Arminians...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it is better to say that Arminians (who happen to be Christians) who don't accept Calvinism are just thinking inconsistently. They believe the doctrines of grace at heart, but their logical abilities to come to those conclusions in their mind are just not completely worked out yet. But if they are in opposition to the [i:66c62b60b7]fundamental ideas[/i:66c62b60b7] behind Calvinism, then I don't know how they could be saved. I like to use the phrase that the Roman Church uses on us: "lost brethren."

Heretics can very easily be Christian. If not, we have to do away with some of the Chruch Fathers.

Rembrandt
 
So Matt, what is it that you have to [b:f69a5ac83a]believe[/b:f69a5ac83a] in order to be saved?

One can believe sound doctrine and still be lost!

It isn't theology, systematics, or the doctrines of grace that save.

You have to believe, trust, have as the object of your faith, the Person of Jesus Christ.[b:f69a5ac83a] Believe in Jesus.[/b:f69a5ac83a]

That is what Spurgeon is saying. You have to know Christ.

When the Philippian jailor cried out, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul did not answer, "Get all of your theology figured out so you are sure you are believing the truth and then you will be saved." NO. Paul replied simply, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

To be saved you must believe a Person, not a system. God knows we start on milk and move to meat, and to deny that one is saved just because they are still drinking milk (and even refusing to move on to meat) is to have big problems with the things Paul wrote to the NT church.

He did not address them as lost when they were off theologically (and almost every letter we have in the NT was written to a church with serious errors). He addressed them as having trusted Christ, as elect, as saved, and needing to move on to deeper things.

One can take your posts in this thread to say that anyone who is not a calvinist is not saved, and that is simply a denial of the very gospel itself.

Matt, do you believe that a person can be saved and not be a calvinist?

Phillip
 
Wholeheartedly agree with Philip on this one (and Spurgeon), sorry Matt!

What Spurgeon is saying is that we must believe the HEART of the Gospel, the person and work of Jesus Christ. As far as how that person and work of Jesus Christ are worked out in doctrine, well that is another matter, and though it is eventually inescapable, is not immediately required for true saving faith to be present.

In order to possess saving faith, we must believe, and trust, in Jesus Christ as our Saviour between us and a Holy God. We must not bring any of ourselves into the equation (not our righteousness, but trusting completely in His.)

Where the uneducated, or the "new" Christian, or perhaps the Arminian, may be off would be in the "implications" stemming from the person and work of Christ. In other words, how it would be worked out and affect other points such as the doctrines of grace. Surely we do not dare say that these doctrines must come before a person can actually believe on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I believe that this is all Spurgeon, and perhaps PastorWay, are saying.
 
[quote:1087e24f05]But if they are in [b:1087e24f05]opposition to the [i:1087e24f05]fundamental ideas[/i:1087e24f05] behind Calvinism[/b:1087e24f05], then I don't know how they could be saved.[/quote:1087e24f05]
 
There are clearly flaws in Spurgeon. It isn't his intent that bothers me. Phillip I agree with your [i:3fa6337ffc]intent[/i:3fa6337ffc]. But as Spurgeon says quoting our Lord Jesus, knowing God is eternal life. So what do we have to believe about Jesus? We must believe some essential things abouit him to be saved! I don't think the doctrines of election, or God's complete sovereignty are those essential things either. Actually it is the argument that it is belief in Jesus that saves needs further clarification. Believe what?

Should we assume that someone like Finney who denied the [i:3fa6337ffc]doctrine of justification[/i:3fa6337ffc] is saved. I would say we should assume he is not! He does not believe in the Gospel you see.

[Edited on 5-29-2004 by Ianterrell]
 
As I wrote on another post, I love Keith Green's music, it is very aminian, but alot of it is very encouraging to me to strive for a deeper level of personal holiness in my life.
 
When I was a new arminian Christian, I never heard a good word about Calvinism. Through a wierd string of events, I ended up going to Douglas Wilson's church once in Moscow, ID and had a semester-long Bible study with the leader of the campus crudase for Christ, who happened to be reformed himself. God was able to get some nuggets into my head and I began to study with new eyes after that.

Was I saved before I came to knowledge of the doctrines of grace? I certainly think so. Therefore, I have to admit that my arminian friends and family are inconsistent in their theoogy, but very often just ignorant to the Word of God.
 
I think this is a good quote.

[quote:4eec63d480]
"All who are baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, recognizing the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, the incarnation of the Son and his priestly sacrifice, whether they be Greeks, or Arminians, or Romanists, or Lutherans, or Calvinists, or the simple souls who do not know what to call themselves, are our brethren. Baptism is our common countersign. It is the common rallying standard at the head of our several columns." (A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, p. 338)
[/quote:4eec63d480]
 
While Arminians are our brethren, it does not follow that we are to have Christian fellowship with them. If they call Calvinists heretics, then they themselves have stoney hearts and must be shunned until they are repentant. But not having "Christian fellowship" does not imply that we can't be friends with them on a lesser level.

If the Reformed community got a little bigger, I wouldn't mind us placing a rod of discipline over them. It is the duty of the Church to make doctrinal proclaimations. We are not to be sympathetic because someone who 'could' be a Christian is disobedient. The whole purpose of excommunication is in the hope that the person you are excommunicating actually is a Christian, so that they will repent and rejoin fellowship.

Paul
 
READ THIS

[b:c265abceb7]The whole idea of whether they are Christians or not, is IRRELEVENT.[/b:c265abceb7] IT DOES NOT MATTER! What matters is whether they are submissive to the Church or not. Paul never told us to desipher who is or who isn't saved. He only told us to desipher who or who isn't believing and practicing 'true' doctrine. We are not to make the assumption (according to Paul) that someone isn't saved because of such and such; only that they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven with the way they are [i:c265abceb7]presently[/i:c265abceb7] acting: and therefore must be disciplined appropriately.

Paul
 
:ditto:

Why should we tolerate those who misunderstand their own "salvation" and pervert the gospel?

"First, God has promised certainly his grace to the humbled: that is, to the self-deploring and despairing. but a man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavours, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, God only. For if, as long as he has any persuasion that he can do even the least thing himself towards his own salvation, he retain a confidence in himself some place, some time, or some work, whereby he may at length attain unto salvation."
--Martin Luther, [u:b3d24d90af]The Bondage of the Will[/u:b3d24d90af]

As for me, I agree with Luther. Arminianism attributes to man that which is due to God, therefore it is a false and demonic system of religion, just like Islam, just like Astrology.
 
Hogwash, LOTW (and AA Hodge). Baptism means nothing without belief. If we do not have a common faith then baptism is just an empty ritual.

This is, by the way, the same position that Doug Wilson will be arguing in his debate with James White. A debate that I hope will open a lot of eyes to the terrible doctrine behind this idea that Rome has a valid baptism. A "church" that denies the very gospel itself surely is not baptising disciples of Jesus Christ, but disciples of Bablylon.

As for the rest of this thread, what do we have to believe about Jesus? The Bible says nothing of believing [i:669e3876ba]about[/i:669e3876ba] Him. It says we trust Him. We believe Him. We take Him at His Word when He says that if we come and repent and believe, calling on Him and confessing Him as Lord, then we will be saved. We trust that He is the only Way to the Father, the only Way to the forgiveness of sins.

Faith in Christ is not the same as understanding or grasping the details of every doctrine about His Person and Work! Faith in Christ is knowing Him. How many people do we know and trust, even not knowing everything about them?

Salvation does not require belief in sovereignty, or any of the rest of the doctrines of grace. Salvation is as simple as believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Let's not add to the gospel.

That is also why we are told to make disciples teaching them everything that Jesus said and taught. They are already disciples, having trusted Him, long before they have been taught all there is to know.....if any of us will ever get there in this life. We start out as babes and need to grow up in grace.

Salvation does not require maturity at first, it requires childlike faith in the Person of Jesus.

Please, let us refrain from lumping every non-calvinist into the same camp as Islamists and Occultists. That is simply ludicrous, judgmental, and plain wrong.

Let's not make the simple gospel of grace more complicated than it is.

Phillip
 
[quote:251ee15d4d]
We trust that He is the only Way to the Father, the only Way to the forgiveness of sins.
[/quote:251ee15d4d]

That statement is incompatible with Arminianism.

[quote:251ee15d4d]
Let's not make the simple gospel of grace more complicated than it is.
[/quote:251ee15d4d]

Let's not make the simple gospel of grace more simple than it is.

[Edited on (5/30/04) by Authorised]
 
Yes, the thief read and understood Calvin's Institutes along with all of reformed theology just before he died.

Let's not be silly.

The thief sure didn't attribute his salvation to himself, but rather called Christ "Lord." I would dare say he understood more about God's sovereignty in that moment than all the reformers combined.

I don't remember anyone on this thread stating that the 5 solas were salvation. Enough with the straw man.

What about the analogy our Lord gave when he said a good tree produces good fruit? Arminianism isn't just as much from the pit just because some think it is a little less rotten than Islam or the Occult. They're all lies which originate from the same source.
 
[quote:eba164f146][i:eba164f146]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:eba164f146]
I don't remember anyone on this thread stating that the 5 solas were salvation. Enough with the straw man.
[/quote:eba164f146]
Chill out man. I wasn't refering to you. I was trying to provoke more discussion in this thread.

Some imply that you must hold to the reformed faith to be saved, others that a lesser degree of doctrinal clarity is sufficient. I simply would like to know how this dilemma worked itself out in the life of a saint who only had a few hours of interaction with Jesus in this life. What did the thief understand?
 
[b:059cbc0085]Pastor Way wrote:[/b:059cbc0085]
This is, by the way, the same position that Doug Wilson will be arguing in his debate with James White. A debate that I hope will open a lot of eyes to the terrible doctrine behind this idea that Rome has a valid baptism. A "church" that denies the very gospel itself surely is not baptising disciples of Jesus Christ, but disciples of Babylon.

I'm looking forward to hearing the debate. It should be interesting. BTW, I was wondering if most reformed denominations consider the Roman Catholic baptism to be valid? I got the impression that they do, but then somehow I got another impression that its up to the individual church.

Just wondering,
Bob
 
[quote:47c27e8440]
Chill out man. I wasn't refering to you.
[/quote:47c27e8440]

Sorry, that came out a little rougher than I meant it. It WAS 4 o'clock this morning though...probably explains why.


Isn't saying that Rome doesn't have a valid baptism somewhat the same as the Donatist heresy (which nearly destroyed the church)? I think it was finally Augustine who set things straight between both sets of bishops.


Must leave for church now.

[Edited on (5/30/04) by Authorised]
 
[quote:4f954eb410]Hogwash, LOTW (and AA Hodge). Baptism means nothing without belief. If we do not have a common faith then baptism is just an empty ritual.[/quote:4f954eb410]

Well, I'm in good company, so I'll stick with Hodge on this one, Phillip.

And thank you for trying to poison the well against me by bringing up the guy everybody hates, Doug Wilson.

And also, your statement about baptism begs the question because you don't hold a sacramental view of baptism to begin with. I reject any view of baptism that makes the validity of baptism contingent upon the person being baptized.

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.
 
[quote:1eea1a3d07][i:1eea1a3d07]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:1eea1a3d07]
[quote:1eea1a3d07]Hogwash, LOTW (and AA Hodge). Baptism means nothing without belief. If we do not have a common faith then baptism is just an empty ritual.[/quote:1eea1a3d07]

Well, I'm in good company, so I'll stick with Hodge on this one, Phillip.

And thank you for trying to poison the well against me by bringing up the guy everybody hates, Doug Wilson.

And also, your statement about baptism begs the question because you don't hold a sacramental view of baptism to begin with. I reject any view of baptism that makes the validity of baptism contingent upon the person being baptized.

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. [/quote:1eea1a3d07]

Baptism does mean something without belief (at the time).

But I will stick with Dabney/Thornwell on this one.
 
[b:09173f0206]Craig wrote:[/b:09173f0206]
And also, your statement about baptism begs the question because you don't hold a sacramental view of baptism to begin with. I reject any view of baptism that makes the validity of baptism contingent upon the person being baptized.

I hope folks don't mind this little rabbit trail too much, but this is something that I've really been wondering about. I know its probably not something that can be put into a short post, but can somebody explain the sacramental view of baptism? What is it about the catholic baptism that makes it valid? Is it just because they use the "trinitarian formula"?

A while ago, somebody (can't remember who), started a thread and the common consensus seemed to be that a baptism performed by a believing parent wasn't valid because it wasn't performed by somebody who is ordained. I'm at a loss to understand this. On the one hand, you have a believing parent baptizing a believing child (if my memory serves me correctly) according to Matthew 28, using the "trinitarian formula", and this is not considered valid. Then, on the other hand, you have a priest (in a church that the Savoy confession anyway considers to be of the antiChrist - and I guess the Westminster did at one time as well) baptizing an infant of an unbeliever, and that is considered valid. I don't understand.

(BTW. I'm not saying that all catholics are unbelievers. I'm just basing the statement on their official teachings.)

Bob
 
Found this in a forum on BaptistFire:

"The god of Calvinism is much closer to the character of Satan than the true God of the Bible.

The god of Calvinism is a god of Hate, and certainly cannot ever be accused of the Biblical attribute,

GOD IS LOVE. "

Is anyone here willing to say that this man is saved?

Anyone who wants to defend this man will go to hell for your trouble.
 
[quote:417e8cf9bf][i:417e8cf9bf]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:417e8cf9bf]
Found this in a forum on BaptistFire:

"The god of Calvinism is much closer to the character of Satan than the true God of the Bible.

The god of Calvinism is a god of Hate, and certainly cannot ever be accused of the Biblical attribute,

GOD IS LOVE. "

Is anyone here willing to say that this man is saved?

Anyone who wants to defend this man will go to hell for your trouble. [/quote:417e8cf9bf]

What if the man only read a couple sentences about Calvinism, say on the subject of reprobation. Well, if thats all someone had to go on, you could expect them to not like it. The ignorant person who just heard a couple sentences needs to work out the implications of God's sovereignty, and then understand how election and reprobation is good.

I'm sure the fellow who wrote that knows more than two facts about Calvinism. If he knows all of the facts, and still calls it heresy, then yeah, I don't suppose we could think he is regenerate. But lets leave the door open for those who are ignorant and speak on the impulse of their ignorance: they have just yet to learn. But for those like the fellow who calls God "Satan", let him be anethema.

Paul
 
I think that's fairly reasonable. I never meant to say that an Arminian could NOT be saved, but I think someone who is confronted once and once again concerning this, and yet is hardened continually against plain teaching of scripture, that soul cannot, in my estimation, be a child of God; seeing their error is no longer misunderstanding or ignorance but rather a damning heresy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top