Practical applications for the Arminian error.

Well, if you really believe your friend is in error, then of course you should rebuke him. What kind of friend are you anyway that you do not seek to correct him in love? It seems to me that perhaps the problem lies more with you then with your friend. You obviously don´t think his caricature of the gospel is serious enough to risk your friendship over. Also, I don´t think the conversation has to go; "œrepent or burn in hell, by the way I really enjoyed working with you." Should the opportunity present itself by God´s providence and you can talk to him about spiritual matters, then if you two really are brethren you can raise your concerns in a manner that doesn´t have to be akin to a frying pan over they head.

Again, you clearly don´t think the errors of Arminianism are at all serious or that they undermine the "œcardinal doctrines of the faith." I just have wonder if you would be so cavalier with your friend if he was having an affair with his secretary? Maybe you think adultery from his wife is a more serious sin than adultery from the truth? For what it's worth I think Dr. McMahon´s piece, "œThe "œgod" of Arminianism is Not Worshippable" is excellent and something you should consider asking your friend to read. It reminded me of a piece by G. A. Chan (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=124) on the five points which concluded:

in my opinion if we take the cardinal doctrines of the gospel seriously then we should not let those we consider even our brothers to distort or twist the truth.

Hope that helps.

 

Not sure if you are being serious or not. The wink indicates you are joking, but I don't see the humor. I hope you are kidding just the same.

 

Brett -

I'd encourage you to praise God that people heard of their need to repent and trust in Christ alone for their salvation, that they will be damned if they don't and given eternal life if they do.

I'd encourage you to praise God that your friend was bold - and concerned - enough to actually present the Gospel in such a situation.

As for the error in his message: Remember that no presentation is perfect. Remember that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp.

If you have the opportunity and an established relationship, I'd encourage you to maybe consider taking him under your wing to explain a more correct theology to him.

Other than that, I'd let it slide. Just thank God that these people heard of their need and God's provision... it may be the only time they ever hear.

 

Suit yourself, but why are my answers silly? You said you have no intention of correcting your friend even though you consider him to be in error. How else am I to understand you? It´s clear you don´t think his Arminianism is serious enough, whereas it seems to me the problem is your own Calvinism is the problem. You say you think this man is your brother, but you don´t know that, instead you are willing to sacrifice the purity and truth of the gospel. Maybe this conversion should be done, but not for the reasons you suggest.

 

I'm sure you are not a perfectionist, since that would be unorthodx and we would have to correct you; but your post has not only an all-or-nothing tone that is out of proportion to what you are responding to in my opinion, but you seem to be speaking to motive which you can't judge. To be blunt, your posts seem uncharitable, and not just in Bret's opinion. Unless the tone changes, I'm not saying anything further to you either. It's been said, if the Spirit doesn't bring you to repent, I certainly can't. My job has been done.

 

While it´s certainly true that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp, it seems to me the real problem is that many have forgotten, including more than a few pastors, that the truth is not manifold, but one. No wonder so-called Evangelicalism, or, better, what´s left of it, is so flaccid and anemic. But, I guess I´ll let it slide.

 

First, strictly speaking ad-hominem arguments are not necessarily fallacious, whereas abusive ad-hominem ones are. I did not engage in either, but merely shared my own thoughts and observation which is what you requested after all. Yes, I am a bit critical of how you handled the situation, but I´m not saying I might not have handle it the same way. If so, shame on me. My point is that too many professing Calvinists act like Arminians are their retarded little brothers and this is arrogance and pride. Arminianism is a false gospel. It is a system as hostile to the truth as is Romanism and far more insidious.

 

No, it wasn´t an ad-hominem argument in the slightest. It´s clear you took offense to what I said, but that´s a different issue. As for being cavalier, etc., yes, I think so. You said:

You said this friend of yours "œspoke of ability, free-will, and universal atonement" therefore it doesn´t seem to follow that he believes he is saved by grace through faith alone, certainly not saved by grace alone, yet if he were a Catholic, Mormon or a Muslim you would be right there correcting him telling him he must convert. Yes, to me that seems a bit cavalier. You evidently don´t consider things like ability, free-will, and universal atonement sinful departures from the truth of the gospel message. in my opinion the inclusion of these false doctrines, even by implication, distort the truth and presents another gospel, certainly not the gospel that is found in Scripture, yet such things don´t seem to cause you or Ben any offense at all. That´s fine, I´m quite sure you both are in the majority anyway. Safety in numbers and all that.

Well, from what you described, it sounds to me like your friend fits the bill, but that doesn´t seem to give you any heart-burn. Now, it may be in spite of the nonsense he boldly proclaimed, and in spite of the implications of his belief in his own ability, free will and universalism, he might yet, in spite of his Arminianism, still hold to the truth of justification by mere belief alone in the finished work of Christ alone and be saved. I have no way to tell and it´s certainly not implied by anything you´ve described. However, that is neither my point or my concern. Look, if someone were to get up and describe my wife in ways that were patently inaccurate and untrue, I would have no problem correcting him, but it seems that one can present a distorted picture of Jesus Christ equally as false and we have pastors and fellow pew-ons lining up to applaud such a man for being bold and presenting the gospel. From what you described that was no gospel and perhaps that´s where we differ.

 

Since magma2 is brand new on this board I'm willing to take what he writes and subtract the way he says it until he has about 1000 posts (I mean, just as a fellow board member). I write strongly myself, and have had to apologise for intemperate rhetoric (not cursing or anything) about four or five times, just to turn the volume down if anything.

 

What I mean is many here will admire your zeal, but if a person takes acception to how you've said something there's an art to saying things that doesn't cause needless friction while at the same time doesn't compromise what you mean and intend to say. (I'm not lecturing anybody, just passing on things I've picked up.)

 

You are right: there is one truth. The one truth of the Gospel is that we are dead in our sins and we must repent and confess faith in Christ alone for our salvation. Apparently, that truth was proclaimed!

Allow me to press you a little: you grant that the Body of Christ is broader than the Reformed camp... then how can you deny the validity of the Gospel message preached by those who are not Reformed?

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

I never said that. Just because I am able to look at the larger picture doesn't mean that hearing an evangelical (because it was most likely not a classical Arminian) presentation of the gospel doesn't irk my Reformed understandings.

 

Jab? It was just a point of fact. in my opinion that your position and Ben´s represent the vast majority of those in most P&R churches which find nothing particularly offensive about the lies offered up in the name of Christ by ersatz-Evangelicals. For what it's worth I tend to think most P&R churches are in large measure Arminian and share a very similar and incoherent view of salvation and the cross work of Christ.

The belief in free will implies that salvation is not of the Lord and universal atonement implies that Jesus failed to atone for the sins of those He presumably died for. In both scenarios God´s plan of salvation is portrayed as ineffectual and God impotent and pleading.

Well, the Arminian has a different message, doesn't he?

No kidding. I told you I was in the minority, but in good company I think.
"Calvinism IS the Gospel, and nothing else." (C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. I: The Early Years)

I don´t recall saying that Paul taught that the doctrine of election is the Gospel message? Care to show me where I said this? Of course election is hardly the peripheral doctrine as you make it out to be. Eph 2:8-10; "œFor by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Seems to me the Arminian gospel gives men plenty to boast in.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Magma2]

 

You didn´t read very closely. Brett said at the core of his friend´s the message was that Christ died for those sinners who would, through their own innate ability and free will, rest their trust on Him. Maybe we just have a different understanding of what it means to be dead in trespass and sin, but being dead in our sins doesn´t seem to be a necessary component of his friend´s gospel. Also, I don´t want to pick on his friend either, I spent many years wandering the wasteland of what passes for Evangelicalism. I guess I was Dr. McMahon´s class three Arminian:

I tell you it was pretty unsettling when, by God´s grace, I finally renounced the lies I had been taught for years and God brought me to my senses only to have a bunch of P&R types basically tell me I had it just about right all along.

I would refer you again to the G. A. Chan quote I posted above.

 

ABSOLUTELY!

So many accuse reformed believers of arrogance because they claim to be of the "elect" yet it is the Arminian belief (or a shade of it, what ever...) tahat is truely arrogant as I once was.

I CHOSE Christ!!!!

Now allow me to show you why you must choose Christ!!

Just open your eyes and make the decision that is right in front of you!

Jesus stands with His arms open wide to all of you and all you have to do is allow Him to take hold of you!

Stop saying no to God!



Can you not see the arrogance there? Can you not hear the man centeredness of that belief? Yes, I was ignornace at the time, I did this in total innosence believing I was taking on the great comission.

Was I saved? I believe I was. Was I following the true gospel..I think it's obvious that I was not. The results of my ministry reflected that I was not as all I saw was seen sewn amongst the thorns. It was frustration over that, that began to open my eyes to the truth.

Now, if one who believes as I did continues along his way never hearing or understanding the DoG, or at the very least total depravity then I believe they are saved. However, I have to honestly doubt where one stands with God when taught and shown the truth of total depravity and our lack of involvemnet in our salvation and not only rejects it, but stands up against and speaks out against it passionately.

How can one insist in the face of bold gospel truth that they had ANYTHING to do with thier salvation? How can they not only not see it, but when shown it, reject it and preach against it as sin?

How can we say these people are "saved" when they attribute their salvation to their ability and action?

 

That is not what Brett wrote... Perhaps you need to read more closely.





[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

You find arrogance in any theological tradition. Some of the folks here are among the most arrogant I've ever encountered: at least as venemous towards Arminians as anything I've ever heard from Arminians regarding Calvinists.

We must! You can't be saved without doing so!

This sounds like the same concerned attempt to convince that motivated Paul in Acts 28:23!

Again, we must make a decision! God doesn't save us against our will!

Absolutely! just like Jesus longed to save all the "children" of Jerusalem!

Amen! Sinners must stop "kicking against the goads!" As Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, they're always resisting the Holy Spirit! They must stop!

No I don't. There is very little wrong with the propositions themselves. In fact, if an appeal to believe is lacking from a Gospel presentation then evangelism has not occurred.
What? Do you seriously think that God saves us against our will? This leads to the Arminian claim that God "rapes the will!" These propositions are all true because of what actually happens: God gives us new hearts to believe, but we must engage our wills in response. (In fact, the only evidence that we have been given new hearts is that we choose to respond!)

Then I believe you are misguided. You were believing the true gospel, otherwise you weren't saved. The problem is that you were minimizing God's glory by not fully understanding the the power to believe comes from him.

I'm glad you became convinced of Calvinism, and to that end "whatever" started to convince you is fine... but just because you saw little fruit doesn't disprove the system... heck, most Calvinists see far less evangelistic fruit than Arminians... because we're so busy navel gazing that we fail to actaully preach the gospel to sinners!

A word about this: this is not what an Arminian of either the classic or modern evangelical variety would say. This is simply your Reformed interpretation of what they say. If you show me an "Arminian" who stands up and says, "I saved myself!" Then I'll show you someone who has abandoned historic Arminianism or modern evangelicalism. Quit lumping these together!
Despite all our protests about what their logic actually implies, true evangelical Arminians will always say that God saved them not by anything they did. They always give God the credit. They don't see the exercising of faith as being a "work." They see it as being their response to God's gracious offer of salvation, which came first.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

My point has been it's what I said, and it's what everyone I attended church with still says.

Many here are going on and on about what they believe others feel or believe. I am telling you what I personally believed and what those who still attened the churches I attended still believe. I am not speaking from opinion but experience.

 

How do we chose Him? Why do we chose Him? Is the answer to that question important? Why or why not?

Yet see what Paul also said in the same passage!

26"'Go to this people, and say,
You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
27For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.'

How do we obtain the desire or will to seek "salvation"? Does it just come to us of our own natural will, or does God "do something"?

But what? Human will trumped God's will? He wanted something He couldn't have?

Yes Paul "kicked against the goads" but what was it that caused him to stop? Was it not a direct revelation from Christ Himself? Would Paul have willfully stopped his actions and became a Christian?

Who wills them self to be saved?

Who has been given by God a new heart yet still resists Him? You answered that youself! We choose to respond because what God has given us. We did nothing but what we could do! God is the author of the ENTIRE process.

I was taking credit for it.

I used to see much fruit if you see fruit as I used to see it. I lead many in the "sinners prayer". The Gospel accounts seem to show us that Christ saw little conversions, and on a few ocasions went away kind of sad because of it. I believe your charge against Calvinists is false. We preach the gospel, the TRUE gospel and as such many are turned away like the rich young ruler.