The Arminian "god" is not Worshippable

[non dignus]

Fred,

I was wrong in using the hypothetical 'you'. I should have said, "if one is a mature believer, confronted point by point with scripture against a doctrine of works righteousness, and do not yield, the Holy Spirit cannot be in him." My point being that mature Arminian believers have got to step up to the plate when the time comes.

Additionally, I was wrong in not using a separate quote for Pastorway in my response to him.

My apologies to the PB for a garbled communique.

Pastoryway, have I offended you?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Speaking as a once passionate but uneducated Arminian what I believe many here fail to realize is that our Churches are full of people who have no idea how to read the bible in context. However, many of these people THINK they do know how mainly because the pastors and leaders they listen to are also reading and teaching it out of context. The question is, who is to blame? The learner and the teacher, or just the teacher?

I was once a learned sitting under false teachers and I take full responsability for myself. While several of you are trying to be loving and understanding I humbly submit that you are wrong. Many are in error because of their pride and stubborness as I was once amongst them. In fact, it wasn't even a strong desire tolearn more that brought me to reformed theology, it was a disgust at those in mycamp who questioned Lordship Salvation. To me, Lordship Salvation seemed like common sense. Why were my brothers in Christ not willing to accept it? I was hurt and puzzled.

As I dove into this issue I discovered that many did not submit their lives to the Lordship of Christ because they were not really saved. They wanted to go to Heaven, have a comfortable life, not drink, smoke, and curse, but when it came to any expectations placed upon them you could just forget it! The law was nailed on the cross with Christ! Do not ever hold me accountable.

What caused all this????

ARMINIANISM

Be it the real 100% Arminianism, or the many different flavors scooped from the same bin, it's the idea that we chose Christ, that we invited Him into our hearts, that we sought to be saved because we realized that we needed to be with our own insight and realization.

Then we were so desperate to "save others" that we run around like crazy just trying to get others to say the sinners prayer. They may be a "carnal Christian" but we got them to confess with their mouth and claim to believe in ther heart that Jesus is Lord! What an amazing job we are doing showing people their need of salvation!!!!! We'll just forget all that fruit stuff...I mean they confess Jesus as Lord He just isn't Lord of all their life just yet...give them time...maybe even on their death bed (or during the 7 year Tribulation before they die from God's wrath).

Arminianism is selfish evil embedded in a persons heart spoken of as if it is lovingly Godly and evangelistic! What a crock! I know because I lived it for 23 years. How many of you who rage against Matts article lived the Arminian life for over 20 years? How many of you were motivated by it's teachings for that long? I was and I know I was wrong, lost, and confused. Oh I meant well.....was that enough to get me to Heaven when I died? Meaning well? If so then I know many Jahovah Witnesses, Mormans, and Moonies that are going to be in Heaven because they certainly mean well!

Can I equate Arminian ideas with cults?

ABSOLUTELY!

Here are just a few things I not only believed but proudly stated, taught, and defended for years.

1) Jesus loves everyone! If everyone does not have a chance to be saved then God isn't a God I would serve!

2) There is never a chance God would send a still born baby to Hell, if He did He would be evil and not any kind of God I would align myself with!

3) Carnal Christians will go to Heaven and no one has ANY place to even suggest other wise.

4) I am not bound by the law, it passed away when Christ died on the cross. Anyone who speaks of the law is a Pharasee.

5) Saying the sinners prayer is all that is ever needed to enter Heaven, anyone who says other wise is a false teacher!

6) Only Satan will ever interfere with a persons free will. God never would do that! To say that He would is to call Him Satan.

7) God will not and does not control us in any way. He allows us to live as we please and will only come into our life when we invite Him.

8) If you are not saved you can never blame God or go to Him about your problems. Your life is not His!

9) You have to surrender to God before He will involve Himself in your life in any way.

10) Satan is the god of the earth

I could go on, but please understand that most if not all of those I used to attent Church and Bible study with still believe all of that. Many believe it as I did out of ignorance. I was actually angry that I had not heard reformed theology before finding this place! Yet many have heard of reformed theology and Calvinism yet reject it for the ideas I used to believe. I believe that I did not actually and truely know Christ when I believed those things and did not get a "pass" because I was taught incorrectly. I find it difficult to give those I know in those beliefs a pass either. I do pray for them and believe God will reach those in those beliefs who are His elect.

Again, I say BRAVO Matt! I wish someone would have approached me with that article years ago!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Ben,

All heresy is damnable.

Right. All form of it and all deviancy from orthodoxy on non-negotiable points of doctrine are damnable.

If anything but 5-point Calvinism is really heresy, then this means that those who hold to anything but 5-point Calvinism are damned.

I don´t think I ever said anything about "œCalvinism", or "œfive points" or anything like that. I think what tears us up here is that we have to decide whether we believe the Gospel or not. The Gospel is true, everything else is a lie.

Scott said:

Regeneration is a work of the HS and can occur whilst the person knows very little. Conversion however, requires certain ducks to be in a row.

Quite right.

Ben,

Well, you've consigned virtually all non 5-point Calvinists to the abyss.
What's next? A treatise demonstrating that all dispensationalists - even the ones like John MacArthur - are going to hell?
After that, perhaps you would care to finish the job by demonstrating that only those who adhere to the WCF w/o exception, as interpreted by the RPCGA, are saved.

Actually, what I did say was that there are really 3 types of those affected by Arminianism at different degrees and different levels. I was converted under Arminian preaching, but I fear for the Arminian preacher that preached!

I think your other points on dispensationalism, etc., are simply ranting and raving. I don´t think those have anything to do with what I said, or what the article was about, or even helps in this thread.

Jeff is right "“

Arminians believe in works righteousness, and believing that they have saving faith contradicts not only scripture, but the WCF: Westminster Confession of Faith 14:2

Again, this goes back to the Gospel you believe.

Jeff quotes the Puritans, those who were VERY persuaded that a right Gospel is important. I concur with Owen:

One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit,"”"œmors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJerolemon, [4] "œa holy war," to such enemies of God´s providence, Christ´s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters. [5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,"”"œthe depths and crafts of Satan;" we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,"”like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,"”give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed.

SolaScriptura said

I guess I'm not willing to label every Christian, other than 5-point Calvinists, as heretics.

Who said this?? I don´t think I said that in the article, and I don´t think anyone means that.

Practically, I think Jeff is on the right track when he says:

With due respect, I think it dangerous to place a time difference between regeneration/conversion with adults. It might work with infants as they might not have the ability to understand yet, but that excuse doesn't work with people of "believing age" (if there is such a thing).

We are not talking about infants here, and the article is written for those who are READING it. We are dealing with, essentially, what "œgod" people serve and worship.

Chris Blum is very right when he says:

Indeed. If more people had read other pieces of Matt's treatment on the subject as well, you would know that that is a pure straw-man of what he is saying, as shown by his statement at the beginning of the APM page on Arminianism (not to mention the last few paragraphs of the current article as well):

Joseph said:

I agree with Ben, Jacob, and Ryan. Salvation is TOTALLY of grace.

We are all agreed!

Phillip said:

A church that is not completely Calvinistic is not a true church, but a synagogue of Satan worshipping a false god.

Again, I don´t think I mentioned anything about being "œCalvinistic." So far as I remember, I simply quoted the Scriptures.

Where was the church before TULIP???

This is a completely different question than what the article is trying to weed out.
But if I have to answer this, one would have to ask if you believe TULIP, or the doctrines behind it, are the Gospel. If "œno", then TULIP represents things that are completely non-essential to Christian doctrine. If "œyes" then you have answered your question.

And just because someone does not have a ThD or a PhD does not mean then that they CANNOT BE SAVED - for even children can KNOW Jesus. Is a child that knows Jesus damned because he cannot recite the Puritan Catechism and sign a statement of agreement with Dordt???

I don´t think I said anything about a PhD, ThD or any other "œD". I believe all I did was quote the Scriptures. Children will be converted by and learn the same Gosdpel adults will be converted by and learn. As far as I know, there is only one Gospel for all men.

I can hear it now "“

Need you say more?

No, Peter preached Christ. And so should we.

He sure did. He spent 3 years with him in the flesh, knew the Old Testament better than any of us, and certainly preached that Christ. Which Christ? THAT Christ. See, we agree.

It is just more evidence of the doctrinal imbalance that rules this forum.

Though this has nothing to do with the article, I´ll ask it anyway "“ which points of the 5 points should we get rid of, or are non-essentials to the Gospel? Anyone can answer.

Joseph said:

The Gospel is simple:
1) Believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
2) Believe that your sin makes you unworthy of Heaven.
3) Believe that Jesus died to pay for your sin.
4) Believe that your sin is paid for by his blood.
5) Believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

THOSE are the only "5 points" that are necessary for salvation. And NONE of "TULIP" is in there anywhere.

Statements like these make me shudder because what you are doing is overlaying your ideas of what those things "œare" INTO those things. In other words, when you say "œJesus is fully God and man" those terms are PACKED with information that you read in it. You say "œJesus" I ask "œJesus who?" You say "œSin" I say "œwhat´s that? You say "œGod" I say explain God to me. You say "œpay for your sin" I say you are equivocating! Stop that. You have to be honest with what you are saying. In fact, if we go with what you said above, you are saying the exact same thing I am saying. "œWhat Jesus?"


Phillp asked:

Do you state in the article that to reject any of TULIP is to worship a false god?

I don´t think I mentioned TULIP anywhere in the article "“ rather I simply exaplined some of the key Scriptures that we preach on to communicate the Gospel. Were any of those Scripture or ideas offensive to you?

Do you state that churches that are not Calvinistic are worshipping a false god?

I said that everyone who worships a false idea or a false god is guilty of idolatry. Can you find where I "œstated" what you are asking?

Can a church that is worshipping a false god be a true church of Jesus Christ?

Not at all. If a church is worshipping a false god, then they by fact, not a Christian church.

Can a person who is worshipping a false god be saved?

If you mean chronologically, sure. Some who was a worshipper of a false god can come into contact with the Truth of the Scripture, believe that truth, and be saved by the true God. Someone who worships a false god will not go to heaven. Christ, Paul, the prophets all call that idolatry, and idolaters do not enter heaven.

Your article defeats itself. In it, if it is left intact, you state unequivocably that to reject the doctrines of grace in any way is to worship a false god, making one an idolator, and hence damned.

I don´t think the article was about the doctrines of grace. I believe I wrote the article to deal with the "œgod" behind what people believe. Either the One True Living God, or a false "œgod."

Joseph,

I don´t think the article uses any fuzzy language. The Scriptures demonstrate one truth and the One True God behind that truth. What I think people are having a problem with is they are confusing regeneration and conversion. The article, I believe, was kept very simply. Which is why I think so many are upset about it. Believing and really trusting in ONE Gospel and ONE God is REALLY hard for some to accept.

I´ll let Scott and Brett keep dueling it out!

Christopher Reeder said:

A problem arises when we apply the term "Arminian" to anyone who is not a Calvinist or who does not know what either term means.

We are VERY agreed here!

David said:

We are saying that the Christian is responsible for what God has revealed at this point in redemptive history and what He is calling him to personally vis a vis doctrine. A child is different than an adult, and the post-modern era is different than the pre-reformation era.

Agreed!!

Then you said:

Ask *those people* if they are saved by Christ alone. Even if they are "well developed" in their non-Calvinistic views they will hesitate to proclaim that they are saved by Christ plus anything if they truly believe the gospel. What do you think?

Exactly. Each must be dealt with individually. See Chris Blum´s post.

Phillip began to converse with David and said:

I have read the article 6 times in the last 2 days, more slowly each time.

I don´t think you are understanding it. I think you are a product of the age sometimes. Not all the times, but sometimes. We all are to some extent. But this is one of them that I see you trying to be too nice to something that has stood condemned by all good pastors and theologians before us. Why would you want to "œprotect" in ANY way, Arminianism? (I said that thoughtfully.) I know what you mean, and I know what your tension is with the piece. But your tension is on the wrong side of the fence on this one. Replace Arminianism with "œMormonism in the article. Would you have problem with it then? Of course not. Replace it with Islam "“ then? I don´t think you would. Remember, a false teaching, a false teacher, a false system of thought is idolatry. I know you would have a problem with idolatry. The question actually stems down into "œpeople" because you don´t like labeling people with a blanket. I understand that too "“ which is why I said you are misunderstanding the article.


Houseparent received an email from Bain. Ah, best thing to do with anything Bain writes, contemplates or emails is trash it. He not the worth the bytes it took to get the email much less read it. Answer along with Willie Wonka "“ "œI can´t hear you when you mumble!"

Phillip then did a disservice to himself "“ he posted a rant: this one: posted on 2-10-2006 at 04:54 AM

I´m not even going to deal with it. That is just you being angry without thinking through this in light of everything to be considered.

Martin said:

I am a firm 5 point Calvinist, but I'm not going to make my theology the standard for salvation.

Then your theology doesn´t matter.

Dan said:

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?

This is a blanket statement, of which I am sure I made no blanket statements in the article in this way. All must be scrutinized where they are at. See the "œWarning to the Reader"

Jeff said:

It seems to me that those who dismiss the idea that Matt is portraying as ridiculous or "cultic" do not understand the historic reformation/puritan stance on Arminians (if today's Arminians are "better" or "worse" than the Arminians in those days is another issue).

Ain´t it da truth! How I wish people would heed Owen's rebuke that Pastors and Theologians should take up their pens and preach against this heresy! (One of many!)

 

[ReformedWretch]

Again, some here are confusing what their Arminian friends claim and say, to what it really is they serve and worship. For some reason we don't make this mistake with Mormans and JW's. I find that odd....

Arminians I know (Full fledged or partial, uneducated Arminians) "say" they are saved by grace ALONE and they think they believe that. What they don't realize is that by believing that they sought salvation of their own free will they are believing in salvation by works. While that seems obvious to all of us here, most Arminians I know honestly don't realize this and will be offended if you tell them.

My question is, does this damn them?

I believe it does because they are refusing to believe the gospel, they are refusing to submit to the truth, and they arrogantly hold onto a God they have created. I did this for years and years. You could have pointed to any scripture you wanted. All I knew was the God loved me and proof of that love was His refusal to interfere with my free will. PERIOD

My mother believes I was saved and sort of growls me for saying that I wasn't. My friends think I was one of the most "godly" men they ever knew! Former pastors were impressed with my dedication and love toward others. Christian book stores in my area remained in business because of me! The contemporary Christian music scene recieved thousands of dollars from me as well. I cried when I listened to Carman songs!

Yet I am telling you that I believed in a false god who needed me to choose him. I believed in a Jesus who pleaded with people to come to Him. A Christ who stood with tears in His eyes asking, nearly begging for people to hear his message lest they perish.

The last thing I needed was anyone who knew the truth asking those trying to reach me to be nicer, or more understanding because I was going to Heaven "just as I was".

 

[Arch2k]

Adam,

I appreciate your posts, and can relate as my experience is very similar to yours. I give a big ditto when you say that Arminians PROFESS sola fide/sola gratia/solo christo etc. etc., but the outworkings of their theology and everything else they do prove that they are merely redefining these terms to fit their theology (I know, because I was taught to, and did that very thing). I know mega-churches in my area that claim solo christo but in the same breath add their decision as the ultimate deciding factor to their salvation.

Tit 1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

Solo christo means that Christ ALONE makes the difference between if I go to heaven, or if I go to hell. "œFree Will" is the antithesis of this. It makes the sinner the difference between if the sinner goes to heaven or hell, which is nothing less than salvation by works.

God will not share his glory with any man, nor will he give a man a "œsaving faith" that gives some of the glory to the sinner.

 

[pastorway]

Matt, my "rant" was only an example, a list of many actually, that shows in your article that you have stated that to believe any single minute particle of Arminian thought (and hence reject any single minute particle of Calvinism) is to be worshipping a false god.

You make the case for every single doctrinal error you name. That is the root of the problem with this article.

You take a series of errors and instead of dealing with a whole system of thought you go to great lengths to make the each individual error into its own damnable heresy.

So you do state in no uncertain terms that to deny any single point of Calvinism is to worship a false god. And as you do rightly state, you cannot worship a false god and be saved or go to heaven.

My "rant" takes it point by point. For you to leave this article as is on the web is a diservice to the PB and the church. It is a blatant example of why the PB has become so much more narrow than the gospel.

It seems my arguments are not to be dealt with. The logical conclusions that jump off the page will be swept aside as an angry rant or hyperbole. The questions posed will be attributed to one influenced by the spirit of the age who is defending arminianism at all costs, being too nice to damn anybody for their ignorance and errors.

But what do you expect from one who is not really reformed?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Pastor Way

You are much more educated than I in scripture, I admire and respect you. I believe I would even enjoy your church! That said, does it not matter what I ( or anyone formally in error) has to say about our condition at that time?

I have a friend who was "saved" when he as 12-13. He lived a decent Christian life for the next few years only to go off to College and pary, do drugs, have sex, and other such things. I defended such actions time and again as "back sliding". Yet when I asked him what he believes would have happened had he died in his college years he in no uncertain terms told me "Oh there is no doubt I would have gone straight to Hell."

Now we can argue that God was with him and bringing him to the truth, same with my situation. I believe I was not "saved" while believing the Arminian junk I once believed yet I did not die and God has lead me to the truth. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are those who die in those states. Do you believe that if they "accepted Christ" yet died in such sin that they will inherit Heaven based on a confession at one time? Or because they mean well and are only mistaken in their sinful state?

I mean you no disrespect and I hope I do not sound foolish with my questions. It just SEEMS to me that you are defending those who many amongst us once were and are telling you that we are confident had we died in our unlearned state we would not have entered Heaven, and that we needed an alarm such as Matt's article to awaken us.

I sent the article to every Arminian friend I have. I pray they see it as gospel truth and repent as the Lord graciously lead me to do.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by pastorway

...

So you do state in no uncertain terms that to deny any single point of Calvinism is to worship a false god. And as you do rightly state, you cannot worship a false god and be saved or go to heaven.

...

It seems my arguments are not to be dealt with. The logical conclusions that jump off the page will be swept aside as an angry rant or hyperbole. The questions posed will be attributed to one influenced by the spirit of the age who is defending arminianism at all costs, being too nice to damn anybody for their ignorance and errors.

But what do you expect from one who is not really reformed?

Ironically, this is the main point made by Andrew Bain in his email that is being slammed on another thread. But, Andrew and Pastor Way are making a good point. If Arminianism teaches a false gospel, worships a false god, then how can Arminians be saved? To use a popular metaphor, we are ignoring the elephant in the living room.

I agree with much of Dr. McMahon's article. But everyone from Andrew Bain to Pastor Way has come to the obvious logical conclusion (the elephant) that no one wants to deal with - except Andrew . As long as Andrew is willing to deal with it, he will have an audience and an advantage.


(P.S. I noticed that Dr. McMahon has posted some responses that I missed - so if he as already shot the elephant ... )


[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Civbert]

 

[ReformedWretch]

I've been pointing and shouting at the elephant.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by houseparent
I've been pointing and shouting at the elephant.

Oh look....there it is!

 

[biblelighthouse]

Matt,

The theological confusion you demonstrate above is so fraught with problems that it would probably take me an hour or two just to untwist all of it.

Thus, instead of responding to the whole thing, I'll just hone in to something you specifically said to me:

Joseph said:

The Gospel is simple:
1) Believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
2) Believe that your sin makes you unworthy of Heaven.
3) Believe that Jesus died to pay for your sin.
4) Believe that your sin is paid for by his blood.
5) Believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

THOSE are the only "5 points" that are necessary for salvation. And NONE of "TULIP" is in there anywhere.

Statements like these make me shudder because what you are doing is overlaying your ideas of what those things "œare" INTO those things. In other words, when you say "œJesus is fully God and man" those terms are PACKED with information that you read in it.

No, in the context in which I wrote, those terms are most certainly NOT "packed with information that you read in it."

They are packed with information if you are talking about Christians doing theology proper, in seminary for example, probing deeper into the mysteries of God.

But as far as bare salvation is concerned, there is very little information "packed" into all those terms that is necessary for salvation.

For example, consider the phrase, "Jesus is fully God and fully man." Of course theologians can study the meaning and implications of this phrase for a lifetime, and still just scratch the surface. But for salvation, how much does a little child have to understand in this phrase? All that has to be believed is that God is the Creator of the universe, and that He came to earth as a man. You don't have to understand the Trinity or the hypostatic union. All you have to believe is that "Jesus is God" and that "Jesus is man". You don't have to understand HOW those two facts fit together; you just have to believe THAT they are both true, and that they do fit together somehow. For goodness sakes . . . it took the early church centuries to hammer out the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union. But I tend to believe that many people were saved prior to the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, etc. . . .

You say "œJesus" I ask "œJesus who?"

Jesus is God. Jesus is man. Those 6 words just about sum it up, as far as salvation-knowledge is concerned. You don't have to know the extensive details of his genealogy, the doctrine of the hypostatic union, or anything about Covenant Theology. All of those are very important doctrines for a new Christian to learn. But none of them is necessary to *become* a Christian. If you know that Jesus is God, and you know that Jesus is man, then you know all you need to know about the identity of Christ in order to be saved.

You say "œSin" I say "œwhat´s that?

Sin is "doing something God says is wrong". It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. You don't need a degree in hamartiology to be saved. Just know that you have done things God says are wrong. Realized that one sin against God deserves eternal punishment. Understand that you cannot do anything to pay for your own sin. In other words, you are lost without hope, unless God Himself does something about your sin.

You say "œGod" I say explain God to me.

Everybody already knows who God is (cf. Rom. 1). If He regenerates a heart, then that suppression of God-knowledge melts away.

Who is God? He is the Creator of all that exists, and He is the Ruler of the universe He created. Why does the definition have to be any more complex that this? Who says a person has to have a deep knowledge of God's identity in order to trust Him and be saved? Just identify Him as Creator and Ruler. What else do you think a new convert must know about God in order to be saved? Is a detailed Chalcedonian-compliant understanding of Trinitarianism necessary for salvation? Perish the thought!

You say "œpay for your sin" I say you are equivocating! Stop that. You have to be honest with what you are saying.

"Equivocating" means "To avoid making an explicit statement".

What are you considering so non-explicit about the statement that Jesus "pays for your sin"? Why does this have to be made difficult for a new convert? Certainly the doctrine of the atonement is important. But if we have to believe specifically in the penal-substitutionary atonement in order to be saved, then was anyone saved prior to Anselm? It took the church over 1000 years to come to a good understanding of the penal-substitutionary atonement. And truth be told, even Anselm didn't quite get the doctrine "polished" like the Reformers finally did a few centuries later.

Of course there are some inherently heretical theories of the atonement. For example, I believe the Governmental theory of the atonement is utterly anathema. But then again, that theory of the atonement doesn't even really fit with the phrase, "Jesus paid for my sin." This atonement theory is ruled out. I don't believe Grotius and J. Edwards Jr. were saved.

But is it damning to believe in the Ransom theory of the atonement? If so, then not only do you consign C.S. Lewis to hell, but you condemn a bunch of early church fathers, too. How about the Priestly-Sacrificial theory? Is that damning?

Certainly you and I agree that the Penal-Substitutionary theory of the atonement is correct.

And I agree that the phrase, "Jesus paid for my sins on the cross" does leave some wiggle-room for atonement theories. So good theologians should definitely get more specific . . . just like Anselm finally did.

But it is just nonsense to require deep theological knowledge from a new convert. To be saved, a person simply needs to know that they can't pay for their own sin, and that Jesus can. And not only could Jesus do it, but He did do it by dying on the cross. By shedding His blood, he paid for sin. Why does a baby Christian need any deeper knowledge than this for initial salvation?



Matt, you cannot preach the true Gospel, while simultaneously adding requirements to salvation that are not Biblical requirements.

Salvation is by faith alone, not by faith plus extensively deep knowledge about the Trinity, hypostatic union, penal-substitutionary atonement, hamartiology, etc.

Ironically, this doctrine of "faith + deep theological knowlege" comes dangerously close to denying the Gospel itself, because the Gospel is a doctrine of "faith alone", not "faith + seminary training". Does there have to be an object of that faith? Yes. Must that faith have a content? Certainly. But the object (God) cannot be exhaustively known, and the content (soteriology proper) need not be exhaustively known. Quite to the contrary, a very simple childlike faith will do. And the simple understanding of a child fits very well with the faith of a child.

Instead, you seem to be arguing that the knowledge of an adult theologian is a necessary prerequisite to having the faith of a child. And THAT type of thinking is certainly nonsense!

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by pastorway

For you to leave this article as is on the web is a diservice to the PB and the church. It is a blatant example of why the PB has become so much more narrow than the gospel.

Ironically, it is this hyper-Calvinistic "narrow Gospel" that truly comes very close to denying the Gospel itself.

I repent of believing such things myself. God please forgive me for the similar "narrow Gospel" statements I made on the Puritanboard several months ago. I was wrong! I was sinning!

The Gospel is SIMPLE. Take away its child-like simplicity, and you destroy it.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Where are you guys getting the idea that Matt has said the level of your Christian/biblical education determines your salvation? Seriously, maybe I aint as learned as you fella's but I aint seein it!

Arminianism is indeed error, and many professing it will not understand most of the "big words" used here, but you know what? I don't always understand all dem dere big words either yet I agree with Matt!

I was in error, I would have been offended if you told me that I was lost and going to Hell when I was in error so lets not approach an Arminian and just flatly state that (and no, I don't think Matt did so in that article).

But please don't patronize me either. If I am in error please point it out as a brother in Christ and let the chips fall where they may. For some reason NONE of you seem to have trouble doing that when it come to baptism yet let anyone suggest an Arminian dying in that error may not enter the Kingdom and you're up in arms.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by houseparent
I've been pointing and shouting at the elephant.

Oh look....there it is!

LOL...so he's a dancing Arminian too?!

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by houseparent
I've been pointing and shouting at the elephant.

Oh look....there it is!

Not that one! The yellow one with the poka-dots.

 

[Arch2k]

Joseph,

Can a person believe that they have the ability to rescue themselves from their lost condition and still have saving faith?

What about believing in your righteousness to save yourself?

Q72: What is justifying faith?
A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]

1. Heb. 10:39
2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
3. Rom. 10:14, 17
4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
5. Eph. 1:13
6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11

Arminians believe that they have the ability to rescue themselves by the almighty power of their free-will.

They also believe that their righteousness is ultimately the deciding factor on if they go to heaven or hell.

An you are saying that these beliefs are compatable with the simple gospel/saving faith?

Since when did trusting Christ Alone become such a deep theological idea?

 

[ReformedWretch]

We have dealt with the idea of Arminians dying in their sin. Both Jeff and I have stated that we believe to remain in that error (sin) never coming into repentance for it leads one to eternal damnation.

What is beginning to frustrate me are those who want to coddle those in error (or seem to want to) by not being too "mean" or too confrontational just so long as the practicing Arminian professes to believe the truth.

Arminians do NOT believe the truth. Just because they think they do, and profess to, does not make it so. All would agree with that about Mromons or JW's but Arminians get a pass for some reason. Being in error and remaining in error are two different things of course, but I sense some are defending those who forever remain in error and maybe even those who teach it!

Now there is a diservice in my opinion.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by houseparent
What is beginning to frustrate me are those who want to coddle those in error (or seem to want to) by not being too "mean" or too confrontational just so long as the practicing Arminian professes to believe the truth.

I don't have any problem with being confrontational. I confront Arminians VERY strongly concerning the error of their beliefs. But they are not in error about anything that will send them to hell.

I also confront baptists VERY strongly concerning the error of their beliefs. But does their anti-paedobaptism send them to hell? Of course not.

My point is this: One can be very confrontational regarding error, WITHOUT necessarily jumping off the deep end and saying that such-and-such an error necessarily condemns a person to hell.

There is a BIG distance between "error" and "condemnation". An Arminian is certainly in error, but not in damnable error.

Originally posted by houseparent

Arminians do NOT believe the truth. Just because they think they do, and profess to, does not make it so.

On the contrary, I've never heard an Arminian prayer. They all pray like Calvinists! "Oh Lord, please open the heart of my uncle so that he will repent any believe in You . . ." --- They may not consciously "get it", but when they put down their theology books and just simply pray to God, a better belief comes to the surface.

Originally posted by houseparent

All would agree with that about Mromons or JW's but Arminians get a pass for some reason.

You are not just comparing apples and oranges . . . you are comparing apples and bunions.

Mormons reject monotheism. This is damning.

JW's reject the deity of Christ. This is damning.


Arminians affirm monotheism.
Arminians affirm the deity of Christ.
Arminians agree that our sin merits eternal punishment.
Arminians agree that we can do nothing to wash away our own sin.
Arminians believe that only Jesus can pay for sin.
Arminians believe that Jesus did pay for sin by His death on Calvary.

Arminians believe enough of the Gospel to be saved. Do they understand it perfectly? No. But then again, we don't understand it perfectly either.

A simple belief in the Gospel is enough.




[Edited on 2-10-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
You are not just comparing apples and oranges . . . you are comparing apples and bunions.

Mormons reject monotheism. This is damning.

JW's reject the deity of Christ. This is damning.


Arminians affirm monotheism.
Arminians affirm the deity of Christ.
Arminians agree that our sin merits eternal punishment.
Arminians agree that we can do nothing to wash away our own sin.
Arminians believe that only Jesus can pay for sin.
Arminians believe that Jesus did pay for sin by His death on Calvary.

Arminians believe enough of the Gospel to be saved. Do they understand it perfectly? No. But then again, we don't understand it perfectly either.

Nay.

Works righteousness is damning as well.

Rom 11:5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Rom 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

Isn't works righteousness the anathema used by Paul to condemn the Judiazers?

How much works can a person believe get them in before they are damned under your system?

1% like Billy Graham?

10%?

50%?

99%?

Why do you draw the line where you draw the line? Why not draw the line where scripture does? If a person believes that they save themselves in any way, they do not believe the gospel, and therefore are under the anathema of God.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Nay.

Works righteousness is damning as well.

Rom 11:5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Rom 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

Isn't works righteousness the anathema used by Paul to condemn the Judiazers?

How much works can a person believe get them in before they are damned under your system?

1% like Billy Graham?

10%?

50%?

99%?

Why do you draw the line where you draw the line? Why not draw the line where scripture does? If a person believes that they save themselves in any way, they do not believe the gospel, and therefore are under the anathema of God.

This is what Dr. R. C. Sproul calls the "blessed inconsistency" of Arminianism.

If they consciously professed to believe in works salvation, then we would have a real problem.

But everywhere they recognize works salvation, they weed it out, because they agree with us that works salvation is evil doctrine.

They are just unwittingly inconsistent. If they once understood that a piece of their doctrine implies works salvation, then I believe they would abandon it and become Calvinists. In fact, that is just what happens a lot of times!

Arminians do not believe in works salvation. Anywhere they are inconsistent is just a place they haven't been sanctified yet. But that will be taken care of eventually, whether on this side of glory, or at the point of glorification itself.


Again, I challenge you to show me CLEAR sola fide teaching prior to the Reformation. Second hand references from Gill aren't going to cut it. Just because Gill named someone doesn't prove anything. I want you to show me some original quotes, tracing the doctrine of sola fide throughout church history, right up until the Reformation. I have looked for such a thing, and have found it nowhere.

Like I said, Dr. John Hannah of Westminster Theological Seminary flatly told me that a clear doctrine of sola fide did not exist prior to the Reformation. It took the church years to gain clarity on this doctrine, just like it took the church years to gain clarity on the Trinity, hypostatic union, etc.

 

[Dan....]

Dan said:

Quote:

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?


This is a blanket statement, of which I am sure I made no blanket statements in the article in this way. All must be scrutinized where they are at. See the "œWarning to the Reader"

I'll leave my sister's church out of this and deal only with the "hypothetical fundamental baptist church". That having been said:

No blanket statement necessary. This is the logical conclusion of statements in your article.

In your article you said:

What does Arminianism teach? Is the "œgod" of Arminianism the God of the Bible? No. Arminius did not plagiarize the bible; instead, he fabricated a brand new deity, or idol, for men to worship. The "œgod" of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible. For Arminius´ "œgod" loves everyone equally, and sent his "œSon" to die for all men equally.....

Arminius also taught that his "œgod" will not regenerate a sinner who does not first choose "œhim" with his inherent "free will." With Pelagius, Arminius said that all men are inherently free, and have a "free will". The fall of Adam has not rendered them incapable of doing good things. With this will they can either follow "œgod" or not follow "œgod." Yet, at no time will "œgod" ever violate their free will to make them come to "œhim" or change their heart first without their consent to do so. Arminius´ "œgod", then, is at the beck and call of sinners when it comes to their eternal destiny.

Let's say that our "hypothetical" Fundamental Baptist church has a statement of faith, as the official dogma of the church, which states that, "We believe that faith logically procedes regeneration. God does not regenerate anyone who does not first, out of free will, choose to embrace him."

Per the quote from your article above, the "god" of any who teach that "will not regenerate a sinner who does not first choose him" is not the God of the Bible.

Hence, the God of said church is not the God of the Bible. Syllogism:

1. Any who teach X, their God is not the God of the Bible.
2. Said church teaches X
Therefore: Said church's God is not the God of the Bible.


Next point: In your article you said,

Worshippers of a different "œgod" and different "œgospel" are not going to be slapped on the wrist and sent to their room in heaven. Rather, they are going to be sent to hell for being idolaters.

Per the above syllogism and this quote, it must follow that those who worship at said church are "going to be sent to hell for being idolaters." Syllogism:

1. "Worshippers of a different "œgod" and different "œgospel" are not going to be slapped on the wrist and sent to their room in heaven. Rather, they are going to be sent to hell for being idolaters."
2. Worshippers at said church are of a different "god" (previous syllogism)
Therefore:
Worshippers at said church are "going to be sent to hell for being idolaters."

Next point:
As per Rev 18:4, those who partake with idolators receive of the same plagues as the idolaters, hence:

1. those who partake with idolaters receive of the same plagues as the idolaters
2. To worship at said church with idolaters is to partake with idolaters.
Therefore All who would worship in said church will receive the same plagues as the "idolaters" therein.

Sounds to me that we'd better not worship at our "hypothetical" church lest we be in dire straights.

By the way, I have no problem while I am travelling with worshipping with the saints at a Fundamental Baptist Church, but anyone who does agree with the conclusions of Dr McMahon's article should have a problem with worshipping with such a church.

 

[ReformedWretch]

As I feel at this moment, I would have a problem in that curch.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

This is what Dr. R. C. Sproul calls the "blessed inconsistency" of Arminianism.

I agree! It is inconsistent Pelagianism, not inconsistent Christianity!

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
If they consciously professed to believe in works salvation, then we would have a real problem.

Oh...so if I SAY I believe that 2+2=4, but everytime I add 2+2 I put down 9, it's ok simply because I SAY I believe it?

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
But everywhere they recognize works salvation, they weed it out, because they agree with us that works salvation is evil doctrine.

They do not. They do not weed out their "free will" do they? If ever there were a more merit based system, it would only be Rome. But then again, Rome is more consistent. At least they suggest salvation is worth alot by saying you have to work really really hard to get it. The Arminians do works salvation a dis-service by suggesting that with the flip of a switch, they can get it.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
They are just unwittingly inconsistent. If they once understood that a piece of their doctrine implies works salvation, then I believe they would abandon it and become Calvinists. In fact, that is just what happens a lot of times!

Just because they believe in salvation by works ignorantly does not excuse their false gospel. I dare you to give me any scriptural evidence that ignorance excuses ANYONE. Joseph, MILLIONS of people will die and go to a real place called HELL for ETERNITY because they are ignorant of God's one true gospel. It does no service to say these people are saved....they need the gospel.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Arminians do not believe in works salvation. Anywhere they are inconsistent is just a place they haven't been sanctified yet. But that will be taken care of eventually, whether on this side of glory, or at the point of glorification itself.

You have no evidence to support this. If you have ever been an arminian, you KNOW that it was ultimately up to you to get yourself into heaven. If you call this act of free will "grace", "works" or a "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" makes no difference, because in the end, you are equivicating, and still believe that your action justifies you....not the righteousness of Christ alone.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Again, I challenge you to show me CLEAR sola fide teaching prior to the Reformation. Second hand references from Gill aren't going to cut it. Just because Gill named someone doesn't prove anything. I want you to show me some original quotes, tracing the doctrine of sola fide throughout church history, right up until the Reformation. I have looked for such a thing, and have found it nowhere.

I linked the entire chapter of Gill's volume where he provides volumes of quotes for you. If you wish me to post them ALL here...let's start a new thread. But this is a side issue anyway.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Like I said, Dr. John Hannah of Westminster Theological Seminary flatly told me that a clear doctrine of sola fide did not exist prior to the Reformation. It took the church years to gain clarity on this doctrine, just like it took the church years to gain clarity on the Trinity, hypostatic union, etc.

Don't believe everything you hear.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Like I said, Dr. John Hannah of Westminster Theological Seminary flatly told me that a clear doctrine of sola fide did not exist prior to the Reformation. It took the church years to gain clarity on this doctrine, just like it took the church years to gain clarity on the Trinity, hypostatic union, etc.

Don't believe everything you hear.

I don't believe everything I hear. That's why I don't believe you.

Dr. Hannah is a renowned scholar in church history, and a committed Calvinist. --- What are your credentials? Why should I take your word on church history over his?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Like I said, Dr. John Hannah of Westminster Theological Seminary flatly told me that a clear doctrine of sola fide did not exist prior to the Reformation. It took the church years to gain clarity on this doctrine, just like it took the church years to gain clarity on the Trinity, hypostatic union, etc.

Don't believe everything you hear.

I don't believe everything I hear. That's why I don't believe you.

Dr. Hannah is a renowned scholar in church history, and a committed Calvinist. --- What are your credentials? Why should I take your word on church history over his?

Don't take my word! Read the people for yourself! Again...I LINKED THE CHAPTER so you can read ALL of the quotes from the Church fathers until your heart's content.

The ball is in your court.

 

[Arch2k]

Joseph,

I have a question. Do you agree with Luther's statement that Justification by Faith Alone is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls is correct?

Did Luther think that the church before his time was non-existent?

 

[pastorway]

"What must I do to be saved?"

"Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."


Do I have to know where that faith comes from?

No.

Do I have to know that I was regenerated before I could have this faith?

No.

Do I have to know the doctrines of grace?

No.

Do I have to know who Jesus died for?

No. Only that He died for you!

Do I have to know that I will never lose my salvation?

No.

Do I have to know I don't have a free will?

No.

Do I have to know how God saves me (eternal decrees, etc)?

No.

Do I have to know that it was not my choice to be saved?

No.

Do I have to know everything there is to know about God?

No.

Do I have to know systematic theology?

No.

Do I have to know church history?

No.

Then what do I have to know?

Jesus. (John 17:3, etc)

 

[biblelighthouse]

Pastor Way,

It looks to me like you understand the Gospel better than a lot of people on the Puritanboard!



[Edited on 2-10-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[kceaster]

I have by no means read all the posts in this thread, nor have I yet to read Dr. McMahon's article. But I would say that this is causing more heat than light, and I would suggest that those who are upset by these posts should back off for a bit.

I also do not think it is helpful to talk about who is or who isn't a Christian based upon their knowledge of the gospel. Children have a pretty limited knowledge of the gospel and I believe that God has saved them even at their young age. Just because John the Baptist was regenerate from the womb does not mean he came down to the river at age 5 and started preaching his baptism of repentance.

That said, I think we should turn the discussion away from who is or who isn't a Christian and discuss how much knowledge of the gospel one has to have in order to worship God. And I'm with Pastor Way on this. One has to know they're a sinner and that Christ has come to save sinners. That's a pretty basic thing, but as we are shown in Scripture, there were many who believed at their first hearing of a very basic gospel message, they believed, and then they worshiped. We cannot say that they worshiped a false God because they didn't fully understand the doctrines of grace.

Hoping to add something, instead of detract,

In Christ,

KC

 

[Arch2k]

Must you believe that you cannot save yourself?

Yes.

Q72: What is justifying faith?
A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]

1. Heb. 10:39
2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
3. Rom. 10:14, 17
4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
5. Eph. 1:13
6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11