Arminian friends and foes

[Pergamum]

By the way, I hold to the 1689. I do not do theology without a Confessional mooring.

However, I would oppose a movement back towards Confessionalism as a whole.

I think fresh doctrinal statements and confessions of faith that have been updated are a good idea if too much time has passed. For instance, I favor the 1788 revision of the WCF over the original because I believe that every theologian is shaped by his time to some degree and one needs to re-analyze and critique even our confessions.

 

[danmpem]

By the way, I hold to the 1689. I do not do theology without a Confessional mooring.

However, I would oppose a movement back towards Confessionalism as a whole.

I think fresh doctrinal statements and confessions of faith that have been updated are a good idea if too much time has passed. For instance, I favor the 1788 revision of the WCF over the original because I believe that every theologian is shaped by his time to some degree and one needs to re-analyze and critique even our confessions.

I'm sure there are some people, even on the PB, who are getting very uncomfortable at those words. ...but I know what you mean.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Take the doctrinal statement for the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the US. Tell me how many non essentials are added into a doctrinal statement:

"What are the particular distinctives characterizing this denomination? First, we affirm a presuppositional approach to apologetics. We also acknowledge ourselves to be a theonomic denomination. Third, we believe in a postmillennial eschatology. Fourth, the RPCUS advocates that all areas of ecclesiastical authority be exercised by biblically qualified males. Specifically, the RPCUS only allows male heads of households to participate in congregational voting.
The question that has been raised by some Reformed brethren is: To what extent does the RPCUS demand subscription of its officers to these distinctives? The answer is: The RPCUS requires all of its teaching and ruling elders along with its deacons to subscribe to these distinctives."

Of all the distinctives they could have listed, they certainly chose an odd set. Thus, this denomination becomes a niche church and caters to only a narrow subset of Reformed folks and sink a lot of effort into defining those minor nuances. Where do these folks serve overseas....not many places I am sure (I know of a couple places, but nothing pioneering).

Perg

Those are standards for office bearers; there is a difference between Christians agreeing to differ on non-essentials and what is required for holding office in the church of Christ. Moreover, Theonomy is a matter of justice, which Christ calls a "weightier matter of the Law", so, in some sense, it is not a secondary issue.

 

[lwadkins]

Perg, I just want to make clear that I respect your willingness to see the Word preached to peoples who might not otherwise hear it. I have great respect for you as a person and my disagreements with you here are not personal. I absolutely wish you well and pray for you brother.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm too tired to devote much time to this right now and that's too bad because the discussion is really good and I've thought about things I would like to say but will probably lose the stream of this over the next few days.

I'll simply say this: a good Confession is never really the problem with a Church or a Body of individuals. It's always Christians and Churches. If the Reformed Confessions are accurate summaries of the Word of God (and I believe they are), then to lay sterility at the feet of the Confessions is to lay sterility at the summary of core Christian doctrines. Of course, some people have concluded just that thing: Wesley was convinced that predestination would kill evangelism.

Now does dead orthodoxy enter Churches? Yes. Do some Churches forget that discipleship occurs across the entire spectrum of understanding and that a Church should always have the "feel" of welcoming arms to newcomers? Yes. Are there even unregenerate men and women in Reformed Churches? Yes.

But those problems are due to a neglect of good doctrine and in spite of it and not because of it.

Pergie: You know I appreciate that you're on the front lines out of a love for Christ. I do not wish to discourage you. I only wish to urge that, as far as you're concerned, preach the whole counsel of God. You don't have to shirk other men and women that name Christ. I try to have a catholic spirit as much as depends on me - but I also will not fail to express my convictions to those I know that differ when I'm asked. But I also understand I'm not in a position of authority over every person I interact with and I don't go out of my way making enemies pointlessly that will undermine the work I'm doing.

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks Rich, thanks for your input. A lot of good stuff.

I am feeling like petering out of this thread too.

I'll state my main convictions one more time as I try to gracefully bow out (by the way, I am feeling better, so it is time for me to live life out from behind the old computer for awhile)...

(a). Arminians are both friend and foe, depending on their place on the "free will scale" ...or the Arminio-meter.

Many arminians do not believe in synergy and excel us in zeal..and even give out a good summary of the basic Gospel. Many PBers have been saved under such. I know several 4 pointers who are quite effective evangelists, though they plant baptist churches..and many are blessed under their ministries.

(b) The cure is not Confessionalism, but submission to the Word. I know Rich likes the confessions and to do his position honor I need to nuance my position and state that a greater love of the confessions most often accompanies a greater love of Scripture, and so an honor of the confessions might be a symptom of honor of the Scriptures. I hope so.

(c). We should give honor to whom honor is due. We should pray for God's preachers everywhere, even the arminian ones that are true brothers.

(d) The Reformed do a lot of good things in missions. There are things, also that could be improved. Praise God for the good they do.

There do seem to be those "micro-Presbyterians" that add many, many extra issues and I take issue with the agendas of many of these...they always end up in smallness because after all the extra doctrine is added on, it is hard to gather more than a handfull around them. We can also start a new and separate thread on this issue if desired.

(e). We should not tack on extra boundaries of fellowship with others. We can be overly strict in defining ourselves and add to Paul's qualifications (as the RPC in the US does with the qualifications for those officers, which go way beyond Paul). We can start a new thread if some disagree with me on this.

(f) As we move from the local church, to cooperation on regional issues, to church planting among pioneer areas, there is greater freedom to work side by side with those who are Christian but might differ with us. As one gets further towards the realms of darkness also there is a need to concentrate on the basics. This is not compromise nor is it merely "Give me Jesus and nothing else" but it is a purposeful focus on the main things out of necessity.

(g). I disagree with many of my dearest brethren on these issues. I may be a minority in this thread. But, I love you guys....GROUP HUG!!!!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

(e). We should not tack on extra boundaries of fellowship with others. We can be overly strict in defining ourselves and add to Paul's qualifications (as the RPC in the US does with the qualifications for those officers, which go way beyond Paul). We can start a new thread if some disagree with me on this.

Perg, an elder is one who has to be "able to teach" sound doctrine, therefore, I cannot understand what problem you have with a denomination requiring elders to adhere to what they consider to be important doctrinal teachings. Presuppositional apologetics is necessary for a minister to "do the work of an evangelist" in a Biblical way. Moreover, Presuppositional epistemology affects how one thinks about the world - having God as the starting point of knowledge. If a minister is to teach his flock to "do all to the glory of God", then he must have a sound view of epistemology or else he will be teaching humanism. Postmillennialism is also necessary to give impetus to missions, and (along with Theonomy) to instruct us as to how to build a Christian civilization.

Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the RPCUS was the first denomination to openly condemn the Federal Vision. While the PCA (no offence) dithered over whether or not FV was "Confessional" (which should never have been a question), the RPCUS recognised it was an attack on the gospel and damnable heresy (for more on this theme see a book written by one of their ministers - Rev. John Otis - called Danger in the Camp). So they can hardly be accused of majoring on the minors.

 

[Pergamum]

(e). We should not tack on extra boundaries of fellowship with others. We can be overly strict in defining ourselves and add to Paul's qualifications (as the RPC in the US does with the qualifications for those officers, which go way beyond Paul). We can start a new thread if some disagree with me on this.

Perg, an elder is one who has to be "able to teach" sound doctrine, therefore, I cannot understand what problem you have with a denomination requiring elders to adhere to what they consider to be important doctrinal teachings. Presuppositional apologetics is necessary for a minister to "do the work of an evangelist" in a Biblical way. Moreover, Presuppositional epistemology affects how one thinks about the world - having God as the starting point of knowledge. If a minister is to teach his flock to "do all to the glory of God", then he must have a sound view of epistemology or else he will be teaching humanism. Postmillennialism is also necessary to give impetus to missions, and (along with Theonomy) to instruct us as to how to build a Christian civilization.

Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the RPCUS was the first denomination to openly condemn the Federal Vision. While the PCA (no offence) dithered over whether or not FV was "Confessional" (which should never have been a question), the RPCUS recognised it was an attack on the gospel and damnable heresy (for more on this theme see a book written by one of their ministers - Rev. John Otis - called Danger in the Camp). So they can hardly be accused of majoring on the minors.

I have no doubt that the RPCUS does much good. They do a good job of pouncing on the FV.

But to require things of elders that the apostle Paul nor the WCF requires is highly suspect. We are not free to require extra doctrinal pecadillies of our elders, especially since it is nota proven (neither by Paul nor the WCF) that presuppositionalism nor theonomy are the way to go.

Again, Paul says that a man must be apt to teach...not apt to teach from a theonomic standpoint, and all others not welcome.




We can start a new thread about this if you would like. I am trying to wrap up my entanglement from this scrap and move on to other scraps.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Again, Paul says that a man must be apt to teach...not apt to teach from a theonomic standpoint, and all others not welcome.

If a denomination believes that Theonomy is the teaching of the Bible - and that matters of justice are among the "weightier matters of the Law" - then it is quite proper for them to require that of elders.

But to require things of elders that the apostle Paul nor the WCF requires is highly suspect. We are not free to require extra doctrinal pecadillies of our elders, especially since it is nota proven (neither by Paul nor the WCF) that presuppositionalism nor theonomy are the way to go.

But that is the whole problem Perg, they believe Paul does teach Theonomy and Presuppositionalism; even if you disagree, you have to respect their position. The same logic you employ could be used to say that a denomination should not require an elder to believe in infant baptism.

 

[Pergamum]

Yep, you got a point there.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Yep, you got a point there.

Thanks brother, very humble of you.

 

[kvanlaan]

Kvanlaan: I suppose that minors could be preached on in the US in a mature church. But can you imagine preaching on headcoverings, infra versus supra, etc when people don't even understand God or the Trinity? Again, I am not advocating dumbing down the Gospel on purpose and keeping it dumbed down, but in simplifying it for a baby's first steps and then adding weight to it as their legs strengthen. But the slow process of the maturation of the church in many areas will only only basics to be taught. Therefore, bounds of fellowship and the level of cooperation we have with other evangelicals can be greater in areas of pioneer outreach.

But see, we're not even talking about headcoverings and the like here - we're talking about the deeper meanings of scripture and the not-so-fluffy parts of the Bible. We are in this sort of community. One insignificant example (that just drives me nuts): I hear people quote James 1:27 all the time but they NEVER finish the verse. I can handle simplification to a degree but too often what comes of it is a quick run through the Sinner's Prayer and a high-five-welcome-to-the-club. What about discipleship? Not when there are more waiting to pray the Sinner's Prayer, sorry. Of course we hope that they will grow but so often the emphasis is on milk that even as much as we know they need meat, we just never get around to it, there are more babies coming through the door all the time, and the sermons never get beyond what those new believers 'need'. There's the danger. Parallel teaching with confessions help solidify what those verses mean/how they are applied right up front.

 

[Pergamum]

KVANLAAN:

Okay, I'll give an example of what those dreaded Arminians are doing.

New tribes Mission contains many arminians. Their approach, however, is often the same. They go to a tribal group that has little or no knowledge of the Gospel. Then they intensively tell them the story of salvation from Genesis right through the OT, going through the patrirachs, the promises, etc. This is called the Firm Foundations series and is used by many other groups as well because it really aquaints tribals with the ONE story of Scripture.

By the time they get to the NT, the existence of universal sinfulness and the need for a sacrifice are well established. When they hear of Jesus, then even these tribals often "get it"! Jesus is that ONE! Strong and lasting effects have resulted.

This is done by folks that belong to an org that has a publication which calls Calvinism a "grave error" (saw it in their library). Yet, for the arminian stance of this group as a whole, they do a lot of good evangelizing.


This is far from the "give me five you're in the club" or whatever you wrote above. This is a lengthy and in-depth storying of the whole Bible story. Hours per day of teaching also follow...much more intense than an hour or two on Sundays like many Reformed churches. They too would be horrified at merely teaching the sinner's prayer.



Other groups that are not five point calvinists do similar things.


Perhaps because of our intellectual arrogance as calvinisits we often equate Arminianism with lack of intellect or lack of doctrinal depth. I have a friend that puts out a calvinistic newsleter entitled, "For the thinking Christian"- as if Arminians are not also struggling with deep issues.


Do we as calvinists dare admit that we are often arrogant?

Again, I desire to give honor to whom honor is due. Praise God for those faithful preachers, even if Arminian, who are, in fact, preaching the Gospel. [okay, now I brace myself for the replies that say, "But arminianism is a false gospel"]

 

[MW]

Do we as calvinists dare admit that we are often arrogant?

Sure, and stubborn also. Do Arminians admit the same? And after they do, what have we accomplished? We've only proven that convictions are being maintained by people who still have to struggle with sin in their lives.

I grieve for people who are being reached by those who call Calvinism "a grave error." How can a Calvinist not weep at the deception which is being taught in the name of Jesus? Yes, it is often the case that false religion is more zealous than true religion; that is due to the fact that man made religion relies on man made endeavour to be successful. A Pharisee will compass sea and land to make a proselyte; that doesn't negate the sad reality that the Pharisee has made his proselyte twofold more the child of hell than himself. Has the Pharisee taught men something about God? Undoubtedly. But what he has taught has not been saving, but damning; he has shut up the kingdom of heaven against men because he has not taught the gospel of sovereign grace.

 

[Pilgrim]

Do we as calvinists dare admit that we are often arrogant?

Sure, and stubborn also. Do Arminians admit the same? And after they do, what have we accomplished? We've only proven that convictions are being maintained by people who still have to struggle with sin in their lives.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

I grieve for people who are being reached by those who call Calvinism "a grave error." How can a Calvinist not weep at the deception which is being taught in the name of Jesus? Yes, it is often the case that false religion is more zealous than true religion; that is due to the fact that man made religion relies on man made endeavour to be successful. A Pharisee will compass sea and land to make a proselyte; that doesn't negate the sad reality that the Pharisee has made his proselyte twofold more the child of hell than himself. Has the Pharisee taught men something about God? Undoubtedly. But what he has taught has not been saving, but damning; he has shut up the kingdom of heaven against men because he has not taught the gospel of sovereign grace.

Spurgeon said,

I believe that very much of current Arminianism is simply ignorance of gospel doctrine.

and

The tendency of Arminianism is towards legality; it is nothing but legality which lays at the root of Arminianism.

 

[Pilgrim]

By the way, I hold to the 1689. I do not do theology without a Confessional mooring.

However, I would oppose a movement back towards Confessionalism as a whole.

What is the difference between this and the politician (or anyone else) who says "I am personally pro life but I would oppose a movement to ban abortion"?

 

[kvanlaan]

Has the Pharisee taught men something about God? Undoubtedly.

The best (most effective) lies always have some truth in them.

 

[Pergamum]

Armourbearer:

So you grieve over people coming to know their Savior for the first time, even if through a witness done by those with whom you don't agree? Why are there not then Calvinists over here witnessing?

You sin, brother, by bringing slander against these dear missionary workers! They are not preaching a "false Gospel"


Are all arminians unsaved? Do all arminians give out a "false gospel?" No, many give out a good Gospel message. How else then would many of our brethren on the PB be saved underneath arminian ministries?


Many calvinists call anything that is less than full 5 point calvinism to be arminianism. There are many good many out there who do not like that L but are doing wonderful jobs?



How can a Calvinist not weep that the arminians often outpace them in missions and the calvinists just sit back and take potshots at those trying to reach the lost?


Knowledge puffs up and many here are quite swollen!

You might grieve at people being reached by arminians, but I grieve over those people NOT being reached by calvinisits.


Again,

Many arminians do give the Gospel to people. All are not heretics. There are shades to arminianism and many stay very closely to the Bible and do not mention the mechanics of salvation, but teach from the Biblical examples of salvation. One need not explain the ordo salutis to people.

New Tribes for instance, teaches from the Firm Foundations series which gives a chronological story of the Scriptures. I have seen the materials and can endorse it. But some here would rather see this teaching never take place rather than see those that disagree with Calvinism to do it.

Again,

Calvinists are wrong and arrogant when they demonize all stripes of arminians and say that it is better that some people have no Gospel witness rather than the witness of a preacher with arminian leanings.

Again,

There is a core Gospel. And it is simpler than the five points. One can hear the Gospel and be saved through the witness of Arminians instead of Calvinisits. And it may be that more are! Why is that?

Again,

We should give honor to whom honor is due. There are many saints who balk at limited atonement and do not quite know how the ordo fits together, and yet they evangelize faithfully, they disciple people, they resist sin. There are many missionaries who ae not five pointers but do wonderful jobs. We should praise God for all preachers of the Gospel, and many of these would be labeled as "non-calvinists" by us.

 

[Pilgrim]

Armourbearer:

So you grieve over people coming to know their Savior for the first time, even if through a witness done by those with whom you don't agree? Why are there not then Calvinists over here witnessing?

You sin, brother, by bringing slander against these dear missionary workers! They are not preaching a "false Gospel"


Are all arminians unsaved? Do all arminians give out a "false gospel?" No, many give out a good Gospel message. How else then would many of our brethren on the PB be saved underneath arminian ministries?


Many calvinists call anything that is less than full 5 point calvinism to be arminianism. There are many good many out there who do not like that L but are doing wonderful jobs?



How can a Calvinist not weep that the arminians often outpace them in missions and the calvinists just sit back and take potshots at those trying to reach the lost?


Knowledge puffs up and many here are quite swollen!

You might grieve at people being reached by arminians, but I grieve over those people NOT being reached by calvinisits.


Again,

Many arminians do give the Gospel to people. All are not heretics. There are shades to arminianism and many stay very closely to the Bible and do not mention the mechanics of salvation, but teach from the Biblical examples of salvation. One need not explain the ordo salutis to people.

New Tribes for instance, teaches from the Firm Foundations series which gives a chronological story of the Scriptures. I have seen the materials and can endorse it. But some here would rather see this teaching never take place rather than see those that disagree with Calvinism to do it.

Again,

Calvinists are wrong and arrogant when they demonize all stripes of arminians and say that it is better that some people have no Gospel witness rather than the witness of a preacher with arminian leanings.

Again,

There is a core Gospel. And it is simpler than the five points. One can hear the Gospel and be saved through the witness of Arminians instead of Calvinisits. And it may be that more are! Why is that?

Again,

We should give honor to whom honor is due. There are many saints who balk at limited atonement and do not quite know how the ordo fits together, and yet they evangelize faithfully, they disciple people, they resist sin. There are many missionaries who ae not five pointers but do wonderful jobs. We should praise God for all preachers of the Gospel, and many of these would be labeled as "non-calvinists" by us.

Again you impute the most sinister of motives to those who disagree with you. Again you take the most extreme positions you can find and ascribe that to all Calvinists.

God can certainly strike straight blows with crooked sticks. I think we all rejoice when sinners come to faith, even if it is under Arminian ministry. I came to faith under Arminian ministry although very soon thereafter I accepted the doctrines of grace (but not the full fledged Reformed faith as it took me longer to embrace infant baptism).

There is not one ecclesiology for Christendom another for the heathen. The statement of faith you posted asserts that only "believers baptism" is valid. But even if it were less sectarian than that and said simply that the two ordinances of the church are baptism and the Lord's Supper it would be worthless because you cannot escape the issues of who is going to partake in the Lord's Supper and the proper mode and objects of baptism. You had mentioned church planting. Some kind of church is going to be planted, or that is the goal. It may be Arminian, Calvinist, paedobapist, credobaptist, credocommunion, paedocommunion, charismatic, cessationist, etc. God be praised for those who are truly converted under any of the above banners. But to ask Presbyterians to support non Presbyterian missions is just as preposterous as asking Baptists to support Anglican missions that practice paedocommunion.

 

[Pilgrim]

JEFF: Thanks for the link. A good read.

Dennis: Great response, I agree with 95% of it.

Rich: Thanks as usual. I do like the confessions.


I think Dennis nailed it on the head when he mentioned:

Surely we should differentiate a community effort of cooperation among Gospel preaching, Bible believing, penal satisfaction affirming , Christians regardless of their designer labels? That is not the same as membership requirements of a local church or ordination standards.

Yes, exactly. We should not require our "partners" in those community efforts to fully subscribe to the WCF. THis PB is sort of like one of those occasions were baptists are allowed in, for instance.

What I am advocating is NOT the watering down of basic theology to bring in the goats into the pews. It is NOT just Jesus. There IS, indeed, a core set of doctrines that are held to by all Christians.

What I advocate is this: As we move from local church ordination, to regional involvement, to church planting among the neediest in the world, we should - at each step - move towards this more simple core set of beliefs.

Thus, in groups that concentrate on these items, we need not a full-orbed" confessionalism but a simple, core set of doctrines.

A good example of this would be the following for a missions body:

We Affirm:
SCRIPTURE: - that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the written Word of God, verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, without error in the original manuscripts, and the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct. Ps. 19:7-12; II Tim.3:14-17; II Pet. 1:20,21

GOD: - that there is only one true God, eternally existing in three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - equal and harmonious in every respect, yet distinct in relation to the divine functions. God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Jn.8:12-59; 14:8-17

PERSON OF THE FATHER: - that God the Father is the sovereign, holy, and merciful Lord who judges righteously, and who in love pursues the redemption of His fallen creation. Ps.139; Isa.40; Jn.3:16-21

PERSON OF Jesus Christ: -that God the eternal Son became a man through the virgin birth, uniting perfect deity and true humanity in one Person forever. His virgin birth was a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. He lived a sinless life, was crucified, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended into heaven as Lord of all. He now intercedes for believers and will return personally and visibly to receive them, to establish His Kingdom and to rule in righteousness and peace. Mt.1:18-25; Jn.1:1-18; I Cor.15:1-8; Col.1:15-23; Heb.4:14-16; Rev.19:11-20:6

PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: - that God the Holy Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son in all that He does, not calling attention to Himself. His work includes convicting and regenerating sinners, baptizing all believers into the body of Christ at the time of regeneration, living in them, enabling them to live a life of obedient faith, equipping and empowering them for service and witness. Jn. 14-16; Rom. 8; Gal. 5:22-23; Eph. 5:18-21

HUMANITY: - that God created man and woman in His own image, and they became separated from God through their disobedience. Consequently every human being is born a sinner, unwilling and unable to please God. Therefore even those who have never heard the truth about God and His provision for salvation are lost. Gen.1-3; Rom.3, 4

SALVATION: - that eternal salvation is wholly a work of God. God, out of His abundant grace, forgives sinners when they repent of their sin and put their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for them and rose from the dead. Jesus assumes their punishment for sin, credits His righteousness to those who believe, and brings them into eternal relationship with God as His children. Rom. 5; 10:8-10

SANCTIFICATION: - that believers are declared holy in standing before God, on the basis of the finished work of Christ. However, until they are glorified, when they will be with the Lord, they are to grow in godliness as they submit to Christ's lordship, live in Christian community and are filled (controlled and empowered) by the Holy Spirit. Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 5:18; Heb. 10:10; II Pet. 3:14-18

THE CHURCH: - that the church universal as the body of Christ is under His Headship and is composed of all believers. It is made visible by local communities of believers organized for corporate worship, edification, fellowship, and the continuation of Christ's mission on earth. God gives spiritual gifts and leaders to the Church for its edification. The two God- ordained symbolic rites of the Church are believers baptism and the Lord's supper. Mt.16:18, 28:19; Lk. 22:19; Eph. 3:8-11, 20-21; 4:11-16

RESURRECTION: - that there will be a final bodily resurrection of all persons: believers will be raised to eternal life and conscious fellowship with God; unbelievers will be raised to eternal punishment and conscious separation from God. Eccl. 12:14; Dan. 12:2-4; I Cor. 15; II Cor. 5:1-10

SATAN AND SPIRITUAL CONFLICT: - that Satan and other fallen angels are real, have personality, and are enemies of God and destroyers of men. While they were defeated at the cross and are limited in operation, they still engage in spiritual battle against God's people and against His purpose until the final day of judgment. Through Christ believers can live victoriously in this struggle with the forces of evil. Eph. 2:1-3; 6:10-18; Heb. 2:14-18; Jas. 4:6-7

MISSION: - that Christ commissioned the Church to communicate to all people by verbal witness, godly living, and acts of compassion, the Good News of God's redemptive love and provision of salvation. It is the solemn responsibility of all believers to work with Christ in fulfilling the commission of making disciples among all peoples. Mt. 28:16-20; Acts 1:6-11

This statement calls for "believers baptism". Obviously Presbyterian and Reformed believers cannot assent to it. As I noted in the previous post, even simply said baptism and the Lord's Supper, you cannot escape the question of the proper objects and mode of baptism. The statement is silent with regard to mode, but surely you as a Baptist do not advocate pouring or sprinkling.

 

[MW]

You sin, brother, by bringing slander against these dear missionary workers! They are not preaching a "false Gospel"

I "sin?" Am I still on a reformed discussion board which acknowledges the Canons of Dort as exhibiting Scriptural truth?

You need to make up your mind, Pergamum. Either they teach men are dead in trespasses and sin, and cannot do anything to make themselves alive, but need the sovereign grace of God to work in them to draw them to Jesus Christ; or they teach God has given all men the grace to accept or reject the Saviour. The first is the true gospel; the second is false gospel. One might very well tell people about the wonder of Jesus Christ; but if the hearer is left with a false impression as to how an individual is to be made partaker of salvation by Christ, then it is a false gospel. "Asking Jesus into your heart" is not the gospel.

 

[Pergamum]

You wrote:

"Again you impute the most sinister of motives to those who disagree with you and take the most extreme positions you can find and ascribe that to all Calvinists."


That is what I hear people here doing to all that do not believe in calvinism. They are all painted with one brush as preaching a "false gospel" quite a charge!

 

[Poimen]

You wrote:

"Again you impute the most sinister of motives to those who disagree with you and take the most extreme positions you can find and ascribe that to all Calvinists."

That is what I hear people here doing to all that do not believe in calvinism. They are all painted with one brush as preaching a "false gospel" quite a charge!

Charging someone with preaching a false gospel is not the same as imputing sinister motives.

The first is the failure to preach the truth; the second is a failure to live the truth.

 

[Pilgrim]

Just imagine how crippled the missions efforts would be, after all, if a bunch of the truly reformed churches demanded that all their candidates held to headcovering, exclusive psalmodry, the original WCF instead of that 1788 revision, and a theonomic interpretation of things? Maybe tack on no pictures of Jesus even when teaching out of the church and a multitude of other issues. Not much would get done except drawing lines and fighting over those lines.

What does teaching in or out of the church have to do the propriety of "pictures of Jesus" one way or another?

Why the need for so called "pictures of Jesus"?

 

[Pergamum]

You sin, brother, by bringing slander against these dear missionary workers! They are not preaching a "false Gospel"

I "sin?" Am I still on a reformed discussion board which acknowledges the Canons of Dort as exhibiting Scriptural truth?

You need to make up your mind, Pergamum. Either they teach men are dead in trespasses and sin, and cannot do anything to make themselves alive, but need the sovereign grace of God to work in them to draw them to Jesus Christ; or they teach God has given all men the grace to accept or reject the Saviour. The first is the true gospel; the second is false gospel. One might very well tell people about the wonder of Jesus Christ; but if the hearer is left with a false impression as to how an individual is to be made partaker of salvation by Christ, then it is a false gospel. "Asking Jesus into your heart" is not the gospel.

You sin if you attribute evil to the Lord's servants.

Most arminians pray like calvinists and know that God has saved them soley by grace. Most are inconsistent with themselves. They simply do not know the mechanics of salvation.

It is not as easy as saying calvinism=true gospel, all shades of sub-calvinism=arminianism=false gospel.



Asking Jesus into your heart is wrong phraseology, but it IS needful to ask Jesus into your heart is it not?



Charles Spurgeon often met with Hudson Taylor and Geroge Mueller to pay, folks who were not five pointers. Is Spurgeon then a compromiser for collaborating with the enemy?

 

[Pergamum]

"Lord Jesus save me!" Is that or is that not askign Jesus into your heart,into your life, or however you want to phrase it! The arminianis use poor terminology to get across that we must each personally be converted.

 

[MW]

You sin if you attribute evil to the Lord's servants.

Most arminians pray like calvinists and know that God has saved them soley by grace. Most are inconsistent with themselves. They simply do not know the mechanics of salvation.

It is not as easy as saying calvinism=true gospel, all shades of sub-calvinism=arminianism=false gospel.

Asking Jesus into your heart is wrong phraseology, but it IS needful to ask Jesus into your heart is it not?

First, if you are going to start charging brethren with sin, at least be man enough to do it openly without hiding behind a screen name.

Secondly, this is a reformed board. The canons of Dort with their condemnation of error are considered to be biblical. The canons charge Arminianism with serious error. You have no basis to charge me with "slander" for doing nothing more than upholding the confessional standards of this board. The "sinner" here is the one who says he maintains a Calvinist confession and then degrades Calvinism as if it is nothing.

Thirdly, if a person doesn't know the mechanics of salvation then they have no basis upon which to be assured they are saved. If A, B, and C, are true of a saved person, and person X doesn't know A, B, and C, then person X has no way of knowing if he is saved. If your "servant of God" leaves people with no way of knowing if they are in fact saved, then I put it to you they are not preaching the gospel of salvation, whatever else they might be pretending to do.

Fourthly, no it is not needful to ask Jesus into your heart. It is needful for the Holy Spirit to renew a man so as to give him faith whereby Christ dwells in his heart really and sincerely, Eph. 3:17.

 

[Pergamum]

Okay, give me the ordo salutis in detail with Scripture proofs! What, you cannot do it from heart?

Asking Jesus into your heart is the loose terminology that many use in trying to express one's personal conversion. Have you ever decided to follow Jesus? Have you ever asked Jesus into your heart? I assert that this terminology is not so much wrong, but merely loose. Jesus does stand at the door and knock and will sup with anyone who opens the door, right?

Just because a person does not know all the secret workings, does not mean he is not saved. I ask Jesus into my heart because the Holy Spirit has moved me.




Many hyper calvinisits also uphold the canons of Dort. They still damage the Gospel.


PM me and I will tell you who I am and why I am "hiding behind my scren name."

 

[MW]

To tell a man that salvation consists in asking Jesus into his heart is to tell a lie. If a person doesn't know he is dead in trespasses and sins he doesn't yet know what he needs to be saved from, let alone how Jesus saves. To suggest to him he can be saved by his own unaided decision for Jesus is to preach the man is his own Messiah.