Heresy & The Elect

Status
Not open for further replies.
Strictly speaking, most of them do.
Strictly speaking, most of them don't.

Among the most pervasive ideas in modern evangelicalism are easy believism and false assurance - stemming from their belief that once they say a prayer or walk an aisle, they have nothing else to worry about because their eternity is "set."
 
Strictly speaking, most of them don't.

Among the most pervasive ideas in modern evangelicalism are easy believism and false assurance - stemming from their belief that once they say a prayer or walk an aisle, they have nothing else to worry about because their eternity is "set."
But what were speaking about there is a blend of several different errors. Salvation there is of man's initiation, and God excusing everything subsequent to man's decision. A twist on arminianism to make it more palatable for those who want to live in sin.
 
Thanks for this thought. A few questions. So there are no denominations or creeds that declared Roman Catholicism as heretical? Also, with Jehovah's witnesses and mormons, are there any creeds or denominations that have declared them heretical? If not, does that make them a legitimate institution? I'm just trying to sort out the logic in my head.
Not since the great schism. The church has not been able to speak as a whole since then. The Apostle's Creed, Nicaean Creed, and the early councils set the dogma for the catholic church.

Churches have certainly had to wrestle with issues about people coming out of other denominations. Should a local church body accept the baptism from another institution? Denominations have to decide this and it is reflected in varying doctrinal statements. The Westminster Divines had to address the question and were careful to suggest the possibility of accepting a baptism from less than ideal circumstances -- "neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it ..." and gives the trinitarian formulation " ... the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ..." by qualified clergy.

The OP would have us decide whether or not Arminianism is heresy and makes universal statements assuming that those of us in the Reformed community would consider both that community and the Roman church to be heretics. It is not the place of an individual to make that assumption for all of is, nor is it the place for an individual to declare heresy on matters of doctrine rather than dogma. The word gets thrown around too easily. I've known dear sweet Arminian brothers who hold to the truth of the scriptures, who believe they are saved by the atoning work of Jesus, and baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This meets basic Christian dogma.
 
Last edited:
What does this mean?



And how does it follow that Arminianism is heretical?
Arminianism was condemned at the Synod of Dort 1618. Arminian ministers were expelled from the Dutch Reformed churches. It would follow logically then that at the very least Arminians were excommunicated as at least a secondary level heresy. Even R.C. Sproul, Sr. said that Arminians were "barely saved by the skin of their teeth." Gordon H. Clark said that the Arminians who had not gone liberal or Pelagian were within the Evangelical realm.
 
Strictly speaking, most of them don't.

Among the most pervasive ideas in modern evangelicalism are easy believism and false assurance - stemming from their belief that once they say a prayer or walk an aisle, they have nothing else to worry about because their eternity is "set."
That's only true of the Baptists who accept the OSAS doctrine along with free will and the other Arminian doctrines. Wesleyans obviously do not believe in OSAS. Of course, one could argue that lowering the standards of the moral law to achieve entire sanctification could lead to another form of antinomianism such as the Oneida holiness community.
 
Arminianism was condemned at the Synod of Dort 1618. Arminian ministers were expelled from the Dutch Reformed churches. It would follow logically then that at the very least Arminians were excommunicated as at least a secondary level heresy. Even R.C. Sproul, Sr. said that Arminians were "barely saved by the skin of their teeth." Gordon H. Clark said that the Arminians who had not gone liberal or Pelagian were within the Evangelical realm.
Great post. I never knew any of this. I just use logic. I don't know why people can't understand, no matter how many times I say it or how plainly I wrote it down

Salvation is a gift you can't lose.
Losing salvation would require you to do something to keep it (works)
Gaining back salvation would only be by merit. (Works)

I've said it 5 different ways and even Made a whole new thread about it called "to work or not to work, that is the question". The est response I get is that they don't agree with me but they're not so fast to tag them as heretics.

If you believe you can lose salvation then it's not even salvation to begin with. The word saved is indefinite. You don't get carried out of a burning fire by firefighters so burn and die out side of the house afterwards... You're saved.

You're not being saved, were as you have to worry that the fire might somehow come crawling along and get you. The fire was extinguished the moment the fighters hit it with water and put it out. You don't have to continue to keep putting the fire out because the firefighters did it for you.

When Jesus said "it is finished " he didn't go die again and raise. He died once for all (elect).
 
That's only true of the Baptists who accept the OSAS doctrine along with free will and the other Arminian doctrines. Wesleyans obviously do not believe in OSAS. Of course, one could argue that lowering the standards of the moral law to achieve entire sanctification could lead to another form of antinomianism such as the Oneida holiness community.
I grew up around Arminians who held to once saved ... and assumed it was the majority position. So I was surprised to hear my son saying Liberty University teaches that one can lose his salvation. How very precious is the Biblical understanding that God unconditionally elects his own and that assurance of faith is possible.
 
I grew up around Arminians who held to once saved ... and assumed it was the majority position. So I was surprised to hear my son saying Liberty University teaches that one can lose his salvation. How very precious is the Biblical understanding that God unconditionally elects his own and that assurance of faith is possible.
I don't think Liberty University teaches that a person can lose their salvation once a decision is made. Most Baptists teach once saved, always saved. That was the position of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell. But on just about everything else they were Arminians. Baptists are 1 point Calvinists, except for the Free Will Baptists. Free Will Baptists believe that a Christian who is born again can commit apostasy. The Presbyterian and Reformed position is that not everyone who makes a profession of faith will endure in faith to the end. Only those who are truly elect persevere in faith to the end.

Yes, and the WCF teaches that not everyone who has saving faith immediately attains assurance of salvation. Chapter 18.
 
This is simply not true. I'm a reformed Baptist who attends a Baptist Church and they adhere to the 5 points and 5 Solas.
I meant Baptists in general, particularly the SBC. The only exception in the SBC is the Founders Movement. If you attend a Reformed Baptist church, that's in the minority but good for you.
 
I meant Baptists in general, particularly the SBC. The only exception in the SBC is the Founders Movement. If you attend a Reformed Baptist church, that's in the minority but good for you.
There are many Calvinistic Non-Reformed/Non-Confessional Baptist Churches as well. Dispensationalists stole a whole generation yes, but The Baptist Faith and Message is Calvinistic, along with the New Hampshire confession which many churches, even here in Canada use or adapt.

I don't think it's fair to say Baptists in general are one point Calvinists, but maybe I'm nitpicking.
 
There are many Calvinistic Non-Reformed/Non-Confessional Baptist Churches as well. Dispensationalists stole a whole generation yes, but The Baptist Faith and Message is Calvinistic, along with the New Hampshire confession which many churches, even here in Canada use or adapt.

I don't think it's fair to say Baptists in general are one point Calvinists, but maybe I'm nitpicking.
The Baptist Faith and Message is general enough for everyone. I wouldn’t label it Calvinistic myself.
 
There are many Calvinistic Non-Reformed/Non-Confessional Baptist Churches as well. Dispensationalists stole a whole generation yes, but The Baptist Faith and Message is Calvinistic, along with the New Hampshire confession which many churches, even here in Canada use or adapt.

I don't think it's fair to say Baptists in general are one point Calvinists, but maybe I'm nitpicking.
I grew up SBC, moving around a lot to various churches, and the only of the five points I ever heard questioned were Limited Atonement and irresistible Grace.
 
The Baptist Faith and Message is general enough for everyone. I wouldn’t label it Calvinistic myself.
"Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace." - IV Salvation
It clearly teaches that Regeneration precedes faith.
"Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility." V. - God's Purpose of Grace
Perhaps one could twist these words into conditional election, but it would be very difficult.
"All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." - V. - God's Purpose of Grace
It teaches perseverance against "Once Saved Always Saved" belief.

So I would say it is not general enough for an Arminian or "1-point Calvinist" to whole-heartedly to subscribe to, especially because of its clear affirmation of irresistible grace.
 
There are many Calvinistic Non-Reformed/Non-Confessional Baptist Churches as well. Dispensationalists stole a whole generation yes, but The Baptist Faith and Message is Calvinistic, along with the New Hampshire confession which many churches, even here in Canada use or adapt.

I don't think it's fair to say Baptists in general are one point Calvinists, but maybe I'm nitpicking.
It's certainly true of the SBC in the USA. They are completely ignorant of the Calvinistic slant of the Baptist Faith and Message. The Primitive Baptists here are fairly calvinistic for the most part, but they don't hold to any detailed confession of faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top