said:


> If I can cut the issue a bit differently :
> 
> The more one's theology views salvation as dependent upon works, the more one is willing to resort to violence. The tendency to violence may be tempered by circumstances, but the tendency is always there. If salvation depends upon works, then the faithful see themselves as being faithful, in part, by working to make everyone else tow the line. In that scheme, violence becomes an acceptable tool to advance the cause.
> 
> By contrast, a thoroughly grace-based theology will (or should) eschew violence. It is the inconsistent Calvinist who gets angry and argumentative when proclaiming the Gospel before unbelievers or others. Anger proceeds from thinking that the result depends on his or her efforts, rather than upon the monergistic work of a sovereign God.



Very true.


----------



## NB3K

Jack K said:


> As gently as I can, allow me to point out that if we make sweeping generalizations about Arminians, like suggesting most of "them" are legalistic or condemning, then we are the ones being hostile. Helpful dialogue includes being fair in how we represent another's position. It's better to defend right doctrine than to attack by harping on the bad behavior of one group of people in the opposing camp. Remember, there are Calvinists who behave badly too.



Yes I understand your point, but what about Paul when he states:Gal 5:12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! [Speaking about the Judiazers] And Paul in the beginning of that epistle states:

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. 
Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. 


I believe whole heartedly that the Arminians preach another gospel than that of the Apostle Paul. And Paul attacked the Judiazers, and in the same way we must hold the banner of truth in our day! If we compromise the Truth of God's Grace than we would be worse than dogs that protect their earthly masters as Calvin would say.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

Arguments arise because the two sides view free will differently (Libertarian vs. Compatibilism). Because of these views arguments occur because they are thinking of their view of free will and defining scripture off of their definition. Now I realize that some people do not place a lot of emphasis on this subject and Calvinists feel the need to make it known. This can cause arguments in itself because culture today is all about tolerance instead of clearly defining truth. Whenever you challenge a belief system that is common in the mainstream world you will get opposition. However, I feel that both sides can be equally hostile because the Arminian has always been taught this and it doesn't make sense to them otherwise. The Calvinist knows that this is revealed in God's word but some can make it seem like a special club that one needs to join.


----------



## nicnap

I haven't read the entire thread, but I am prone to say: I have known vitriolic and hostile Arminians and Calvinists. I have also known of humble Arminians and Calvinists. The hostilities seem to come from immaturity on both sides. (It is usually the ones who know the least who argue the most ... I know because I have been on both sides of the fence.) It takes the grace and working of the Holy Spirit to make men humble and able to discuss things without vitriol. I quite agree 
with Jack and Wayne.

As for Arminians and Calvinists coming together, it is practically impossible for them to "co-exist" in a local setting. The idea of unity at the cost of truth is nothing more than a pressure cooker getting ready to explode ...


----------



## NB3K

nicnap said:


> As for Arminians and Calvinists coming together, it is practically impossible for them to "co-exist" in a local setting. The idea of unity at the cost of truth is nothing more than a pressure cooker getting ready to explode ...


----------



## Scott1

The arguments are profound, no wonder the Westminster Confession says to handle the "high mystery" of predestination with care.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter III
> Of God's Eternal Decree
> ....
> 
> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,81
> that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.82 So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;83 and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.8



There is something offensive to self-centered creatures about having nothing to do with their salvation, hence they invent varying degrees of responsibility for it, "making decisions," "it wouldn't be fair." The problem is, the vantage point is from the creature, not the creator- as if the creator has to succumb to the logic or imagined fairness of the creature.



> Romans 9
> 
> 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
> 
> 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
> 
> 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
> 
> 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
> 
> 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
> 
> 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,



But as you contend for the truth of this, God will use it. It's powerful because His Word is powerful.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

NB3K said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Arminians and Calvinists coming together, it is practically impossible for them to "co-exist" in a local setting. The idea of unity at the cost of truth is nothing more than a pressure cooker getting ready to explode ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not agree because God can use an Arminian just as much as he could use a Calvinist. Our wisdom is still folly in either case and he uses our folly to further the gospel. I will not divide with an Arminian if our goals are to reached the unsaved and bring glory to God. I do not have to agree with their preaching methods but not everything they say would be incorrect.
Click to expand...


----------



## elnwood

nicnap said:


> As for Arminians and Calvinists coming together, it is practically impossible for them to "co-exist" in a local setting. The idea of unity at the cost of truth is nothing more than a pressure cooker getting ready to explode ...



There are many churches and denominations that have Calvinists and Arminians and get along just fine. The Evangelical Free Church is one major example. Also certain Baptist, Anglican, Congregational and Independent churches.


----------



## nicnap

There is nothing in my post about God not _using _an Arminian; I am saying that consistent Reformed teaching will cause a divide. Notice, I am not saying preach election all the time; God may use that preaching to transform an Arminian into a Calvinist, but when the change occurs, the Arminian is no longer an Arminian. Or the Arminian will not be pleased with such preaching and leave the church. Just the same, a man who is Reformed is not likely to sit week in and week out in a church that does not preach the whole counsel of God. Notice, I am not saying that Arminians never speak truth (it is like eating fish, with any preacher, keep the meat and spit out the bones). I am saying that the purpose of doctrine is to divide, and no matter how lovingly it is done, it will change or divide.


----------



## NB3K

elnwood said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Arminians and Calvinists coming together, it is practically impossible for them to "co-exist" in a local setting. The idea of unity at the cost of truth is nothing more than a pressure cooker getting ready to explode ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many churches and denominations that have Calvinists and Arminians and get along just fine. The Evangelical Free Church is one major example. Also certain Baptist, Anglican, Congregational and Independent churches.
Click to expand...


Those folks would have hated me last wednesday when I preached Uncondtional Grace through the Prophet Jonah. I started my message with a direct attack against the Arminians in the crowd. I asked them now if Grace is Condiitional how come God did not strike Jonah down with with Judgment like he did against the King of Assyria? Or how come God "appointed" a whale to swallow Jonah instead of sending sharks. Then I finished wish Jonah and how he wanted the people he preached to to be burned with fire, but in all that God was merciful and kind to Jonah. Even in Jonah's great sin at the end God provides shade for him.

Believe it or not some Arminians were converted!


----------



## NB3K

RobertPGH1981 said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Arminians and Calvinists coming together, it is practically impossible for them to "co-exist" in a local setting. The idea of unity at the cost of truth is nothing more than a pressure cooker getting ready to explode ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not agree because God can use an Arminian just as much as he could use a Calvinist. Our wisdom is still folly in either case and he uses our folly to further the gospel. I will not divide with an Arminian if our goals are to reached the unsaved and bring glory to God. I do not have to agree with their preaching methods but not everything they say would be incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look how can one who treasures God's grace even stand to stomach the vomit of free will? If one loves Scripture HE WILL HATE THE MONSTROSITY of Free will. They (the arminians) place their free will before God's grace and they make themselves a co-partner with God in their new creation, therefore stripping away ALL THE GLORY DUE TO GOD ALONE!
Click to expand...


----------



## pianoman

Jack K said:


> As gently as I can, allow me to point out that if we make sweeping generalizations about Arminians, like suggesting most of "them" are legalistic or condemning, then we are the ones being hostile. Helpful dialogue includes being fair in how we represent another's position. It's better to defend right doctrine than to attack by harping on the bad behavior of one group of people in the opposing camp. Remember, there are Calvinists who behave badly too.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I can cut the issue a bit differently :
> 
> The more one's theology views salvation as dependent upon works, the more one is willing to resort to violence. The tendency to violence may be tempered by circumstances, but the tendency is always there. If salvation depends upon works, then the faithful see themselves as being faithful, in part, by working to make everyone else tow the line. In that scheme, violence becomes an acceptable tool to advance the cause.
> 
> By contrast, a thoroughly grace-based theology will (or should) eschew violence. It is the inconsistent Calvinist who gets angry and argumentative when proclaiming the Gospel before unbelievers or others. Anger proceeds from thinking that the result depends on his or her efforts, rather than upon the monergistic work of a sovereign God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree. no sweeping views of arminians. I was only stating my experience with some of them.

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------




NB3K said:


> RobertPGH1981 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Arminians and Calvinists coming together, it is practically impossible for them to "co-exist" in a local setting. The idea of unity at the cost of truth is nothing more than a pressure cooker getting ready to explode ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not agree because God can use an Arminian just as much as he could use a Calvinist. Our wisdom is still folly in either case and he uses our folly to further the gospel. I will not divide with an Arminian if our goals are to reached the unsaved and bring glory to God. I do not have to agree with their preaching methods but not everything they say would be incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look how can one who treasures God's grace even stand to stomach the vomit of free will? If one loves Scripture HE WILL HATE THE MONSTROSITY of Free will. They (the arminians) place their free will before God's grace and they make themselves a co-partner with God in their new creation, therefore stripping away ALL THE GLORY DUE TO GOD ALONE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if there was some kind of "free will," it would still be somehow subject to Gods sovereignty and grace
Click to expand...


----------



## RobertPGH1981

> Look how can one who treasures God's grace even stand to stomach the vomit of free will? If one loves Scripture HE WILL HATE THE MONSTROSITY of Free will.



I love the scriptures and will let the scriptures talk. I do not feel the need to attack the Arminian because I feel that the scriptures do a good enough job. I do not like the idea that they believe in free will, but I also will approach it a different way because I know how it feels to be preached at as a former Arminian. The dogmatic come across as being Arrogant and not loving. They may have good intentions but the delivery can hurt rather than help.


----------



## NB3K

@Providential1611 Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

THAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD! YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL YOU HELPLESS WORM FALL BEOFRE GOD'S THRONE AND BEG OF HIM FOR MERCY! THE ONLY REPAYMENT THAT GOD DELIVERS IS HIS WRATH! ON WHOM HE CHOOSES HE LOVES THE REST ARE OBJECTS OF HIS JUDGMENT!

NB3K 6 days ago 

This is a post I made to a youtube Arminian "Providential1611" He also happens to be a KJV onlyist, and he tried telling me that in the KJV the word Sovereign is not in the Bible, but Free will is. 

Now was my reply to him "hostile" ?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Being a reformed Baptist means being part of an oppressed minority, so I can see how it might seem to you that Arminians are more hostile. In truth, there is much hostility on both sides and it really needs to end.


----------



## NB3K

RobertPGH1981 said:


> the delivery can hurt rather than help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Jesus' in John 8?
> 
> Joh 8:39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did,
> Joh 8:40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.
> Joh 8:41 You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God."
> Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
> Joh 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
> Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
> Joh 8:45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
> Joh 8:46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
> Joh 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

thistle93 said:


> Hi! Why does it seem that Calvinists are always the once accused of being hostile to those they disagree with? I do believe this was true in the past and is still the case in rare instances but overall I see the floodgate of hostility today coming from the Arminian side and no one seems to take notice. Differently seems a double standard.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Who do you find most hostile in your circle?
> 
> Why can't Calvinists & Arminians come together in unity over the essentials and start treating each other like brothers and sisters in Christ?
> 
> For His Glory-
> Matthew



Matthew,

It probably seems that way because you are in the SBC. Some of that however will depend on geography, particular churches, etc. 

There are extremists on both sites. You have the Semi-Pelagian IFB types on one side, and on the other you have those who say if you're not a Calvinist you aren't saved. In the past, the latter has been expressed either implicitly or explicitly on this board more than once.

In some cases the animosity stems from ignorance. This is especially the case from the more Arminian and perhaps especially the Semi-Pelagian camp, who either never heard of Calvinism or who only had straw man views of it presented by opponents of it and who haven't been motivated to investigate it themselves. In general, extremists can be found in any camp or movement. 

Your mileage may vary, but I have found that among younger Southern Baptist pastors there is often a much better understanding of what Calvinism is, even among those who are not Calvinists. This isn't just among Southern grads. The ones I know are graduates of seminaries that aren't known to be bastions of Calvinism. But it takes a generation or more for that to filter down to the grassroots level, and some are not teachable, unfortunately. (And by "that" I mean lack of hostility and understanding, not necessarily seeing a widespread turn to Calvinism, although the tendency is for the people to embrace the views of the pastor if he sticks around for a while.)

On the other hand, many of the older SBC pastors who are very hostile are otherwise good men, with many of them being basically solid in many ways. But they were often trained by liberals and "moderates" who were almost to a man extremely hostile toward Calvinism, probably more hostile to it than they were to inerrancy. 

There are other tangential issues that could be mentioned, but they aren't directly related to the subject at hand.


----------



## Rich Koster

NB3K said:


> pianoman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Arminianism is the Gospel, and Calvinism is the Gospel?
> 
> "The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon
> 
> Therefore what we have in Armianism is nothing short than what Paul dealt with at Galatian Chuch. (The Judaizers) I would label an Arminain as a Gentile Judaizer because they're mixing Law with Grace, and if one adds condition to grace, grace will than no longer be grace, but it will be debt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> agreed here. I once went on a mission trip with Armenians and once we got to talking about TULIP it got pretty hostile I guess you could say. The conversation was very strained when they told me they do not sin everyday. I had never heard this before. I guess if they sinned everyday they would "fall away." But one thing I noticed was legalism among them. From prayer, to music, to dress, etc., everything was legalistic. Of course one of them had tattoos from head to toe from before his salvation, they condemned him for that. And whether tattoos are wrong or right, it isn't right to condemn some one especially after they are trying to follow God. I just felt sorry for the guy. They just thought I was crazy from believing in eternal security. I showed them several scriptures to which they had no argument. They didn't like that very much. Yes, very much like independent fundamental baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I actually can get along better with professed unbelievers than I can with my so-called Arminian brothers. When one of them found out that I like Yuengling Lager my faith was automatically questioned.
Click to expand...


I must be De Debil because I like the porter 

Now on a serious note: There are some Calvinistic Baptist brothers that look down their nose at those of us who point to CH21 of the LBC1689 who enjoy sipping a brew. I find that they may be coming out of IFBC backgrounds and still have certain things burnt into their thought patterns. They consider drinking a sin in their conscience. 

We need to not fall into the trap of getting torqued up and turn to hostile conversation. When we get nasty, the ears close up. The Doctrines of Grace are a slap in the face to anyone who has a bit of pride left. They like to think they are in control of their life. The absolute Sovereignty of God is a concept that is foreign to anyone educated in a liberal American school, as well as a liberal American congregation.

In my humble opinion the most "hostile" I have experienced are the IFBC types. Rather than pointing to the cross, they specialize in pointing out their pet sin, or so called sin, of the day. These are the types that give "Street Preachers" a bad reputation. They seem to have a spirit of hate riding on their words rather than a spirit of reconciliation with God.


----------



## Leslie Koster

nicnap said:


> There is nothing in my post about God not _using _an Arminian; I am saying that consistent Reformed teaching will cause a divide. Notice, I am not saying preach election all the time; God may use that preaching to transform an Arminian into a Calvinist, but when the change occurs, the Arminian is no longer an Arminian. Or the Arminian will not be pleased with such preaching and leave the church. Just the same, a man who is Reformed is not likely to sit week in and week out in a church that does not preach the whole counsel of God. Notice, I am not saying that Arminians never speak truth (it is like eating fish, with any preacher, keep the meat and spit out the bones). I am saying that the purpose of doctrine is to divide, and no matter how lovingly it is done, it will change or divide.


----------



## NB3K

Rich Koster said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pianoman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Arminianism is the Gospel, and Calvinism is the Gospel?
> 
> "The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon
> 
> Therefore what we have in Armianism is nothing short than what Paul dealt with at Galatian Chuch. (The Judaizers) I would label an Arminain as a Gentile Judaizer because they're mixing Law with Grace, and if one adds condition to grace, grace will than no longer be grace, but it will be debt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> agreed here. I once went on a mission trip with Armenians and once we got to talking about TULIP it got pretty hostile I guess you could say. The conversation was very strained when they told me they do not sin everyday. I had never heard this before. I guess if they sinned everyday they would "fall away." But one thing I noticed was legalism among them. From prayer, to music, to dress, etc., everything was legalistic. Of course one of them had tattoos from head to toe from before his salvation, they condemned him for that. And whether tattoos are wrong or right, it isn't right to condemn some one especially after they are trying to follow God. I just felt sorry for the guy. They just thought I was crazy from believing in eternal security. I showed them several scriptures to which they had no argument. They didn't like that very much. Yes, very much like independent fundamental baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I actually can get along better with professed unbelievers than I can with my so-called Arminian brothers. When one of them found out that I like Yuengling Lager my faith was automatically questioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must be De Debil because I like the porter
> 
> Now on a serious note: There are some Calvinistic Baptist brothers that look down their nose at those of us who point to CH21 of the LBC1689 who enjoy sipping a brew. I find that they may be coming out of IFBC backgrounds and still have certain things burnt into their thought patterns. They consider drinking a sin in their conscience.
> 
> We need to not fall into the trap of getting torqued up and turn to hostile conversation. When we get nasty, the ears close up. The Doctrines of Grace are a slap in the face to anyone who has a bit of pride left. They like to think they are in control of their life. The absolute Sovereignty of God is a concept that is foreign to anyone educated in a liberal American school, as well as a liberal American congregation.
Click to expand...



This is why we are in desparate need of another reformation. What is sad is that folks are more willing to compromise the Gospel for the sake of "fellowship" That must be repulsive in the eyes of our Lord Jesus that was crucified for speaking the TRUTH!


----------



## Leslie Koster

Rich Koster said......I must be De Debil because I like the porter 

Now on a serious note: There are some Calvinistic Baptist brothers that look down their nose at those of us who point to CH21 of the LBC1689 who enjoy sipping a brew. I find that they may be coming out of IFBC backgrounds and still have certain things burnt into their thought patterns. They consider drinking a sin in their conscience. 

We need to not fall into the trap of getting torqued up and turn to hostile conversation. When we get nasty, the ears close up. The Doctrines of Grace are a slap in the face to anyone who has a bit of pride left. They like to think they are in control of their life. The absolute Sovereignty of God is a concept that is foreign to anyone educated in a liberal American school, as well as a liberal American congregation.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Pilgrim

Let's not forget that Spurgeon was converted under Arminian preaching at a Primitive Methodist chapel. He could not join with them permanently due to his disagreement with their doctrinal distinctives. But neither did he charge them or similar churches with being a synagogue of Satan. 

I don't think he would quite agree with those who post selected quotes of his and then insinuate that Arminians cannot be saved without eventually becoming Calvinists or state that there can be no cooperation with Arminians whatsoever. He cooperated with Arminians in the Down-grade controversy, even though he thought Arminianism was a first step of sorts toward the Down-grade. Elsewhere he published an article by an associate that stated that the Presbyterians were the first to get on the down-grade, albeit for reasons unrelated to Calvinism.

Unfortunately, some of us are more eager to win converts to Calvinism or to our views of baptism and ecclesiology than we are to win sinners to Christ. I know this has too often been my preoccupation in the past. Whether it is the preoccupation of any here reading this post is something you can only answer for yourself. 

While we shouldn't fall into doctrinal indifference and should strive to preach the whole counsel of God, we would also do well to meditate upon the following, which I think puts things in the proper perspective: 

"It is because God blesses men through the churches that we desire to see them prosper, and not merely for the sake of the churches themselves. There is such a thing as selfishness in our eagerness for the aggrandisement of our own party; and from this evil spirit may grace deliver us! The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. We would do a great deal to make a Paedobaptist brother into a Baptist, for we value our Lord's ordinances; _we would labour earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free-will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth, and not upon the sand of imagination; but, at the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures._ We would bring men to _Christ_ and not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterwards to secure them for our various folds. To make proselytes, is a suitable labour for Pharisees: to beget men unto God, is the honourable aim of ministers of Christ."
C.H. Spurgeon, _The Soul Winner, _p. 12, Pilgrim Publications, 1978.​


----------



## Leslie Koster

Joshua said:


> *I* am the most hostile.View attachment 2122


----------



## Rich Koster

NB3K said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pianoman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Arminianism is the Gospel, and Calvinism is the Gospel?
> 
> "The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon
> 
> Therefore what we have in Armianism is nothing short than what Paul dealt with at Galatian Chuch. (The Judaizers) I would label an Arminain as a Gentile Judaizer because they're mixing Law with Grace, and if one adds condition to grace, grace will than no longer be grace, but it will be debt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> agreed here. I once went on a mission trip with Armenians and once we got to talking about TULIP it got pretty hostile I guess you could say. The conversation was very strained when they told me they do not sin everyday. I had never heard this before. I guess if they sinned everyday they would "fall away." But one thing I noticed was legalism among them. From prayer, to music, to dress, etc., everything was legalistic. Of course one of them had tattoos from head to toe from before his salvation, they condemned him for that. And whether tattoos are wrong or right, it isn't right to condemn some one especially after they are trying to follow God. I just felt sorry for the guy. They just thought I was crazy from believing in eternal security. I showed them several scriptures to which they had no argument. They didn't like that very much. Yes, very much like independent fundamental baptists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I actually can get along better with professed unbelievers than I can with my so-called Arminian brothers. When one of them found out that I like Yuengling Lager my faith was automatically questioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must be De Debil because I like the porter
> 
> Now on a serious note: There are some Calvinistic Baptist brothers that look down their nose at those of us who point to CH21 of the LBC1689 who enjoy sipping a brew. I find that they may be coming out of IFBC backgrounds and still have certain things burnt into their thought patterns. They consider drinking a sin in their conscience.
> 
> We need to not fall into the trap of getting torqued up and turn to hostile conversation. When we get nasty, the ears close up. The Doctrines of Grace are a slap in the face to anyone who has a bit of pride left. They like to think they are in control of their life. The absolute Sovereignty of God is a concept that is foreign to anyone educated in a liberal American school, as well as a liberal American congregation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we are in desparate need of another reformation. What is sad is that folks are more willing to compromise the Gospel for the sake of "fellowship" That must be repulsive in the eyes of our Lord Jesus that was crucified for speaking the TRUTH!
Click to expand...


Another reformation????? I'd lean more to saying that we need a bit more people grasping the existing reformation and the truths that were expounded upon during it. The modern day Remonstrance is there. We can not deny it. We just have to faithfully keep teaching the whole counsel of God. Those who hear the truth will soon acquire a taste for it.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

> Like Jesus' in John 8?



You are quoting John 8 as if Jesus was speaking to directly to an Arminian believer. He was speaking to unbelievers who completely trusted in their works alone, who were teachers of law, and did not trust at all in Christ. The difference is simple, an Arminian can be a Christian who has bad Theology. Because they say that they reached out their hand to accept God doesn't mean that they are not as equally saved.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------




> Unfortunately, some of us are more eager to win converts to Calvinism or to our views of baptism and ecclesiology than we are to win sinners to Christ. I know this has too often been my preoccupation in the past. Whether it is the preoccupation of any here reading this post is something you can only answer for yourself.


----------



## NB3K

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Like Jesus' in John 8?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quoting John 8 as if Jesus was speaking to directly to an Arminian believer. He was speaking to unbelievers who completely trusted in their works alone, who were teachers of law, and did not trust at all in Christ. The difference is simple, an Arminian can be a Christian who has bad Theology. Because they say that they reached out their hand to accept God doesn't mean that they are not as equally saved.
Click to expand...


If that is the truth than the Protestant Reformation was all done in vain. I only tried to show through Jesus' teaching that He did not care about their so-called "emoitions" or how they would perceive his teaching. He did not care about how much harm would become of it.

Joh 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 
Joh 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 
Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one." 

Now you said "the delivery can hurt rather than help. " I was simply pointing out Jesus' deliveries. 
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 


Here again Jesus teaches and again the jews want to kill him.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

Ok, I agree that sometimes it is necessary to be blunt and to the point. Sometimes I do this as well when I go street witnessing and people completely reject the gospel and call it foolish. I show them the verse in 1 Corinthians 1:18 in response. I guess I was being dogmatic myself. 

What I should have said is its best to use discernment rather than being blunt in every encounter.


----------



## NB3K

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Sometimes I do this as well when I go street witnessing and people completely reject the gospel and call it foolish.



Because I believe the Doctrine of Unconditional Election, when I share the Gospel I lay down the Law and then I goto Grace. I show that they are condmened by God's Law, and then I show them Christ and him Crucified. If they cannot see that Christ is what they need, I do not go farther because I will want to water down the Gospel. (It's my nature according to the flesh) And in my mind I think to myself: It must not be their appointed time, Or they are not of the Elect. Because I am 100% sure that if you teach Sound Doctrine THE SHEEP WILL HEAR HIS VOICE!!! We need no tricks of the flesh!


----------



## Rich Koster

NB3K said:


> RobertPGH1981 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I do this as well when I go street witnessing and people completely reject the gospel and call it foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I believe the Doctrine of Unconditional Election, when I share the Gospel I lay down the Law and then I goto Grace. I show that they are condmened by God's Law, and then I show them Christ and him Crucified. If they cannot see that Christ is what they need, I do not go farther because I will want to water down the Gospel. (It's my nature according to the flesh) And in my mind I think to myself: It must not be their appointed time, Or they are not of the Elect. Because I am 100% sure that if you teach Sound Doctrine THE SHEEP WILL HEAR HIS VOICE!!! We need no tricks of the flesh!
Click to expand...


Well said, especially the last sentence.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

I don't show them that out of malice. I show them because its God's word speaking to them. The Cross is foolish to those who are perishing. I do not see anything wrong with telling them this as I believe it makes them think about their stance with God. Sometimes the response is positive sometimes negative. In either case God is glorified.


----------



## thistle93

From my experience a lot of the hostility on the Arminian side seems to come from people like Dave Hunt, some Calvary Chapel teaching and those who read and listen to these things. And the problem is most to do not see they are Arminian minus their belief in Eternal Security.


----------



## Andres

NB3K said:


> @Providential1611 Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
> 
> THAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD! YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL YOU HELPLESS WORM FALL BEOFRE GOD'S THRONE AND BEG OF HIM FOR MERCY! THE ONLY REPAYMENT THAT GOD DELIVERS IS HIS WRATH! ON WHOM HE CHOOSES HE LOVES THE REST ARE OBJECTS OF HIS JUDGMENT!
> 
> NB3K 6 days ago
> 
> This is a post I made to a youtube Arminian "Providential1611" He also happens to be a KJV onlyist, and he tried telling me that in the KJV the word Sovereign is not in the Bible, but Free will is.
> 
> *Now was my reply to him "hostile" *?



Yeah, I would say so, especially if you typed it in all caps like you did above. That's equivalent to shouting. Do you really think that yelling at someone is the best way to get your message across?


----------



## Notthemama1984




----------



## NB3K

Andres said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Providential1611 Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
> 
> THAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD! YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL YOU HELPLESS WORM FALL BEOFRE GOD'S THRONE AND BEG OF HIM FOR MERCY! THE ONLY REPAYMENT THAT GOD DELIVERS IS HIS WRATH! ON WHOM HE CHOOSES HE LOVES THE REST ARE OBJECTS OF HIS JUDGMENT!
> 
> NB3K 6 days ago
> 
> This is a post I made to a youtube Arminian "Providential1611" He also happens to be a KJV onlyist, and he tried telling me that in the KJV the word Sovereign is not in the Bible, but Free will is.
> 
> *Now was my reply to him "hostile" *?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I would say so, especially if you typed it in all caps like you did above. That's equivalent to shouting. Do you really think that yelling at someone is the best way to get your message across?
Click to expand...


Ok now that you mentioned the "all caps" I see what you are saying, but what I wanted to know was what I said "hostile" I was arguing with this man and he kept asserting his free will. It made me angry.


----------



## E Nomine

Anecdotally, I see lots of smug disrespect on the Calvinistic side that I never saw on the Arminian side. 

I could say the reformed folks appear to be much more confident with their theology; I could just as accurately say the reformed folks are much more obnoxious, exuding a "we're right, you're wrong" attitude at every possible opportunity.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

I believe there is no more hostile group than Hyper-Calvinists.


----------



## Rufus

NB3K said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Providential1611 Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
> 
> THAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD! YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL YOU HELPLESS WORM FALL BEOFRE GOD'S THRONE AND BEG OF HIM FOR MERCY! THE ONLY REPAYMENT THAT GOD DELIVERS IS HIS WRATH! ON WHOM HE CHOOSES HE LOVES THE REST ARE OBJECTS OF HIS JUDGMENT!
> 
> NB3K 6 days ago
> 
> This is a post I made to a youtube Arminian "Providential1611" He also happens to be a KJV onlyist, and he tried telling me that in the KJV the word Sovereign is not in the Bible, but Free will is.
> 
> *Now was my reply to him "hostile" *?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I would say so, especially if you typed it in all caps like you did above. That's equivalent to shouting. Do you really think that yelling at someone is the best way to get your message across?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok now that you mentioned the "all caps" I see what you are saying, but what I wanted to know was what I said "hostile" I was arguing with this man and he kept asserting his free will. It made me angry.
Click to expand...


Argue like you would with your grandmother, but not quite as soft, and use scripture.


----------



## AThornquist

Some reject Calvinism because of pride; others resound Calvinism pridefully. I am frequently astonished by the graceless proponents of both Arminianism and Calvinism, and sometimes I am the guilty party. However, if you, dear Calvinist, actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall, it is nonsensical to me that you would act as though a person must be expected to understand this point of doctrine in order to be saved. There are Arminians who fully trust in Jesus as their only hope, and drawing a firm parallel between them and Judaizers is slanderous; remember that Jesus had the wisdom to speak hard words while we often do not.


----------



## NB3K

AThornquist said:


> Some reject Calvinism because of pride; others resound Calvinism pridefully. I am frequently astonished by the graceless proponents of both Arminianism and Calvinism, and sometimes I am the guilty party. However, if you, dear Calvinist, actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall, it is nonsensical to me that you would act as though a person must be expected to understand this point of doctrine in order to be saved. There are Arminians who fully trust in Jesus as their only hope, and drawing a firm parallel between them and Judaizers is slanderous; remember that Jesus had the wisdom to speak hard words while we often do not.


 
Are you saying then, that we are to tolerate their non-biblical stance against us that believe in the Doctrines of Grace? For Paul said that it was by grace that we have been saved. Not by making a choice. I remember when I was an arminian, and I had no clue about it, and today when I look back I can say that I was not saved. For I worshiped an idol and I was not aware that I was not worshipping the God of Grace! But the God of my free will. But now I can see that, before I was blind to it. Why? Because I was dead in my trespasses and sins. 

As for all those that are in the "Arminian" camp I know there are some that are "Elected" to eternal life just as I am, but I want to go call them out from their hiding places to come and bath in the Fountain of God's Free Grace. 

This is the prupose why I want to go to the Arminian Church's! I want to go into the devils den and call out God's Elect! It will be messy, but all for the praise of God's Glorious Grace. For I am assured that His Sheep WILL come!

Not just that, but my church is largly Arminian, our Statement of Faith is not Reformed, but it's Moderately Reformed. But when I get a chance to get into the pulpit I hammer away. I teach unconditional grace, election and the absolute Sovereignty of GOd, and challenge the Arminians to show me by Scripture Alone why they hold to their doctrines. I want them to give a defense for why they believe what they believe and in return I will do the same. I do this because I am fully convinced it is the only way to destroy Arminianism altogether. Once one of God's Elect see the gift of grace before their eyes their foolish Arminian doctrines will fall like the flesh!


----------



## BertMulder

Joseph Scibbe said:


> First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.



Judging from your response, I guess the Synod of Dordt had no idea what they were talking about. Yet they did judge arminianism to be heresy....


The Canons of Dordt, Fifth Head of Doctrine


> [h=3]CONCLUSION[/h]
> And this is the perspicuous, simple, and ingenious declaration of the orthodox doctrine respecting the five articles which have been controverted in the Belgic churches; and the rejection of the errors, with which they have for some time been troubled. This doctrine, the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confessions of the Reformed churches. Whence it clearly appears, that some whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public.
> "That the doctrine of the Reformed churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and by the devil, and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all; and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches, that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation; and, has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell; so that, neither baptism, nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism, can at all profit by them;" and many other things of the same kind, which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul. Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, to judge of the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the calumnies, which, on every side, are heaped upon it; nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted, and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from the declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod. Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves, to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them, for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak; and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful. Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ, to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse, as in writing, to the glory of the Divine Name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language; and, to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the holy Scriptures; and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. 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.
> That this is our faith and decision we certify by subscribing our names.
> Here follow the names, not only of President, Assistant President, and Secretaries of the Synod, and of the Professors of Theology in the Dutch Churches, but of all the Members who were deputed to Synod, as the representatives of their respective Churches, that is, of the Delegates from Great Britain, the Electoral Palatinate, Hessia, Switzerland, Wetteraw, the Republic and Church of Geneva, The Republic and Church of Bremen, The Republic and Church of Emden, The Duchy of Gelderland and of Zutphen, South Holland, North Holland, Zeeland, The Province of Utrecht, Friesland, Transylvania, The State of Groningen and Omland, Drent, The French Churches​


----------



## kvanlaan

I don't know - I see great vitriol on the side of the Arminian and great condescension on the part of the Calvinist, for the most part. I'm not going to scream and shout about their heresy, I know what the Bible says. They tend to scream more, and condescend less. But they are heretics; we confess it to be so, in black and white - the confessions are still in effect today. The fact that the Arminian of the 1600s is slightly different than the Arminian of today is only a slight 'evolution', if you will, not unlike the Calvinist of the 1600s and the Calvinist of today.


----------



## Skyler

I have never heard of a cage stage Arminian.

I don't know if that says anything or if that's because it's so typical of Arminians that they don't have a distinct "stage" for it.


----------



## AThornquist

NB3K said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some reject Calvinism because of pride; others resound Calvinism pridefully. I am frequently astonished by the graceless proponents of both Arminianism and Calvinism, and sometimes I am the guilty party. However, if you, dear Calvinist, actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall, it is nonsensical to me that you would act as though a person must be expected to understand this point of doctrine in order to be saved. There are Arminians who fully trust in Jesus as their only hope, and drawing a firm parallel between them and Judaizers is slanderous; remember that Jesus had the wisdom to speak hard words while we often do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying then, that we are to tolerate their non-biblical stance against us that believe in the Doctrines of Grace? For Paul said that it was by grace that we have been saved. Not by making a choice. I remember when I was an arminian, and I had no clue about it, and today when I look back I can say that I was not saved. For I worshiped an idol and I was not aware that I was not worshipping the God of Grace! But the God of my free will. But now I can see that, before I was blind to it. Why? Because I was dead in my trespasses and sins.
> 
> As for all those that are in the "Arminian" camp I know there are some that are "Elected" to eternal life just as I am, but I want to go call them out from their hiding places to come and bath in the Fountain of God's Free Grace.
> 
> This is the prupose why I want to go to the Arminian Church's! I want to go into the devils den and call out God's Elect! It will be messy, but all for the praise of God's Glorious Grace. For I am assured that His Sheep WILL come!
> 
> Not just that, but my church is largly Arminian, our Statement of Faith is not Reformed, but it's Moderately Reformed. But when I get a chance to get into the pulpit I hammer away. I teach unconditional grace, election and the absolute Sovereignty of GOd, and challenge the Arminians to show me by Scripture Alone why they hold to their doctrines. I want them to give a defense for why they believe what they believe and in return I will do the same. I do this because I am fully convinced it is the only way to destroy Arminianism altogether. Once one of God's Elect see the gift of grace before their eyes their foolish Arminian doctrines will fall like the flesh!
Click to expand...


Are we to tolerate Arminianism? That's vague enough to be an entirely useless question. Church membership with both Calvinism and Arminianism wouldn't be appropriate. However, allowing Arminians to be within the camp of Christianity is appropriate; being a sheep does not make one a perfect theologian. I know many Arminians who would fully agree that we are saved by grace alone, and historic Christianity teaches that *you* must believe. *You* are obligated to trust Christ. The Arminian thinks he was able to believe and so believed because he needed a savior, whereas the Calvinist (almost always in retrospect, since most Calvinists were former Arminians) thinks he was given eyes to see and so he believed because he needed a savior. The object of trust is the same. If you demand an understanding of Calvinism, *you* are the one adding to faith alone. It's amazing to me that you allow no level of disagreement on Calvinism if you actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall.


----------



## kvanlaan

But Andrew, could you please reconcile the confessions (in this case, the Canons of Dordt first and foremost) with your statements above? How do we reconcile what the confessions say about Arminian beliefs with 'tolerance'? It is another gospel, no? That's how the confessions, in essence, treat it. And if so, how are we to treat it?

Even so, I would say that we cannot be angrily ejecting them from our fellowship, but when we show them the truth and they are obstinant in refusing to accept the truth, then what? Where do we go from that point?

If we take the question "Who is Jesus Christ?" to its natural conclusion, the Arminian cannot follow that rabbit trail too terribly far, whereas I think that our doctrine brings the idea of Christ to its fullest and truest fulfillment.

From the original preface (according to wikipedia), the decision of the synod is called a: "judgment, in which both, the true view agreeing with God's word concerning the aforesaid five points of doctrine is explained and, the false view disagreeing with God's Word is rejected."

If this, as a confession which we adhere to, is so clear that it is a false view, and disagrees with God's Word, I think that qualifies Arminianism (for those of us who hold to the 3FU) as heresy. It's a box we can't get out of.


----------



## NB3K

AThornquist said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some reject Calvinism because of pride; others resound Calvinism pridefully. I am frequently astonished by the graceless proponents of both Arminianism and Calvinism, and sometimes I am the guilty party. However, if you, dear Calvinist, actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall, it is nonsensical to me that you would act as though a person must be expected to understand this point of doctrine in order to be saved. There are Arminians who fully trust in Jesus as their only hope, and drawing a firm parallel between them and Judaizers is slanderous; remember that Jesus had the wisdom to speak hard words while we often do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying then, that we are to tolerate their non-biblical stance against us that believe in the Doctrines of Grace? For Paul said that it was by grace that we have been saved. Not by making a choice. I remember when I was an arminian, and I had no clue about it, and today when I look back I can say that I was not saved. For I worshiped an idol and I was not aware that I was not worshipping the God of Grace! But the God of my free will. But now I can see that, before I was blind to it. Why? Because I was dead in my trespasses and sins.
> 
> As for all those that are in the "Arminian" camp I know there are some that are "Elected" to eternal life just as I am, but I want to go call them out from their hiding places to come and bath in the Fountain of God's Free Grace.
> 
> This is the prupose why I want to go to the Arminian Church's! I want to go into the devils den and call out God's Elect! It will be messy, but all for the praise of God's Glorious Grace. For I am assured that His Sheep WILL come!
> 
> Not just that, but my church is largly Arminian, our Statement of Faith is not Reformed, but it's Moderately Reformed. But when I get a chance to get into the pulpit I hammer away. I teach unconditional grace, election and the absolute Sovereignty of GOd, and challenge the Arminians to show me by Scripture Alone why they hold to their doctrines. I want them to give a defense for why they believe what they believe and in return I will do the same. I do this because I am fully convinced it is the only way to destroy Arminianism altogether. Once one of God's Elect see the gift of grace before their eyes their foolish Arminian doctrines will fall like the flesh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we to tolerate Arminianism? That's vague enough to be an entirely useless question. Church membership with both Calvinism and Arminianism wouldn't be appropriate. However, allowing Arminians to be within the camp of Christianity is appropriate; being a sheep does not make one a perfect theologian. I know many Arminians who would fully agree that we are saved by grace alone, and historic Christianity teaches that *you* must believe. *You* are obligated to trust Christ. The Arminian thinks he was able to believe and so believed because he needed a savior, whereas the Calvinist (almost always in retrospect, since most Calvinists were former Arminians) thinks he was given eyes to see and so he believed because he needed a savior. The object of trust is the same. If you demand an understanding of Calvinism, *you* are the one adding to faith alone. It's amazing to me that you allow no level of disagreement on Calvinism if you actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall.
Click to expand...


Paul was absolutely clear in his words to Titus when he penned:

Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 

Now this is a qualifier for Elder. The elder must not just hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught but teach sound doctrine and rebuke (or refute) those who contradict it. The Arminian contradicts the Doctrines of Grace that re clearly taught in the Bible.

Now I agree that not all that are in the Arminian camp are reprobate, but I believe most are. Why? Because the greater majority of these people fight tooth and nail in defense of their so-called free will. Now just think for a second. How in the world can one who says that we are saved by grace alone, fight, for free will? This would be called "Cognitive Dissonance". Where do they stand? How do they stand when they are entangled in a snare of two beliefs that are against each other? They can't stand in that state. This is why Paul lays a qualification for elders that they rebuke those that contradict Sound Doctrine.

Now I ask again:

Are you saying then, that we are to tolerate their non-biblical stance against us that believe in the Doctrines of Grace?


----------



## BertMulder

Joshua said:


> "Hello, everyone?!!??!," he exclaimed with hostile incredulity. "I have no idea why this thread is continuing. We've already established that _I_ am the most hostile."



and I thought it was I....

*Titus 3:10*
A man that is an *heretic*k after the first and second admonition reject;


----------



## NB3K

Joshua said:


> "Hello, everyone?!!??!," he exclaimed with hostile incredulity. "I have no idea why this thread is continuing. We've already established that _I_ am the most hostile."



Yup yup. The Great I AM is the most jealous for His own glory!


----------



## kvanlaan

Joshua, stop using your rat brains and it will free you of your hostility. Drink the TULIP Kool-Aid and follow us down the yellow brick road...


----------



## kvanlaan

Josh, you're right, the original question is too subjective. I think what caused some of us (I'm guessing the 3FU-ers) pause was the statement that Arminianism is not heresy. We confess that it is. Plain and simple. We also confess that much of what Name It and Claim It folks teach is heresy, but I'm likewise not going to accost them; I must show them mercy, compassion, and the truth. Fair enough?


----------



## BertMulder

kvanlaan said:


> Josh, you're right, the original question is too subjective. I think what caused some of us (I'm guessing the 3FU-ers) pause was the statement that Arminianism is not heresy. We confess that it is. Plain and simple. We also confess that much of what Name It and Claim It folks teach is heresy, but I'm likewise not going to accost them; I must show them mercy, compassion, and the truth. Fair enough?



Unfortunately, bringing people the truth is often perceived as hostility....


----------



## kvanlaan

OK, then I won't denounce you. You're clear. I'm all about the salt, brother.


----------



## NB3K

When you really care for one's salvation you will go into the enemies pit to snatch them out of the jaws of Satan.

Jud 1:23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.

I know it's messy. I understand that I need to grow more in the knowledge of Christ and His Grace (that will be a life long, or I should say eternity long growth) but we need to champion God's truth! For we are told in Scripture that is we deny Him, He will deny us. And I know that the denying of him is far more than the words that come from our lips it is in the worshipping Him with our willful offering up of ourselves as living sacrifices. But how do we get one to that point? By the way of Grace. 

The thing that makes me the most sad is that my mother fights against me. She is an Arminian, and even though I have talked to her about Scripture, she is still bent on her free will. She wanted to know how come we disagree so much on our beliefs, and I told her that we start off at two different starting points, namely, we have two different views of grace. From there we move in oppisite directions and there is no turning back. Now I did not say this to hurt her, but I just answered her question. She has no clue that I have devoted all my energy at searching the truths of Scripture for her. I want to give my mother a confession of my faith with a defense as my way of honoring my mother because eventhough I HATE HER DOCTRINE I LOVE HER TO DEATH!

---------- Post added 07-12-2011 at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was 07-11-2011 at 11:45 PM ----------




Joshua said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Hello, everyone?!!??!," he exclaimed with hostile incredulity. "I have no idea why this thread is continuing. We've already established that _I_ am the most hostile."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup yup. The Great I AM is the most jealous for His own glory!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And He will magnify Himself, apart from our help, if our help tends toward unlawful behavior (unrighteous anger, hatred in our hearts, etc. - and let's be clear, how likely is it that our anger is ever purely _righteous_? I say that's nigh to never) at those with whom we _rightly_ disagree.
Click to expand...


That is a all so true. We as humans can never truly have a righteous anger with out an ounce of the flesh in it. But man when you are for sure that you are dealing with a heretic. I mean one of those pelagian types, or those open-theists, I just want to pounce on them and destroy them so that they do not corrupt the minds of simple in the church. Paul says a little leaven leavens the whole lump. This is why I cannot understand why in the world would you want to fill your main congregations with a mixture of calvinists and arminians.( I am speaking of Mark Driscol) Eventually the arminians will take over and kick the calvinist out. But then again there's the old saying "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer".


----------



## Notthemama1984

Jason,

Galatians 6:1 talks about restoring our brothers with a gentle spirit. I don't think it is proper to "pounce on them and destroy them."


----------



## NB3K

Chaplainintraining said:


> Jason,
> 
> Galatians 6:1 talks about restoring our brothers with a gentle spirit. I don't think it is proper to "pounce on them and destroy them."



Would you have considered Charles Finney as a brother?

10. Lastly, God requires you to give all diligence to make your calling and election sure. In choosing his elect, you must understand that he has thrown the responsibility of their being saved upon them; that the whole is suspended upon their consent to the terms; you are all perfectly able to give your consent and this moment to lay hold on eternal life. Irrespective of your own choice, no election could save you, and no reprobation can damn you. The “ Spirit and the Bride say Come: let him that heareth say, Come; let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” The responsibility is yours. God does all that he wisely can, and challenges yon to show what more he could do that he has not done. If you go to hell, you must go stained with your own blood. God is clear, angels are clear. To your own Master you stand or fall; mercy waits; the Spirit strives; Jesus stands at the door and knocks. Do not then pervert this doctrine, and make it an occasion of stumbling, till you are in the depths of hell. 

Finney, Charles Grandison (2010). Systematic Theology - Enhanced Version (Kindle Locations 11051-11059). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition. 

Or would you make a point to let everyone know of his heresy. Or would you publicly challenge him? I would not consider Finney as a brother but as a fierce enemy.


----------



## AThornquist

We have the same issue as in other threads: what is heresy? Who is a heretic? Can a Christian be a heretic? Many even on this board (including myself) were Christian Arminians before coming to understand the doctrines of grace. If we were heretics because of our poor doctrine, we were still Christians? Or are you entirely denying salvation to those who don't believe the doctrines of grace? I agree that Arminianism is a heinous error, yet even on this board there are broad and various views on most doctrines. We don't see eye to eye on baptism because of our sinful limitations, and there are Christians who because of sin don't understand the doctrines of grace. I am sure my theology is deficient for the very same reasons. It's incredible how those who are seemingly ravished by the grace of God display a lack of grace to others made in the image of God. And by the way, most Arminians today aren't like Finney, so it's no use using him as a case in point.


----------



## NB3K

Has anyone ever Read John Calvins Secret Providence of God? John Calvin whom we happen to call ourselves after. Pounced and destroyed one of his students. He did not say a lot of nice things about him. If is amazing how he fought for the Providence of God.

Your barking is less tolerable so long as you trample on my labors in your blind and shameless attacks. For you ask me to carry out a task that has been accomplished three or four times already. You say that those who fight against me have one article that is so powerful that no arguments from my books thus far published have been able to refute it. This article, you say, is the subject of predestination or fate. If only you might display your wisdom by inquiring modestly or at least by disputing generously. Instead, you disregard decency and extinguish the light by confusing things that are opposite. Fate, named by the Stoics, is that which is necessary from the various and complicated labyrinth of causes that in some manner restricts God himself.3 By contrast with this, I define predestination, in line with what Holy Scripture teaches, as the free counsel of God by which he governs the human race and every single part of the universe according to his immense wisdom and incomprehen*sible justice. Now you are prevented from seeing anything in perfect light by your depravity of mind, your appetite for being quarrelsome, and the diabolical pride that has blinded you. 

Calvin, John (2009). The Secret Providence of God (pp. 61-62). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition.


----------



## VictorBravo

Jason, just remember that zeal against God's enemies is not necessarily a sign of grace. I'm thinking of Jehu's zeal without faith:

2Kings 10:16-- And he said, Come with me, and see my zeal for the LORD. So they made him ride in his chariot. . . .

2Kings 10:31-- But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the LORD God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin. 

We indeed are to proclaim and stand for God's truth when challenged. I'm nervous when I hear of my brothers seeking to avenge our Lord by stomping his enemies, for vengence is his alone.


----------



## NB3K

AThornquist said:


> We have the same issue as in other threads: what is heresy? Who is a heretic? Can a Christian be a heretic? Many even on this board (including myself) were Christian Arminians before coming to understand the doctrines of grace. If we were heretics because of our poor doctrine, we were still Christians? Or are you entirely denying salvation to those who don't believe the doctrines of grace? I agree that Arminianism is a heinous error, yet even on this board there are broad and various views on most doctrines. We don't see eye to eye on baptism because of our sinful limitations, and there are Christians who because of sin don't understand the doctrines of grace. I am sure my theology is deficient for the very same reasons. It's incredible how those who are seemingly ravished by the grace of God display a lack of grace to others made in the image of God. And by the way, most Arminians today aren't like Finney, so it's no use using him as a case in point.



If they're not than what in the world is on TV than. Leonard Ravenhill in the 1970's pour his heart out at not being able to understand how America claims to have 70 million born again believers, but we were the most disgusting nation on the planet.

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 AM ----------




VictorBravo said:


> Jason, just remember that zeal against God's enemies is not necessarily a sign of grace. I'm thinking of Jehu's zeal without faith:
> 
> 2Kings 10:16-- And he said, Come with me, and see my zeal for the LORD. So they made him ride in his chariot. . . .
> 
> 2Kings 10:31-- But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the LORD God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin.
> 
> We indeed are to proclaim and stand for God's truth when challenged. I'm nervous when I hear of my brothers seeking to avenge our Lord by stomping his enemies, for vengence is his alone.



I am not avenging them out of a fleshly heart, but do you know what it feels like to plead with you church members that we are going to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and from there we will build our doctrine. For when I teach in my church it is soley for the praise of God's Grace.
For here is a testimony of my Pastor that has taken me under his wing from one of his e-mails


Jason,

I just heard another praise of the LORD for the grace preached by you 
on Wed. pm. Not only that, but the precious time of prayer we had.

thanks for being part of it. 

As per your request, to preach the Parable of the weeds and wheat with 
a view to teach us the reprobation on the lost in contrast to the 
election of the saints, I am going to DENY this at this time. I am conflicted 
about it, and while I am sure that you see it as encouraging grace, I 
have
grave
doubts as to our people's rediness of heart to hear it, and wonder if
will
it lead to edification.

Our people are struggling to accept their own divine election let 
alone
the
reprobation of their lost relatives. I am sorry if you see this as a
weak
and cowardly stand, but it where I am right now. I also want you to 
know that I appreciate your challenging me in my faith and 
understanding,
please
keep it .

Blessings,
Pastor Kurt


He knows that my heart is in teaching these doctrines for building my fellow brothers up in the true knowledge of the faith. And to the praise of God's Grace.


----------



## Rufus

> If they're not than what in the world is on TV than. Leonard Ravenhill in the 1970's pour his heart out at not being able to understand how America claims to have 70 million born again believers, but we were the most disgusting nation on the planet.



Leonard Ravenhill wasn't a Calvinist either.


----------



## Notthemama1984

NB3K said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> Galatians 6:1 talks about restoring our brothers with a gentle spirit. I don't think it is proper to "pounce on them and destroy them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have considered Charles Finney as a brother?
> 
> 10. Lastly, God requires you to give all diligence to make your calling and election sure. In choosing his elect, you must understand that he has thrown the responsibility of their being saved upon them; that the whole is suspended upon their consent to the terms; you are all perfectly able to give your consent and this moment to lay hold on eternal life. Irrespective of your own choice, no election could save you, and no reprobation can damn you. The “ Spirit and the Bride say Come: let him that heareth say, Come; let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” The responsibility is yours. God does all that he wisely can, and challenges yon to show what more he could do that he has not done. If you go to hell, you must go stained with your own blood. God is clear, angels are clear. To your own Master you stand or fall; mercy waits; the Spirit strives; Jesus stands at the door and knocks. Do not then pervert this doctrine, and make it an occasion of stumbling, till you are in the depths of hell.
> 
> Finney, Charles Grandison (2010). Systematic Theology - Enhanced Version (Kindle Locations 11051-11059). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.
> 
> Or would you make a point to let everyone know of his heresy. Or would you publicly challenge him? I would not consider Finney as a brother but as a fierce enemy.
Click to expand...


Finney wasn't Arminian. He was Pelagian. 

You yourself mentioned that some Arminians are saved, thus they are our brothers and Gal. 6 applies.

---------- Post added at 10:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------




NB3K said:


> He knows that my heart is in teaching these doctrines for building my fellow brothers up in the true knowledge of the faith. And to the praise of God's Grace.



But you seem to skip over your Pastor mentioning that he is not sure that how you are presenting your message is the best for the church.


----------



## NB3K

Chaplainintraining said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> Galatians 6:1 talks about restoring our brothers with a gentle spirit. I don't think it is proper to "pounce on them and destroy them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have considered Charles Finney as a brother?
> 
> 10. Lastly, God requires you to give all diligence to make your calling and election sure. In choosing his elect, you must understand that he has thrown the responsibility of their being saved upon them; that the whole is suspended upon their consent to the terms; you are all perfectly able to give your consent and this moment to lay hold on eternal life. Irrespective of your own choice, no election could save you, and no reprobation can damn you. The “ Spirit and the Bride say Come: let him that heareth say, Come; let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” The responsibility is yours. God does all that he wisely can, and challenges yon to show what more he could do that he has not done. If you go to hell, you must go stained with your own blood. God is clear, angels are clear. To your own Master you stand or fall; mercy waits; the Spirit strives; Jesus stands at the door and knocks. Do not then pervert this doctrine, and make it an occasion of stumbling, till you are in the depths of hell.
> 
> Finney, Charles Grandison (2010). Systematic Theology - Enhanced Version (Kindle Locations 11051-11059). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.
> 
> Or would you make a point to let everyone know of his heresy. Or would you publicly challenge him? I would not consider Finney as a brother but as a fierce enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finney wasn't Arminian. He was Pelagian.
> 
> You yourself mentioned that some Arminians are saved, thus they are our brothers and Gal. 6 applies.
Click to expand...


You did not read what I said, the attacking of my enemies was directed towards to groups of people. Now this is what I said,

But man when you are for sure that you are dealing with a heretic. I mean one of those pelagian types, or those open-theists, I just want to pounce on them and destroy them so that they do not corrupt the minds of simple in the church. 

I made mention not to the Arminian, but to the Pelagian, or Open-theists. And for what reason would I devote such energy to make a public display of them? To protect the minds of the simple! That ought to be admirable! In Calvin's Institutes Calvin speaks in areas that he is only refuting the Romanist postion for the minds of simple men or the unlearned

Though they are fitter for hellebore than for argument, - and it is scarcely worth while to refute these frivolous errors, which, already battered down, begin of their own accord to grow antiquated, and totter to their fall; - yet, as a brief refutation may be useful to some of the unlearned, I will not omit it. 

Calvin, John (2008). Institutes of the Christian Religion (Kindle Locations 12405-12407). Signalman Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

There is nothing more that I hate than arguing over Sound Doctrine. It take away all ones strength to fight the good fight! There's a reason why Paul endured all the sufferings that he endured.

2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.


----------



## Notthemama1984

NB3K said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Providential1611 Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
> 
> THAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD! YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL YOU HELPLESS WORM FALL BEOFRE GOD'S THRONE AND BEG OF HIM FOR MERCY! THE ONLY REPAYMENT THAT GOD DELIVERS IS HIS WRATH! ON WHOM HE CHOOSES HE LOVES THE REST ARE OBJECTS OF HIS JUDGMENT!
> 
> NB3K 6 days ago
> 
> This is a post I made to a youtube Arminian "Providential1611" He also happens to be a KJV onlyist, and he tried telling me that in the KJV the word Sovereign is not in the Bible, but Free will is.
> 
> *Now was my reply to him "hostile" *?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I would say so, especially if you typed it in all caps like you did above. That's equivalent to shouting. Do you really think that yelling at someone is the best way to get your message across?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok now that you mentioned the "all caps" I see what you are saying, but what I wanted to know was what I said "hostile" I was arguing with this man and he kept asserting his free will. It made me angry.
Click to expand...


You may have referenced Pelagians or Open-Theists in that post, but this post shows that you have the same attitude towards Arminians. You are lumping them all together.

---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

Jason,

Luther could be nasty when dealing with people whom he disagrees with. Many Catholics think that if Luther would have been civil in his dealings with Rome, that the church would have benefited from it and Reform might have occurred in the church. I have heard others say that if Luther would have been civil with Zwingli, then Lutherans and Zwinglians would have united to the glory of God. 

Hostility did not work then, I don't think it works now.


----------

