Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Peter
That was my point Fred.
Joseph,Originally posted by biblelighthouse
What complete nonsense. If the 5 points of Arminianism are NOT THERE, then the 5 points of Calvinism automatically ARE THERE. There is no middle ground!
Either you believe humans are totally depraved, or you don't. There is no middle ground.
Either you believe election is unconditional, or you believe it is conditional. There is no middle ground.
Either you believe the atonement is universal in intent, or you believe it is limited in intent. There is no middle ground.
Either you believe grace is irresistible, or you believe it is resistable. There is no middle ground.
Either you believe you are eternally secure, or you believe you can lose your salvation. There is no middle ground.
Ergo, Jeff, you are *definitely* condemning all non-5-point-Calvinists to hell. Just for example, Bruce Ware is a well-known and respected 4-point Calvinist. Not only does he NOT hold to the Limited atonement, but he *explicitly* holds to the Universal atonement taught by Arminians. So if you are correct, Jeff, then Bruce Ware is on his way to hell, because he consciously embraces one point of Arminianism. Sorry, Jeff, but you are dead wrong, and are implicitly slandering your brothers in Christ, be they 1-point Arminians (such as Bruce Ware), or 5-point Arminians.
Two reasons prevent me from now refuting these delusions with Scripture: namely that a vast forest [of texts] would spring up around me here, and that this will be the subject which will occupy the whole of the next book. Add the fact that whenever his mind finds Scripture not to his taste he ignores it. But where is that respect which he pretends that he shows to the definitions of the ancient fathers? "If anyone teaches that both the increase and the beginning of faith and the very desire to believe [come] not as a gift of grace (i.e., through the working of the Holy Spirit reforming our will from unbelief to belief, from ir-religion to religion), but are innate in us by nature," he is declared to be a heretic by a decree of a church council (Council or Orange, ch.5). Also, "if anyone argues that God waits for our desire that we should be cleansed from sin, and does not acknowledge that it is by the work of the Holy Spirit in us that we are even caused to want cleansing," he is condemned as an adversary of the Holy Spirit (ch. 4). Again, "if anyone teaches that God's mercy is bestowed on us because apart from the grace of God we will, toil, knock, ask, and desire it, and does not acknowledge that it is from God through the Spirit that we are caused to believe, will, and be able to do all these things as we should," he is judged worthy of an anathema (ch. 6). The following decrees were passed by the council in addition: "If anyone says that by the disobedience of Adam man was not entirely, that is, in both soul and body, changed for the worse, but believes that only the body was subjected to corruption, the freedom of the soul remaining unharmed, then he is deceived by the error of Pelagius" (ch.1). Again: "If anone says that grace is bestowed in response to human request, and not that it is grace itself which causes us to request it, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah" (ch. 3). Again: "If anyone affirms that it is possible to think or choose by natural strength any good thing which has to do with eternal life, that is to assent to the preaching [of the gospel] without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit who gives to all their delight in assenting and believing, then he is deceived by a heretical spirit" (ch. 7). Again: "God loves us as we shall be through his own gift, not as we are by our own merit" (ch. 12). Again: "No one has anything of his own but falsehood or sin" (ch. 22).
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Joseph,Originally posted by biblelighthouse
What complete nonsense. If the 5 points of Arminianism are NOT THERE, then the 5 points of Calvinism automatically ARE THERE. There is no middle ground!
Either you believe humans are totally depraved, or you don't. There is no middle ground.
Either you believe election is unconditional, or you believe it is conditional. There is no middle ground.
Either you believe the atonement is universal in intent, or you believe it is limited in intent. There is no middle ground.
Either you believe grace is irresistible, or you believe it is resistable. There is no middle ground.
Either you believe you are eternally secure, or you believe you can lose your salvation. There is no middle ground.
Ergo, Jeff, you are *definitely* condemning all non-5-point-Calvinists to hell. Just for example, Bruce Ware is a well-known and respected 4-point Calvinist. Not only does he NOT hold to the Limited atonement, but he *explicitly* holds to the Universal atonement taught by Arminians. So if you are correct, Jeff, then Bruce Ware is on his way to hell, because he consciously embraces one point of Arminianism. Sorry, Jeff, but you are dead wrong, and are implicitly slandering your brothers in Christ, be they 1-point Arminians (such as Bruce Ware), or 5-point Arminians.
You know how much we agree in so many areas. Ben and others who have taken issue with the article as well.
Your post above I think is a good example of how this thread has "evolved".
Who is being criticized here? Is it one of the posters or is it Matt's article? I think the thread has created some protagonists that some would want to associate with Matt's article and some are left with the impression: "He's saying that about what Matt said." It gets very complicated with all the twists and turns.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
I've affirmed that there are ways that the article can be interpreted that cause consternation. I wonder, however, if Matt had been dead for a few hundred years and we were digging this article up from some obscure Reformed Puritan in the past if we'd be saying "Whoa, that sounds like Owens." I've read J.I. Packer write that Arminianism in a return to Rome.
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Anthony asked:
Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?
Yes. If Dave Hunt dies in his unbelief, and continues to worship a false god, he will go to hell if he does not repent.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?
Yes!
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Anyway, the minister didn't know these were baptized for sure, he asked that they repeat a prayer in their hearts so that, if they're unbelievers, they can experience God's peace. It went something like this:
"Heavenly Father, I know I need peace but I don't know how to get peace. Jesus, please come into my heart and be in charge of my life. I know you are waiting to bless me and I want to be blessed. I pray that you would be in charge and give me that peace."
I wish I knew the exact words but that's close enough. I commented to my wife later that the prayer would not have offended anybody in an AA meeting. No mention of sin or a need to be delivered from utter wretchedness.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I still disagree with you though, Jeff, on singling out Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace as necessary in that way, though, largely because I believe with many others that the five points really do all stand or fall with one another.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Using Unconditional Election as an example - if Total Depravity is true, meaning (as we agree) that regenerating grace must therefore be Irresistible rather than prevenient, then there is also no way election could have been conditional on foreseen faith, since that faith would be monergistically brought forth. The same can be demonstrated with Perseverance of the Saints, since God only irresistibly regenerates those He has already unconditionally elected, and that translates into saying that He only regenerates those who will be saved in the end.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
During the altar call some people came forward crying. They were baptized members coming forward to rededicate their lives (the Arminian sacrament by which those who aren't being as holy as they're supposed to be come back to promise to be holy again. The rest, in the pews, are doing OK so they don't have to come forward.)
... I'm really afraid that the presentation of the Gospel is so flawed that it is spiritual malpractice. I care about my relatives whose souls are poisoned by it too.
Men and women come time and again to that stupid altar call to receive the assurance they should have heard when the Gospel was first proclaimed. It is NO DIFFERENT than that plank of justification that Rome holds out in Penance in terms of how it is utilized by the uneducated. It breaks your heart to see. It is almost enough to not want to come back just so I don't have to witness it week after week but NO, NO! I will make sure that somehow, I'm not sure how, that God will use me to tell some of these people "PEACE. You can really rest now."
I call them brothers and sisters because they've been baptized in the name of the Trinity and professed faith. I weep for them like brothers and sisters because they are like Galatians that want to return to chains, called by a different name, but now it's altar calls and rededications as opposed to circumcisions.
[Edited on 2-13-2006 by SemperFideles]
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
The following is an verbatim quote from Calvin. Of course, just because he says what he does below does not make it true, but nontheless, would people react to Calvin as they have this article? Is Calvin a "hyper-calvinist"?
Calvin wrote this agains Pighius, who defended "free will" in the Arminian sense.
John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 188-189
Again, "if anyone teaches that God's mercy is bestowed on us because apart from the grace of God we will, toil, knock, ask, and desire it, and does not acknowledge that it is from God through the Spirit that we are caused to believe, will, and be able to do all these things as we should," he is judged worthy of an anathema (ch. 6).
The following decrees were passed by the council in addition: "If anyone says that by the disobedience of Adam man was not entirely, that is, in both soul and body, changed for the worse, but believes that only the body was subjected to corruption, the freedom of the soul remaining unharmed, then he is deceived by the error of Pelagius" (ch.1).
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
The following is an verbatim quote from Calvin. Of course, just because he says what he does below does not make it true, but nontheless, would people react to Calvin as they have this article? Is Calvin a "hyper-calvinist"?
Calvin wrote this agains Pighius, who defended "free will" in the Arminian sense.
John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 188-189
Two reasons prevent me from now refuting these delusions with Scripture: namely that a vast forest [of texts] would spring up around me here, and that this will be the subject which will occupy the whole of the next book. Add the fact that whenever his mind finds Scripture not to his taste he ignores it. But where is that respect which he pretends that he shows to the definitions of the ancient fathers? "If anyone teaches that both the increase and the beginning of faith and the very desire to believe [come] not as a gift of grace (i.e., through the working of the Holy Spirit reforming our will from unbelief to belief, from ir-religion to religion), but are innate in us by nature," he is declared to be a heretic by a decree of a church council (Council or Orange, ch.5). Also, "if anyone argues that God waits for our desire that we should be cleansed from sin, and does not acknowledge that it is by the work of the Holy Spirit in us that we are even caused to want cleansing," he is condemned as an adversary of the Holy Spirit (ch. 4). Again, "if anyone teaches that God's mercy is bestowed on us because apart from the grace of God we will, toil, knock, ask, and desire it, and does not acknowledge that it is from God through the Spirit that we are caused to believe, will, and be able to do all these things as we should," he is judged worthy of an anathema (ch. 6). The following decrees were passed by the council in addition: "If anyone says that by the disobedience of Adam man was not entirely, that is, in both soul and body, changed for the worse, but believes that only the body was subjected to corruption, the freedom of the soul remaining unharmed, then he is deceived by the error of Pelagius" (ch.1). Again: "If anone says that grace is bestowed in response to human request, and not that it is grace itself which causes us to request it, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah" (ch. 3). Again: "If anyone affirms that it is possible to think or choose by natural strength any good thing which has to do with eternal life, that is to assent to the preaching [of the gospel] without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit who gives to all their delight in assenting and believing, then he is deceived by a heretical spirit" (ch. 7). Again: "God loves us as we shall be through his own gift, not as we are by our own merit" (ch. 12). Again: "No one has anything of his own but falsehood or sin" (ch. 22).
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Just for the record, I have never said that a person must assent to Irresistible Grace in order to be saved. They must assent to Total Depravity, as the WLC states, and as the scriptures declare.
I should have been clearer. I initially thought you were ascribing it to Matt because I tend to scan things initially and then re-read them. I'm just stating that this thread has confused some (including me) and takes a lot of effort to sort out who is criticizing who because an affirmation or criticism of Matt's article becomes a rabbit trail argument (lenghty trails at that!) and some might start to think they're criticizing Matt. I should have been clearer on that.Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Rich,
Please help me understand what is complicated about my post. I was very clearly responding to one post which Jeff Bartel made. I was not talking about Matt's article at all.
Please see above where I put certain words in bold. I made it clear that I was specifically addressing Jeff, not Matt.
My experience would indicate that such man-centered prayers are widespread (witness the appeal of The Prayer of Jabez). I'm not saying that there aren't Arminians that pray utter lostness but I've travelled pretty far and wide and intersect Christian men and women from every corner of the globe. "Lostness" sentiments are rarely expressed in prayer or in the literature they consume. I hope that I'm wrong but fear that I am not.But *many* Arminians don't use such prayers. For salvation, a large number of Arminians believe and pray very clearly concerning our utter lostness in sin, and our total need of Christ's sacrifice in order to obtain forgiveness. Read John Wesley. He was a staunch Arminian. But he didn't ignore the depravity of humans lost in sin, and he certainly didn't ignore the cross.
No doctrine really damns. It doesn't have the power to do that. Unbelief damns. I know no man's heart so I reserve final Judgment to Him who knows the heart. Nevertheless, are there tenets of Arminianism that are just as pernicious (perhaps more so) than having a faulty view of the hypostatic union of Christ? A case can be made that it so distorts the Gospel that I would not want be one of its Doctors at the Last Judgment answering for those it harmed.I think *everyone* on this thread and on this board agree that Arminianism is *very much* in error. But is it damnable error? No.
Likewise my friend.I appreciate you, Rich. And I appreciate your posts. I am very blessed to have you as a brother in Christ!
I was raised Roman Catholic and, by interesting circumstances, ended up in Evangelical, non-denominational Churches for a really long time. I almost can't remember what I really believed about salvation then. I think I frankly just believed that my excitement for Christ (especially singing) combined with my desire to read the Bible, get quiet time, and pray were marks that I loved God and would be saved by Him. I was a Worship Team leader and I remember looking forward to the 40 minutes of singing we had each week. I would raise my hands and sing with great passion working something up within me as we came to emotional climax designed to inspired the congregation (designed by my song selection).Originally posted by turmeric
I never came to faith until I was an adult, almost 40 years old, even though I was technically raised a Christian. This that you describe is what I grew up with. For those who think maybe some Calvinists are nitpicking about this, I didn't come to faith until I was presented with the Gospel in a Reformed context. I am always amazed when I hear of someone coming to faith in an Arminian or Dispensational church, not because I think they're all lost, but because the Gospel is so garbled in those contexts. So I wonder and would like opinions about the following, whether they constitiute "other gospels" or not; Arminianism and Keswickian or Wesleyanism/Perfectionism.
Tell me what the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is, and lay out the Order of Salvation, tell me what happens to people when they are justified and what justified people look like. Tell me about sanctification and fruits. Lay this out clearly and this thread is moot.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
The following is an verbatim quote from Calvin. Of course, just because he says what he does below does not make it true, but nontheless, would people react to Calvin as they have this article? Is Calvin a "hyper-calvinist"?
Calvin wrote this agains Pighius, who defended "free will" in the Arminian sense.
John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 188-189
Again, "if anyone teaches that God's mercy is bestowed on us because apart from the grace of God we will, toil, knock, ask, and desire it, and does not acknowledge that it is from God through the Spirit that we are caused to believe, will, and be able to do all these things as we should," he is judged worthy of an anathema (ch. 6).
Even John Wesley agreed that it is not "apart from the grace of God". Rather, he said that we are *totally* depraved, with no good in us at all. But Wesley said that God gave prevenient grace to everyone. And it is this grace that makes people "able to do all these things as we should". So John Wesley actually would agree with much of what Calvin said in your quote. But of course he thought that a person could be made "able to do all these things", and yet still choose not to do them. John Wesley was wrong, but not damnably wrong.
The following decrees were passed by the council in addition: "If anyone says that by the disobedience of Adam man was not entirely, that is, in both soul and body, changed for the worse, but believes that only the body was subjected to corruption, the freedom of the soul remaining unharmed, then he is deceived by the error of Pelagius" (ch.1).
John Wesley taught that man is totally depraved, every bit as much as any Calvinist taught. Wesley agreed that man was "entirely, that is, in both soul and body, changed for the worse" because of Adam's disobedience. So John Wesley would agree totally with Calvin's statement above. He simply believed that God gives prevenient grace to everyone, to enable all men a sort of pre-fall-ability to choose. He did not deny total depravity. He just believed that God partially rescues all men from it. Thus, he would say that all of salvation after faith was a gift, and he would also say that it was the grace of God that made it possible for even that initial faith to take place.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Jeff,
I'm not sure what you are trying to show by this, but it is not a refutation of Arminianism. It is a putting of the cart before the horse, considering that Arminianism did not even exist in Calvin's day - Arminius came after.
This is Calvin's critique of Pelagianism which is quite different, and much greater an error than Arminianism. It is clear that this is the case not merely from history, but because Calvin cites the Council of Orange as an authority in this matter (as well he should), and at Orange, semi-Pelagianism was upheld as a sort of compromise between the the Augustinian and moderate Pelagian factions (one things of Jerome).
Each of these statements by Calvin can be claimed by classical Arminians using the doctrine of prevenient grace. NOTE: I do not agree with the doctrine of prevenient grace, but it is compatible (at least at face value) with the statements from Calvin.
So no cigar.
and does not acknowledge that it is from God through the Spirit that we are caused to believe, will, and be able to do all these things as we should," he is judged worthy of an anathema (ch. 6).
Originally posted by lwadkins
Mark, I don't see a clear statement of the Gospel and what it does to people in this thread. I am glad that you do, and you can be of great service to me by summarizing it for me.
Originally posted by Dan....
Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader.
Question for those who consider Dr. McMahon's article as good:
Does this mean that when I visit my sister, and she invites me to attend services with her at her Fundamental Baptist Church, that I should refuse, lest I worship with those who are worshipping a "false god" and partake in their idolatry?
Originally posted by Dan....
The public discussion of such a public article ought to be reserved to the elders of the Church, and I do not believe that I should have had any business in giving a public opinion on the matter.
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by Dan....
The public discussion of such a public article ought to be reserved to the elders of the Church, and I do not believe that I should have had any business in giving a public opinion on the matter.
Hmmm. Are there some saying that we can't publicly discuss an article publicly displayed for that purpose unless we agree with it? As for the elders of the Church being the ones elected to discuss such matters, I am not sure about that either. Besides, Dr. McMahon's denomination is not even in the sphere of our denominations authority.
Maybe I am missing something, but apart from calling out Dr. McMahon as a heretic, which I don't believe nor would I do if I did, I don't see the problem with reasoned criticism of his article. I doubt he has problems with criticism of the article, or he would have not posted it for discussion.
On the other hand, I may be missing something, and would like to be corrected if so.
[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]
Originally posted by Dan....
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by Dan....
The public discussion of such a public article ought to be reserved to the elders of the Church, and I do not believe that I should have had any business in giving a public opinion on the matter.
Hmmm. Are there some saying that we can't publicly discuss an article publicly displayed for that purpose unless we agree with it? As for the elders of the Church being the ones elected to discuss such matters, I am not sure about that either. Besides, Dr. McMahon's denomination is not even in the sphere of our denominations authority.
Maybe I am missing something, but apart from calling out Dr. McMahon as a heretic, which I don't believe nor would I do if I did, I don't see the problem with reasoned criticism of his article. I doubt he has problems with criticism of the article, or he would have not posted it for discussion.
On the other hand, I may be missing something, and would like to be corrected if so.
[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]
Brett,
At the moment I am writing this, this thread has had 3789 views. Now I'm sure that many of us regulars have viewed the thread between 10 and 20 times, so the number is greatly inflated as to the actual number of viewers. Possibly 200 people have read through this thread to date, and who knows how many hereafter. My point is that I am not a teacher in the church. What business do I have of making public statements, especially seeing that the name of my church and denomination are at the bottom of each of my posts? I am begining to think that posting on public forums (except to ask a question, seek clarification, or to offer encouragement) is not for me. I have no desire to pass judgment on anyone who does think that it is okay, but in my mind, I am not convinced, so, for conscience sake, I am bowing out.
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Remember, the purpose of the Puritanboard, from its inception, is to discuss theology, history, pray for one another, etc. I have absolutely no qualms about anyone being charitably critical about something. None whatsoever. I am not so tolerant with uncharitable discussion. Would I have expected such to be the case on this issue on the Puritanboard? Not remotely. But still that's OK. It just surprised me. You can always tell how much a topic is really hot by those who partake in in it AND those who don't. Healthy discussion on any topic should be encouraged, though. Let's just be sure we know what the other person is saying, and we respond in charity as much as Christianly possible.
This topic is especially applicable to us all since we all live in an age where Arminianism is excepted as the Gospel, as you find throughout Christendom today. I think healthy discussion should be encouraged.
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Remember, the purpose of the Puritanboard, from its inception, is to discuss theology, history, pray for one another, etc. I have absolutely no qualms about anyone being charitably critical about something. None whatsoever. I am not so tolerant with uncharitable discussion. Would I have expected such to be the case on this issue on the Puritanboard? Not remotely. But still that's OK. It just surprised me. You can always tell how much a topic is really hot by those who partake in in it AND those who don't. Healthy discussion on any topic should be encouraged, though. Let's just be sure we know what the other person is saying, and we respond in charity as much as Christianly possible.
This topic is especially applicable to us all since we all live in an age where Arminianism is excepted as the Gospel, as you find throughout Christendom today. I think healthy discussion should be encouraged.
Dr McMahon, what strikes me is the misunderstanding of the message that you might have intended to get across. If those such as Phillip (a minister of the Gospel) have misunderstood your viewpoint, do you think that perhaps some of those laymen that agree with you have misunderstood? You have continually corrected those that have argued against your aticle as misunderstanding you, but they are merely arguing against what many who agree with you are saying. If both sides are not understanding your point, your point is not clear enough.
That is just one mans personal observation.