Should we pray with Arminians?

[ChristopherPaul]

To avoid

Define your terms. Most of these discussions go back and forth until the two sides actually see what the other side means when using the common terminology.

Many believe (falsely, but nonetheless) that if one is not a five point Calvinist, then he must be an Arminian. Keep this in mind when handing out anathemas. They think you are pronouncing anathema to "growing believers" when you really are not.

 

[Arch2k]

Forgive me brethren, but I'm as fervent a 5 pointer as anyone here but I'll stand with Spurgeon in his statement from "a defense of calvinism".

This one?

The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

I also abhor it. But if we believe that Arminians are Christians, should we abhor their gospel? At least they would be spreading truth? I hold that Spurgeon here is inconsistent. On one side, he says that the only gospel is Calvinism, one the other side he says that Arminians are saved. Contradiction at its best.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I like the term "gospelites" and growing believer, but I do not recall them being used much in previous discussions over this exact same issue (not praying per se, but the heresy issue).

 

[Blueridge Believer]

The better way to look at this is that all believers in heaven will be on the same page; they will all be biblically aligned and most definitely Presbyterian

And I'll get to baptize everyone of you in the river of life!

 

[Scott Bushey]

This one?



I also abhor it. But if we believe that Arminians are Christians, should we abhor their gospel? At least they would be spreading truth? I hold that Spurgeon here is inconsistent. On one side, he says that the only gospel is Calvinism, one the other side he says that Arminians are saved. Contradiction at its best.

And this same double-talk continues to this day. Shameful. Lets lull people right into hell.

 

[Arch2k]

To avoid

Define your terms. Most of these discussions go back and forth until the two sides actually see what the other side means when using the common terminology.

Many believe (falsely, but nonetheless) that if one is not a five point Calvinist, then he must be an Arminian. Keep this in mind when handing out anathemas. They think you are pronouncing anathema to "growing believers" when you really are not.

Chris,

I agree. We cannot label all non-Calvinists Arminians. This is important to keep in mind.

I see four basic groups of people (maybe you can add more).

Pagans - obviously don't know God

Calvinists - not only in profession, but in belief. Obviously saved because they believe the gospel.

Gospelites - people that are probably ignorant of Calvinism, yet believe that God has saved them by free, sovereign grace alone, by faith alone, because of Christ alone.

Pelagians/Arminians - people that add to the work of God by making salvation hinge not on Christ's work alone, but ultimately their works, merits, willing and running. This is the same gospel Paul anathemetized in Galations. These are the people in this discussion.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I like the term "gospelites" and growing believer, but I do not recall them being used much in previous discussions over this exact same issue (not praying per se, but the heresy issue).

Because, that was not the point I was trying to get across in that thread and that being that practicing Arminians are heretics and perishing.

 

[Arch2k]

And this same double-talk continues to this day. Shameful. Lets lull people right into hell.

Exactly. I don't think we're doing any favors to Arminians by calling them "brethren." We need to evangelise them! Speak of the horrid nature of a gospel that requires their own obedience! This is nothing less than to place man back in the garden of Eden, working to please God and earn his grace. What a condition!

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Chris,

I agree. We cannot label all non-Calvinists Arminians. This is important to keep in mind.

I see four basic groups of people (maybe you can add more).

Pagans - obviously don't know God

Calvinists - not only in profession, but in belief. Obviously saved because they believe the gospel.

Gospelites - people that are probably ignorant of Calvinism, yet believe that God has saved them by free, sovereign grace alone, by faith alone, because of Christ alone.

Pelagians/Arminians - people that add to the work of God by making salvation hinge not on Christ's work alone, but ultimately their works, merits, willing and running. This is the same gospel Paul anathemetized in Galations. These are the people in this discussion.

I agree, and by these definitions I would think we should all agree. The confusion comes when people don't know what an Arminian really is.

So do we pray in one accord (isn't all prayer to be in one accord?) with Gnostics, Mormons, Judiazers, and Pelagians? No, nor do we with Arminians.

However, I for one have yet to meet a true Arminian in person.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I agree, and by these definitions I would think we should all agree. The confusion comes when people don't know what an Arminian really is.

So do we pray in one accord (isn't all prayer to be in one accord?) with Gnostics, Mormons, Judiazers, and Pelagians? No, nor do we with Arminians.

However, I for one have yet to meet a true Arminian in person.

Would you consider Norman Geisler an Arminian?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Would you consider Norman Geisler an Arminian?

I have never met him, but does he actually believe that he helped merit his salvation, aka synergism?

 

[Arch2k]

My grandfather was a Wesleyan/Methodist preacher for 50 years. He would pray so fervently at night when I was a child you could hear him outside. My grandmother had standards of holiness that would put anyone here to shame. I remember going to camp meetings with them when I was a kid. They worshipped God hard. They were married for 70 years when grandad died. I really find it hard to believe theyre in hell because they had a faulty understanding of certain doctrines but yet loved Christ fervently.
BTW, Spurgeon was saved in a methodist church. Imagine that, God in his sovereign will saving a man while a hell bound lost heretic is preaching!
Forgive me brethren, but I'm as fervent a 5 pointer as anyone here but I'll stand with Spurgeon in his statement from "a defense of calvinism".

I will also say that I was formerly an Arminian, and most of my family (including my parents) are still so. I did not come to this belief lightly, but I truely believe that they are not saved, and the more I talk to them about the true gospel, it becomes more and more apparant.

I think all of us who have been saved by God's grace from our conditional gospel should be as Paul:

Phi 3:8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
Phi 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

As Paul counted his works and even "salvation" as a Pharisee as rubbish, so I count my works and "salvation" as an Arminian as dung, that I may gain Christ.

 

[Arch2k]

I have never met him, but does he actually believe that he helped merit his salvation, aka synergism?

All arminians do! Free will necessitates synergism.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

All arminians do! Free will necessitates synergism.

Ok, but I have never spoken with Mr. Geisler nor read any of his books. Does he actually say that he merited a portion of his salvation?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

I will also say that I was formerly an Arminian

So were you a full five point Arminian or just a three pointer?

I am not sure if I could ever say I was an Arminian. I didn't even know what an Arminian was until I became a Calvinist. Did I ever really believe that i was saved by grace plus works? I don't think so - at least not while I was a professing Christian.

 

[Arch2k]

Arminians don't explicitly say that they merit salvation. In fact, they deny it! But, they equivicate on merit, for they do not define "free-will" as them meriting their salvation, but that is EXACTLY what free-will is!

We have to remember that Catholics, Jehovah's witnesses and all other sorts of heretical groups claim to be christians, but that does not make it so.

Tit 1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him...

 

[Arch2k]

So were you a full five point Arminian or just a three pointer?

I am not sure if I could ever say I was an Arminian. I didn't even know what an Arminian was until I became a Calvinist. Did I ever really believe that i was saved by grace plus works? I don't think so - at least not while I was a professing Christian.

I wouldn't have said it that way, but looking back, my belief in free-will was just that. Me trying to save myself. Ultimately, who hands was my salvation in? My own. God couldn't do it, for he would not infringe on my free-will! I must do it. It was my own, my precious...

I was probably a four-pointer....belief in eternal security, but that's about it.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Didn't Jacob Arminius state that his salvation did depend partly on a small work in and of himself?

 

[Arch2k]

Didn't Jacob Arminius state that his salvation did depend on a small work in and of himself?

Not that I know of.

Here's another good quote from Spurgeon:

"Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, `If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is `Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men."

Free Will-A Slave ​

 

[Herald]

I think that is and has been Scott's point here at the PB for a long time.

Adam - I haven't read enough of Scott's posts on the subject to come to that conclusion, but I will accept it as fact unless Scott cares to respond that he believes otherwise.

I do believe that historical Arminianism is heresy. That being said, I could not join my prayers to enemies of Christ, although I could pray in their presence according to the will of God. For instance, our nation celebrates a National Day of Prayer. It is beyond argument that many who participate in this day of prayer do not know Christ. With that being the case, can I still pray? Yes. I pray for God's will to be done in our nation while not joining my prayers to enemies of the cross.

 

[Pilgrim]

I have never met him, but does he actually believe that he helped merit his salvation, aka synergism?

I don't know if he would word it that way, but Geisler has said that God is trying to save all that he can.

 

[ReformedWretch]

but Geisler has said that God is trying to save all that he can

YIKES!!!!

 

[Pilgrim]

Why do you say that? You imply that the believers of that day were all in error? As well, where do you draw the line then? You imply God grades upon some curve.

God has always had a remnant stump.....




Our church practices closed communion

Closed communion meaning what exactly? Only members of RPCGA churches can come to the table, or are other confessional Reformed believers welcome? If it's the latter I would term that close communion, where those from other churches of like faith and practice can come to the table. Again this is a question of defining terms. When some see "closed communion" they take it to mean that only members of that particular congregation may partake.

Also, do you consider Baptists who hold to the doctrines of grace to be in the same category as Arminians? (i.e. heretics and not merely "in error").

Earlier you distinguished Arminianism from Dispensationalism, saying that the latter was merely error. While many who are basically Dispensational like MacArthur and many in the SBC teach that there has always been only one way of salvation, what about the more extreme forms of Dispensationalism that teach that there have been different gospels throughout history?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Closed communion meaning what exactly? Only members of RPCGA churches can come to the table, or are other confessional Reformed believers welcome? If it's the latter I would term that close communion, where those from other churches of like faith and practice can come to the table. Again this is a question of defining terms. When some see "closed communion" they take it to mean that only members of that particular congregation may partake.

I believe the RPCGA practices 'close'; In our church we tighten up the reigns a bit. For instance, until it is clear from an interview prior to the table that all things are in order, it will be withheld. Just because someone says they are PCA does not qualify them for our table; for all we know, they are under discipline.

Also, do you consider Baptists who hold to the doctrines of grace to be in the same category as Arminians? (i.e. heretics and not merely "in error").

Earlier you distinguished Arminianism from Dispensationalism, saying that the latter was merely error. While many who are basically Dispensational like MacArthur and many in the SBC teach that there has always been only one way of salvation, what about the more extreme forms of Dispensationalism that teach that there have been different gospels throughout history?

The extreme Dispensationalists, i.e. Lahaye etc. are heretical. The strand of dispensationalism I refered to was the Progresive dispensationalism.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A few thoughts:

I just believe that, thanks to the mercy of God, many people's faith is better than the theology they've been fed (on paper).

And I believe that many (maybe most) people who are getting that bad theology are in fact lost, since they are getting the Galatian heresy, packaged as Christianity. These are difficult days to live in. But look at all the rotten fruit! That's telling us something, namely, there are a lot of lost people calling themselves Christians.

And, sadly, not saying anyone here or their relatives, but even very moral people may not be saved. You need both dogma and ethics in saving measure. But I, too, have non-Calvinist dear relatives--relatives who taught their children so well devotion to God and his Word, that those children are today Calvinist believers. So, is that later faithfulness connected to earlier faith? I would have to think so...

Which may be followed by the corrolary: many people with Reformed dogmas will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven. Pity. But, since practice follows thinking in the ordinary Providence, I expect most folks who have correct doctrine will be saved in fact. Mostly, because full-orbed correct doctrine includes dying to self. But often, people think 5-points is the gospel, and that's it. And they are CARNAL to the core!

And none of us are 100% right anyway, so the best of us (whoever that is) needs grace upon grace. Its just that, in this conversation, we are cognizant that the GOSPEL is so central and important. We need to promote the truth, and starting with the 5-points is an excellent place. They need to be worked out, though, and extended into a life of covenant existence, governed in every place by Scripture.

Last thought: one theologian I heard quipped: "Sure, you can be saved outside a Reformed church, but why take that chance?"

That's enough from me.

 

[Pilgrim]

I believe the RPCGA practices 'close'; In our church we tighten up the reigns a bit. For instance, until it is clear from an interview prior to the table that all things are in order, it will be withheld. Just because someone says they are PCA does not qualify them for our table; for all we know, they are under discipline.



The extreme Dispensationalists, i.e. Lahaye etc. are heretical. The strand of dispensationalism I refered to was the historic dispensationalism J. Boice held to.

Boice held to historic premillenialism as opposed to dispensational premillenialism. I've never seen historic premil described as dispensationalism, a term which is generally used to refer to what Darby taught and Scofield, DTS, etc. popularized.

 

[toddpedlar]

Because, that was not the point I was trying to get across in that thread and that being that practicing Arminians are heretics and perishing.

Can you define a practicing Arminian?

Can one who believes that Christ alone saved him, wholly graciously, without any merit on his part, but who has a misunderstanding about the extent of the atonement (i.e. an illogical view), saved? Are you not close to falling into Carpenter's error, Scott? (this being the error that defines one's state of being, saved or unsaved, based on what one believes about how OTHER people are saved)

 

[toddpedlar]

So, Scott, what is it about "praying with others" that makes you guilty of agreeing in toto with their theology? Do you have a questionnaire that you go through, point by point, to make sure they don't have any heterodox beliefs, before you allow yourself to bend the knee with them?

Are you guilty of sin when you lead a group in prayer that contains a believer who holds a heretical specific?

 

[Blue Tick]

A growing believer. There is a big difference between someone who is growing in faith and one that holds to Arminianism.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Boice held to historic premillenialism as opposed to dispensational premillenialism. I've never seen historic premil described as dispensationalism, a term which is generally used to refer to what Darby taught and Scofield, DTS, etc. popularized.

Chris,
My mistake; I meant to say progressive dispensationalism. I see PD as error, but the Lehaye strain of dispensationalism as heresy.