Should we pray with Arminians?

[Blue Tick]

A mistaken Christian who believes in free will does not make them an Arminian. Just as a Christian who believes in divine election does not make them a Calvinist. One who actively rejects the doctrines of grace, after being taught them faithfully, I believe is not being led by the spirit into truth. The only time I would refuse to pray with a non-Calvinist, non-reformed Christian is after I have explained the DoG to the best of my God given ability, and they refuse. That is where I know that they are following a different Jesus.
Or, if they come out and say "I'm an Arminian. I hate your Calvinist theology".

A Christian woman whose husband is dying, who "doesn't understand" all that reformed theology stuff, I would pray with. Then lay out the DoG as easily and clearly as I could.

True, someone can be mistaken or misled in their theology. But if one rejects the DoG and believes in their free will, then they are relying on their power to choose God.

I think this example is a bit dramatic. (Trevor's Screenplay) Calvinistic theology is not hard to understand. It's not complicated, it only becomes complicated when we have been indoctrinated with BAD THEOLOGY and our minds need to be renewed.

Now if we were talking about Infra and Supra, these subjects are complicated. But ones salvation does not depend on ones view of Infra or Supra.

 

[Arch2k]

Trevor you should have been a screenplay writer!

Obviously your point is made. But if the (character woman) believes in free will then her idea of how she was saved is works righteousness. Anyone that believes it is their own free will that gives them the power to believe the gospel is relying on a works based gospel.

Mormons believe and trust in Christ,love bible studies and believe in free will.

So the question is which Jesus are you trusting in?

and

 

[VaughanRSmith]

True, someone can be mistaken or misled in their theology. But if one rejects the DoG and believes in their free will, then they are relying on their power to choose God.

Exactly.

I think this example is a bit dramatic.

Similar extreme examples are used as arguments against Reformed Christianity all the time. I was surprised to see one here, actually.

Calvinistic theology is not hard to understand. It's not complicated, it only becomes complicated when we have been indoctrinated with BAD THEOLOGY and our minds need to be renewed.

I think Mark Driscoll summed up reformed theology in layman's terms very well:

"We all suck, God saves us from ourselves."

It's not great or all encompassing, but lays down some basics.

Now if we were talking about Infra and Supra, these subjects are complicated. But ones salvation does not depend on ones view of Infra or Supra.

Indeed.

 

[turmeric]

I think most Arminians and classic evangelicals would agree that "we all suck. God saves us from ourselves." I don't think they understand it logically as we do. Some of them, and some Calvinists I might add, believe in works-righteousness, although they claim that they don't. Sometimes I believe in works-righteousness! Getting a grip on the true Gospel is more of a process than a crisis for some reason. Decades of bad "evangelical" theology, taught consistently as the truth, has made that process unbelievably complicated for some. Of course, if we were not depraved and constantly seeking to be our own gods, it wouldn't be so complicated. I find it hard to assume that all convinced Arminians are unsaved if they won't accept my explanation of Calvinism as truth. After all, it has only been tha past 4 years that I've come close to truly understanding this, and some of you no doubt think I don't, as I'm PCA, not OPC.

I think there's a logical fallacy called the "slippery slope" that is being committed here. It's like, if you have always been taught that one gets saved during an altar-call, you therefore completely trust yourself, not Christ, for salvation, therefore if you believe in altar-calls and can't be convinced otherwise, you're not saved. This seems to be going too far.

PS. I'm listening to an evanjellyfish trying to sell "Christian mezzuzahs" to people. Now that sounds WAAYY too close to the Galatian heresy to me!

 

[Blue Tick]

What Jesus are we supposed to trust in?



From the Book of Mormon 2:25:23

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.



This was taken from Calvary Chapel Distinctives written by Chuck Smith. This is Calvary's basic confession of faith.


Another example of maintaining a balance on debatable issues is our approach to Calvinism. This is an area that people get very emotional about. We're neither 'Five Point Calvinists', nor are we Arminian. We do believe in the security of the believer. We don't believe that you can lose your salvation because you lost your temper or told a lie and, as a result, need to go forward next Sunday night to repent and get resaved.

We believe in the security of the believer but we also believe in the 'perseverance of the saints.' We don't believe that because you are a saint you will necessarily persevere, but that you need to persevere because you're a saint. Jesus said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" (John 8:31), and "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." (John 15:6-7). Jesus Himself is the One that brought up the possibility of a person not abiding in Him. So we seek to take a balanced position rather than getting on one side and pressing the 'Five Points of Calvinism.' When you take hard stands on these non-foundational issues, you'll just empty your church of all of those who have Methodist, Nazarene, and other Arminian-infiuenced backgrounds. Why would you want to do that?

The eternal security of the believer is a debatable issue at best. There are Scriptures on both sides. You have John 3:16. What does "Whosoever believeth in Him" mean? Does that mean that anybody can be saved? It appears to me to mean that, and so we don't take the hard-line Calvinistic position of limited atonement that says Jesus didn't die for everybody, only those who would believe in Him. We do not accept that believing in Him has nothing to do with human responsibility, but is totally the sovereign choice of God. This position states that God has ordained some to be saved and some to be lost. If God has ordained you to be lost, tough luck, buddy. There's nothing we can do. This is a denial of the free moral agency. Instead, we believe that God has given us the capacity of choice. The reason He gave us a capacity of choice is so that the love we express toward Him might be meaningful and real. That's the balanced position that we take.

There are people who are always trying to pigeon-hole Calvary Chapel. Do you believe in eternal security? I say, "Yes, of course I believe in eternal security. As long as I abide in Christ, I'm eternally secure." Now, dispute that. If you don't abide in Christ, are you secure? Can you have security outside of Jesus Christ? I don't know of any security outside of Jesus Christ. But I believe as long as I abide in Him, He's going to keep me from falling, He's going to present me faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy. And no man can pluck me out of His hand. I believe that, and I experience God's security.



Now the Mormons believe in Christ and believe we are saved by grace after all we can do.

Pastor Chuck Smith believes we are eternally secure as long as we are abiding."Yes, of course I believe in eternal security. As long as I abide in Christ, I'm eternally secure."

The problem with Chuck's statement is what does he mean by abide? He's basically teaching that in order to be saved you need to continue to abide in Christ apart from the grace of God. He does not mention we can abide in Christ by God's grace. He clearly thinks that in order for him to feel eternally secure his continous efforts to abide will please God and he will experience God's security. But at any moment when he is not abiding he will incur God's displeasure because he didn't abide today.

Therefore, "we are saved by grace after all that we can do." Mormon

"As long as I am abiding in Christ I am eternally secure." Chuck Smith

Conclusion= Both teach a works based gospel. Mormons teach we are saved by all that we can do. Chuck teaches as long as I am abiding I am ok. (aka after all that (I,we) can do)


This is the fundamental problem: Same words different definitions.


Therefore, Chuck's Jesus can only save if he (Chuck) continues to abide. The Mormon Jesus will save as long as good Mormons offer additional work.

So what Jesus are we praying to when we get together with non-confessional Christians?

 

[Blue Tick]

Also, please don't be discouraged if you respond to my previous post and I don't respond right away. I need to fly to Memphis in the morning and will be busy all the way till Tuesday night.

Blessings

 

[elnwood]

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.

Have you read Boice's Last and Future World? In terms of eschatology, his premillennialism was very clearly dispensational (though he was not a dispensationalist), and not historic premillennialism.

See also this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16779

 

[non dignus]

I want to understand you correctly brother. Are you saying that one must have a complete understanding of the five points to be saved? This question is for Scott.

James,

To whom much is given, much is required.
If one is shown from the scriptures the five points,
and those five points are repeatedly rejected,
how can we say that he has the Holy Spirit guiding him unto all truth? The rotten fruit is more obvious of seasoned, knowledgeable Christian teachers, and it is less obvious of novices and 'babes in Christ'.

I hope your grandparents' righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. I hope their's was an ALIEN righteousness.

That your grandfather was a Wesleyan preacher gives me grave doubts.

 

[Pilgrim]

Have you read Boice's Last and Future World? In terms of eschatology, his premillennialism was very clearly dispensational (though he was not a dispensationalist), and not historic premillennialism.

See also this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16779

See this thread for clarification. I have pasted the relevant post below.

Boice started out Dispensational but that work to which you refer does not represent his later view, which was historic (covenantal) premil. See the following comments by Pastor Rick Phillips, who was mentored by Boice at Tenth:

From Pastor Rick Phillips:

Scott,

Boice was historic premil. He had earlier been dispensational but had long since been cured of that before I got involved with him. Unfortunately, his Hal-Lindsey type book, "The Once and Future World" is still in print. It dates from very early in his ministry and his reputation would be well served by its disappearance. I hold the amillennial view, and he and I often talked about it. He was preaching Revelation when he died, and I suspected that he might change his view before he got to chapter 20, but it never happened.

Rick

(emphasis mine)

So the situation with Boice is similar to that with A.W. Pink when it comes to eschatology. Pink's The Redeemer's Return and some other early dispensational works of his are still in print and apparently highly regarded by some dispensationalists, but by the early 30's (if not before) Pink was strongly denouncing dispensationalism. I think I also may have seen something from Philip G. Ryken (Boice's successor at Tenth) on Boice and his early dispensationalism.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

James,

To whom much is given, much is required.
If one is shown from the scriptures the five points,
and those five points are repeatedly rejected,
how can we say they have the Holy Spirit guiding them unto all truth? The rotten fruit is more obvious of seasoned, knowledgeable Christian teachers, and it is less obvious of novices and 'babes in Christ'.

I hope your grandparents' righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees. I hope it was an ALIEN righteousness. That he was a Wesleyan preacher gives me grave doubts.

I have full confidence that I will meet them both Heaven based upon thier testimony as well as thier walk.

 

[BobVigneault]

Rom 15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.” 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.


Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

 

[MrMerlin777]

I have full confidence that I will meet them both Heaven based upon thier testimony as well as thier walk.

Just so I have full confidence that I will see my (horror of horrors) Anabaptist Grandmother in Heaven as well brother. She relied on Christ for her salvation. And she was raised (GASP!!!!) Old German Baptist Brethren.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What would Paul have called the Galatians that were being led astray?

What about the Jews that were being enjoined in Hebrews?

I tell you what the Scripture calls people who are weak in the faith: Christians. The Apostles, as we should, enjoin them to remember their calling and it is the role of the Church to ministerially remove them from fellowship and not the job of individual believers.

Would I pray with Arminians? Maybe the better question is: Would I pray with a Christian?

These threads always go in the circle of treating living, breathing, complex Christians as if we can just segregate them cleanly according to theological points and, by our own authority, declare the faceless "Arminian" to be out of fellowship with us. I personally consider the question to be impious.

I'm not arguing for allowing a man into the pulpit to preach or distributing the Lord's Supper with eyes closed but we're talking about men who claim to trust in Christ for their salvation and the man asks to pray with us and we're going to stand back and say: "I don't pray with Arminians."

It strikes me as the Pharisee praying: "I thank God that I am not an Arminian...."

I grow weary of trying to defend the idea to my fellow Calvinists that we should be gracious and humble. I can have all the holy hatred of false doctrine without losing the ability to separate the doctrine from the man/woman before me struggling for spiritual breath. Some of you would just assume put a pillow over that face and finish the deed. I cry with pity over those that I meet that are wallowing in the mud of that vile doctrine and I work with them to take off the shackles of man's doctrine. I pray with them mightily. I pray words of Truth that contradict everything they've been taught. I see tears in the eyes of men and women who thank me because it's been so long since they've received any nourishment.

Pray with Arminians? Find me the faultless Arminian detector and I'll answer this silly question. I pray with those who say I'm a Christian and, beyond the obvious large boundary markers, I'm not some spiritual jerk that plays 20 questions to make sure the person has every duck in a row before I pray with them. If that were the case I wouldn't pray with my kids.

 

[MrMerlin777]

What would Paul have called the Galatians that were being led astray?

What about the Jews that were being enjoined in Hebrews?

I tell you what the Scripture calls people who are weak in the faith: Christians. The Apostles, as we should, enjoin them to remember their calling and it is the role of the Church to ministerially remove them from fellowship and not the job of individual believers.

Would I pray with Arminians? Maybe the better question is: Would I pray with a Christian?

These threads always go in the circle of treating living, breathing, complex Christians as if we can just segregate them cleanly according to theological points and, by our own authority, declare the faceless "Arminian" to be out of fellowship with us. I personally consider the question to be impious.

I'm not arguing for allowing a man into the pulpit to preach or distributing the Lord's Supper with eyes closed but we're talking about men who claim to trust in Christ for their salvation and the man asks to pray with us and we're going to stand back and say: "I don't pray with Arminians."

It strikes me as the Pharisee praying: "I thank God that I am not an Arminian...."

I grow weary of trying to defend the idea to my fellow Calvinists that we should be gracious and humble. I can have all the holy hatred of false doctrine without losing the ability to separate the doctrine from the man/woman before me struggling for spiritual breath. Some of you would just assume put a pillow over that face and finish the deed. I cry with pity over those that I meet that are wallowing in the mud of that vile doctrine and I work with them to take off the shackles of man's doctrine. I pray with them mightily. I pray words of Truth that contradict everything they've been taught. I see tears in the eyes of men and women who thank me because it's been so long since they've received any nourishment.

Pray with Arminians? Find me the faultless Arminian detector and I'll answer this silly question. I pray with those who say I'm a Christian and, beyond the obvious large boundary markers, I'm not some spiritual jerk that plays 20 questions to make sure the person has every duck in a row before I pray with them. If that were the case I wouldn't pray with my kids.

& Brother.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

What would Paul have called the Galatians that were being led astray?

What about the Jews that were being enjoined in Hebrews?

I tell you what the Scripture calls people who are weak in the faith: Christians. The Apostles, as we should, enjoin them to remember their calling and it is the role of the Church to ministerially remove them from fellowship and not the job of individual believers.

Would I pray with Arminians? Maybe the better question is: Would I pray with a Christian?

These threads always go in the circle of treating living, breathing, complex Christians as if we can just segregate them cleanly according to theological points and, by our own authority, declare the faceless "Arminian" to be out of fellowship with us. I personally consider the question to be impious.

I'm not arguing for allowing a man into the pulpit to preach or distributing the Lord's Supper with eyes closed but we're talking about men who claim to trust in Christ for their salvation and the man asks to pray with us and we're going to stand back and say: "I don't pray with Arminians."

It strikes me as the Pharisee praying: "I thank God that I am not an Arminian...."

I grow weary of trying to defend the idea to my fellow Calvinists that we should be gracious and humble. I can have all the holy hatred of false doctrine without losing the ability to separate the doctrine from the man/woman before me struggling for spiritual breath. Some of you would just assume put a pillow over that face and finish the deed. I cry with pity over those that I meet that are wallowing in the mud of that vile doctrine and I work with them to take off the shackles of man's doctrine. I pray with them mightily. I pray words of Truth that contradict everything they've been taught. I see tears in the eyes of men and women who thank me because it's been so long since they've received any nourishment.

Pray with Arminians? Find me the faultless Arminian detector and I'll answer this silly question. I pray with those who say I'm a Christian and, beyond the obvious large boundary markers, I'm not some spiritual jerk that plays 20 questions to make sure the person has every duck in a row before I pray with them. If that were the case I wouldn't pray with my kids.

Well said dear brother!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Just another observation this thread pushed me to consider - who did Jesus pray with?

Matthew 14:23 And when He had sent the multitudes away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray. Now when evening came, He was alone there.

Matthew 19:13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.

Matthew 26:36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, "Sit here while I go and pray over there."

Mark 1:35 Now in the morning, having risen a long while before daylight, He went out and departed to a solitary place; and there He prayed.

Mark 6:46 And when He had sent them away, He departed to the mountain to pray.

Luke 5:16 So He Himself often withdrew into the wilderness and prayed.

Luke 6:12 Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.

Luke 9:18 And it happened, as He was alone praying, that His disciples joined Him, and He asked them, saying, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"

Luke 9:28 Now it came to pass, about eight days after these sayings, that He took Peter, John, and James and went up on the mountain to pray.

Luke 11:1 Now it came to pass, as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased, that one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples."

Luke 22:41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and prayed,

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Based on the Gospels, Jesus prayed with 1) the disciples, 2) the little children and thier mothers, 3) Peter, James and John (on a few occasions), 4) by Himself, and 5) In front of all the world hanging on a cross.

Its interesting to me.

 

[Arch2k]

What would Paul have called the Galatians that were being led astray?

If they finally accepted *that* gospel, then he would have agreed with John:

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

I tell you what the Scripture calls people who are weak in the faith: Christians.

This begs the question. It assumes they have faith. I can’t see their faith to know if they have it or not, but I can see their profession, and it is a false one.

The Apostles, as we should, enjoin them to remember their calling and it is the role of the Church to ministerially remove them from fellowship and not the job of individual believers.

This has already been done. Council of Orange. Synod of Dort. How many do we need?

I personally consider the question to be impious.

The question is a practical one. “What is a valid profession of faith?” Everyone judges people’s professions. You are judging an Arminian’s profession to be valid. I am judging it to be invalid. I don’t see how it is impious, other than in the modern evangelyfish kind of way, where it is not godly to speak of God’s wrath, and the fact that most people will not be saved. William Ames the great puritan addresses this very question in his Marrow of Modern Divinity. Was he impious for even asking the question? (and he disagrees with me!) John Owen uses strong language in his “A Display of Arminianism.” Was he just being impious?

I grow weary of trying to defend the idea to my fellow Calvinists that we should be gracious and humble. I can have all the holy hatred of false doctrine without losing the ability to separate the doctrine from the man/woman before me struggling for spiritual breath. Some of you would just assume put a pillow over that face and finish the deed. I cry with pity over those that I meet that are wallowing in the mud of that vile doctrine and I work with them to take off the shackles of man's doctrine. I pray with them mightily. I pray words of Truth that contradict everything they've been taught. I see tears in the eyes of men and women who thank me because it's been so long since they've received any nourishment.

Well this all sounds very pious and flowery, but I ask you where do you see such a desire in your opponent to “finish the deed”? Does every discussion need to be lined with caveats about how a person’s motives are not “unloving” but merely a desire to spread the truth? Wouldn’t the belief that Arminians are lost not drive the reformed to evangelize them all the more? It should!

Pray with Arminians? Find me the faultless Arminian detector and I'll answer this silly question. I pray with those who say I'm a Christian and, beyond the obvious large boundary markers, I'm not some spiritual jerk that plays 20 questions to make sure the person has every duck in a row before I pray with them. If that were the case I wouldn't pray with my kids.

Well the ad hominem arguments are really showing up now. Using terms like “spiritual jerk” and the like are hardly terms of *grace* and *humbleness* in this context. What other purpose could statements like that serve other than to anger your opponent? With that, I beg you to show anywhere in the thread where anyone has said they need to ask “20 questions” or have “every duck in a row” or anything of the sort.

I’m all for putting this one to bed.

 

[Scott Bushey]

If they finally accepted *that* gospel, then he would have agreed with John:

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.



This begs the question. It assumes they have faith. I can’t see their faith to know if they have it or not, but I can see their profession, and it is a false one.



This has already been done. Council of Orange. Synod of Dort. How many do we need?


The question is a practical one. “What is a valid profession of faith?” Everyone judges people’s professions. You are judging an Arminian’s profession to be valid. I am judging it to be invalid. I don’t see how it is impious, other than in the modern evangelyfish kind of way, where it is not godly to speak of God’s wrath, and the fact that most people will not be saved. William Ames the great puritan addresses this very question in his Marrow of Modern Divinity. Was he impious for even asking the question? (and he disagrees with me!) John Owen uses strong language in his “A Display of Arminianism.” Was he just being impious?



Well this all sounds very pious and flowery, but I ask you where do you see such a desire in your opponent to “finish the deed”? Does every discussion need to be lined with caveats about how a person’s motives are not “unloving” but merely a desire to spread the truth? Wouldn’t the belief that Arminians are lost not drive the reformed to evangelize them all the more? It should!



Well the ad hominem arguments are really showing up now. Using terms like “spiritual jerk” and the like are hardly terms of *grace* and *humbleness* in this context. What other purpose could statements like that serve other than to anger your opponent? With that, I beg you to show anywhere in the thread where anyone has said they need to ask “20 questions” or have “every duck in a row” or anything of the sort.

I’m all for putting this one to bed.

Good suggestion Jeff.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If they finally accepted *that* gospel, then he would have agreed with John:

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.



This begs the question. It assumes they have faith. I can’t see their faith to know if they have it or not, but I can see their profession, and it is a false one.



This has already been done. Council of Orange. Synod of Dort. How many do we need?


The question is a practical one. “What is a valid profession of faith?” Everyone judges people’s professions. You are judging an Arminian’s profession to be valid. I am judging it to be invalid. I don’t see how it is impious, other than in the modern evangelyfish kind of way, where it is not godly to speak of God’s wrath, and the fact that most people will not be saved. William Ames the great puritan addresses this very question in his Marrow of Modern Divinity. Was he impious for even asking the question? (and he disagrees with me!) John Owen uses strong language in his “A Display of Arminianism.” Was he just being impious?



Well this all sounds very pious and flowery, but I ask you where do you see such a desire in your opponent to “finish the deed”? Does every discussion need to be lined with caveats about how a person’s motives are not “unloving” but merely a desire to spread the truth? Wouldn’t the belief that Arminians are lost not drive the reformed to evangelize them all the more? It should!



Well the ad hominem arguments are really showing up now. Using terms like “spiritual jerk” and the like are hardly terms of *grace* and *humbleness* in this context. What other purpose could statements like that serve other than to anger your opponent? With that, I beg you to show anywhere in the thread where anyone has said they need to ask “20 questions” or have “every duck in a row” or anything of the sort.

I’m all for putting this one to bed.

Way to parse a general call for treating people as people instead of syllogisms. This concern goes beyond a contest of wit where I'll win you over by logical arguments that give you comfort that you've found out the "Arminian" from the "Christian".

Regarding ad hominems: I guess if the shoe fits Jeff then wear it. Me thinks those that are uncomfortable with the idea of thinking they are considered jerks ought to take stock of it. Interesting it was aimed at nobody in particular. I hardly had time to read this thread in the past few days except to see that this had, as usual, descended into the inaninities of treating people as if they're fine points that can be parsed as described.

You always admit to lacking the ability conceptually to know who is elect but deny that ability practically in your statements about how you would interact with them. It's a distinction without a difference in my mind.

You continue to talk of "Arminians" as if you know who they are. Name please Jeff. I grow quite weary of your useless generalizations. I live in the real world with Christians struggling with doctrines that have polluted their souls. Give me the name of the man whose heart you know so infallibly so as to say "That man is not Christ's. He's not just weak but no Christian at all." Then, as a man supposedly guided only by the Scriptures, give me the Scripture that give YOU the right to pronounce that about that man.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Way to parse a general call for treating people as people instead of syllogisms. This concern goes beyond a contest of wit where I'll win you over by logical arguments that give you comfort that you've found out the "Arminian" from the "Christian".

Regarding ad hominems: I guess if the shoe fits Jeff then wear it. Me thinks those that are uncomfortable with the idea of thinking they are considered jerks ought to take stock of it. Interesting it was aimed at nobody in particular. I hardly had time to read this thread in the past few days except to see that this had, as usual, descended into the inaninities of treating people as if they're fine points that can be parsed as described.

You always admit to lacking the ability conceptually to know who is elect but deny that ability practically in your statements about how you would interact with them. It's a distinction without a difference in my mind.

You continue to talk of "Arminians" as if you know who they are. Name please Jeff. I grow quite weary of your useless generalizations. I live in the real world with Christians struggling with doctrines that have polluted their souls. Give me the name of the man whose heart you know so infallibly so as to say "That man is not Christ's. He's not just weak but no Christian at all." Then, as a man supposedly guided only by the Scriptures, give me the Scripture that give YOU the right to pronounce that about that man.

Rich,
I've got to tell you; I believe you are off base here. Neither, Jeff or anyone else in this thread anathematized anyone but those whom the reformation and Dordt condemned. All we have defended is the fact that theologically Arminianism is heresy and based upon that would not pray alongside anyone whom holds to that aberrant discipline. Would you pray alongside a Muslim? You make mention of Jeff acting as if he 'knows' who the Arminians are he speaks of; this is not what he is referencing. It is the theology, not the person. Theology defines. Look at the Jew, his theology defines his belief. Look at the JW; same thing. We don't necessarily have to name names.

It was as well made clear that this would not deter us from praying for all people in general; whatever their understanding of whatever. I can confidently say that anyone whom is Arminian, understands the doctrine and holds to it is in their sin and separated from Christ. Why is this so difficult? You will freely acknowledge that a JW is lost.

The distinction as well was drawn in regards to error vs heresy. They are entirely two different things. Weak believers whom are in error, will not remain in that error; eventually the HS will guide them into all truth.

Hope this clears things up.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Scott,

Dordt is indeed a treasure...

Finally, this Synod urges all fellow ministers in the gospel of Christ to deal with this teaching in a godly and reverent manner, in the academic institutions as well as in the churches; to do so, both in their speaking and writing, with a view to the glory of God's name, holiness of life, and the comfort of anxious souls; to think and also speak with Scripture according to the analogy of faith; and, finally, to refrain from all those ways of speaking which go beyond the bounds set for us by the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures and which could give impertinent sophists a just occasion to scoff at the teaching of the Reformed churches or even to bring false accusations against it.

May God's Son Jesus Christ, who sits at the right hand of God and gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, lead to the truth those who err, silence the mouths of those who lay false accusations against sound teaching, and equip faithful ministers of his Word with a spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all they say may be to the glory of God and the building up of their hearers. Amen

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scott,

Dordt is indeed a treasure...

I agree; no one in this thread has acted contrary to the citation you're providing. It's not like Dordt would handle the heresy any different than we are in this thread...........