Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cults & World Religions' started by Dao, Aug 23, 2009.
Dao, Rev 3:20-22 should not be interpreted soteriologically. They are talking about a church.
Oh, What would be the quote that would fit something like I said? Something the Arminians use frequently.
Soteriology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I had to look that word up: Christian soteriology is the study of how God ends the separation people have from him due to sin by reconciling them with himself.
I thank God that he does not require perfect or near perfect theology for our salvation. If this were the case, we would all be in serious trouble. Albeit my brothers and sisters of the "Arminean" ilk are sometimes very frustrating, they are nonetheless, just that, my Christian brethren as they are Trinitarian and believe in the essential doctrines as stated in the Nicene creed.
The Arminians do use that text in the past 50 years or so although I think its less frequent now. It's used to show the need for a unbeliever to "open his heart" to receive Jesus, basically in witnessing.
I think what Todd was stressing was that while Calvinists still do chose Christ, we did it after God regenerated our hearts. The difference with arminians is they assert regeneration comes after the so called choice. It basically boils down to one's view of man. Totally depraved or not.
I've studied much about the other so-called cult such as Chinese, Japanese, and India philosophies as well as Taoist, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc and I have put my foot in my mouth on subjects like these. It common for such religions to say that the mind can't comprehend and understand the language of God, if spoken as well as dualities as two spaces being the same space or being at two places at the same time. After learning all this along with Calvinism, I can see something positive about the salvation plan. "Positive" is another word that can be very new age terms. After learning positive thoughts by looking ahead in my imaginary mind, I turn my daydreams into reality. This type of thinking are banned by some Christians. To me, Calvinism gives me a strong positive thinking. Thinking that God does the work and guarantees salvation is certainly is positive and helps me enhance my thoughts about myself. Otherwise, if we think the way Arminians do and try to save ourselves, we won't get positive about that. It's negative thinking to pretend to do something impossible.
[quoteI thank God that he does not require perfect or near perfect theology for our salvation. If this were the case, we would all be in serious trouble. Albeit my brothers and sisters of the "Arminean" ilk are sometimes very frustrating, they are nonetheless, just that, my Christian brethren as they are Trinitarian and believe in the essential doctrines as stated in the Nicene creed.][/quote]
Thanks for posting that.
I have studied the Arminean vs. Calvinism theologies.
I once read somehere that unless you're an expert in the opposing view, you're not really qualified to pass judgment on it. That convicted me, so I deeply studied each.
I feel very, very lonely now. I don't have a label to stick on myself.
I don't know if I'm a Calnvinist with Arminean tendencies or an Arminean with Calvinist tendencies.
I definitely lean toward being a Calvinist, but I think we are trying to proccess something with out human minds that is a spiritual mystery as far as the way it all works out.
I recall as we studied the book of Acts 13:48 where it said "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." You can dice and splice and parse to thy heart's content....it says what it means and means what it says.
Yet, ACT 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Looking past the sarcasam of his words, he's basically saying "If you don't want eternal life....fine!" Responding, of course, to their own decision to reject the gospel, a decision which they will be held accountable for. Also, ACT 7:51 ¶ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." They are resisting that....which is irresistible?
See what I mean? I'm Calvinist....with slight Armenian tendencies. In other words, the human mind and heart come into play somehow in the equation...there will be a willingness from the human side.
If I am following where you are on this, these thoughts might be helpful:
When God first changes the nature, then faith and repentance automatically flow from the changed nature because that is an incident of the new nature.
While I'm not confident in the entire meaning in context of Revelation 3, remember it is right before 7 actual churches in Asia Minor and may have somewhat different application than is assumed.
Seems we have to chose God after he regenerated our hearts. If we had to choose Him, we didn't have the choice not to choose him. Whatever God Wills, it happens. If God regenerates and His Will, guaranteedly comes in play. We're not able to reject Him. So we had to chose and there only one option to chose. It's like someone telling you to take your pick and you're looking at one and the only apple. How does one use the word "pick" in this case. I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has. It's more like get the apple or get your free gift. The Bible does say, "man has to chose" but I'm not sure the original language of the bible uses "chose" like we do today.
-----Added 8/24/2009 at 07:30:40 EST-----
Is there a case in the Bible where God elects a man and that man turns down the offer?
Nope. It's called irresistible grace.
Understanding our choices are made in accordance to our will. That is we always chose what we so desire at that given point. Prior to regeneration God is so far down our list of desires He's not even there you could say. It's at regeneration that Ezekiel 36 comes in, where our hearts of stone are turned in hearts of flesh. Following that we have the aptitude and the ability to chose God. Of course, that is because we have been born again and desire all things God!
In this sense, God doesn't force your decision by placing only 1 apple in front of you. He changes your heart so you will chose that apple.
Or could it be that the non-elect are the ones who are 'programmed' (to sin unto death), and the elect those who have been graciously freed from such slavery?
Arminianism is a heresy, it is an error and caused division, and it is a doctrine that we cannot tolerate even when we have to face divisions in the church, for it is crucial.
Roman Church and the Pope is also a herey and more than that, the Antichrist. Armianism is one of the doctrine of the Roman Church. Those who believe in Arminianism proves that they are the daughters of that great Whore.
No, you are not a Calvinist if you assume a human element is involved in one's regeneration.
Judging by your comments with respect to Acts 7:51 and Acts 13:46 you seem to be struggling with the concept of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Ralph, I think you mean "Arminian" not "Armenian." Armenian is an ethnic group.
The doctrine of irresistible grace (effectual calling) does not mean that men do not resist the gospel at all. In fact, unbelievers always reject the gospel.
What it does mean is that in God's own time, His elect will be irresistibly (or effectually) drawn unto Himself. They will be made willing and able to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. Apart from God's prior work of grace in their hearts, they will never come to Christ for salvation.
As the Wesminster Confession states,
-----Added 8/25/2009 at 12:52:53 EST-----
Yes, there is willingness involved. But this willingness by the elect to come to Christ is by God's free and special grace. Their willingness is not something produced by their unregenerated human nature.
Those are very heavy words for a matter like this. Do you consider those with a different eschatology than you heretics? Look at the groups listed under cults, they were JWs and LDS. Neither of those groups are Christian and yet they claim to be.RCC is a different issue but they are heretics in their own regard. I would be interested in knowing what you consider heresy and what is something simply to agree to disagree over.
Hello! I don't think brother Xu is considering those who differ with him on eschatology as heretics. This board is proof that Reformed men can either be amillennial or postmillenial or historic premillennial (not to be confused with dispensational premillenialism) and yet be within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy.
The problem with Arminianism is that it belongs to totally different category altogether. As a system of theology, its errors go right at the heart of the gospel. While I will not describe Arminianism the way Xu did, I agree with him that Arminianism is a heresy.
The first sentences in the introductory paragraph of the Arminianism page of Dr. Matthew McMahon's website explain (note the first sentence),
Now back to the topic.
I disagree. Have they denied justification by grace alone through faith alone? Or the Trinity and it's other branching doctrines (hypostatic union) or the infalibility of Scripture? Or anything else foundational to the Gospel, I would say no.
Just came to my mind, I don't recall seeing any verse that says we "chose". I have never been able to find it.
Are you sure? 98 per cent of all Russian and Ukrainian Baptists (except those whose congregations were set up and influenced by Calvinistic missionaries) are Arminians - do you mean to say that they are all "daughters of that great Whore"? So, when they suffered for Christ during the Communist (and, earlier, Orthodox) persecutions, they suffered in vain?
In your view, what makes heresy heresy? Historic Arminianism is heresy. See the Canons of Dort and note the many times the word Pelagian appears in the Reformed description of the five Arminian articles. Historic Christianinity has held that Pelagianism is heresy.
Thankfully, many men and women who claim to be Arminians in our day are actually inconsistent Arminians. I think we are simply disagreeing on how to define terms.
With the exception of the former Soviet Union and China's Communist history, most professing non-Roman Catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox Christians in most (if not all) countries are also Arminians. That would include India where many professing Christians are being persecuted to this day.
I believe that some of God's elect are within Arminian circles. They are true Christians in spite of their bad theology. They are inconsistent Arminians. They may claim to be Arminian but if they truly repent of their sins and trust Christ alone for their salvation, then their death in the hands of an evil government is certainly not in vain. As Scripture says,
Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
-----Added 8/26/2009 at 10:11:14 EST-----
"Force" I think is not a good word to describe the effectual calling of God's elect. God makes them willing and able to rest on and receive Christ alone for their salvation (cf. WCF Chapters 9 and 10). This was described by the prophet Ezekiel,
Ezekiel 36:25-27 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
The Canons of Dort (3rd and 4th Heads of Doctrine) explain,
Yes, the Lord "took" us and delivered us from our state of sin and misery.
There's probably a difference between calling someone a heretic and labeling them anathema.
Thats a new word for me!:
Anathema (in Greek Ανάθεμα) originally meant something lifted up as an offering to the gods; later, with evolving meanings, it came to mean:
1. to be formally set apart;
2. banished, exiled, excommunicated;
3. denounced, sometimes accursed; or
4. a literary term
Anathema - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia