Practical applications for the Arminian error.

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by houseparent
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.

At this point the empirical evidence is against you. Sure, Calvinists preach the gospel... but not nearly as often as our Arminian brothers.

Your responses to my other comments demonstrate what Phillip was trying to say: You are going beyond the actual propositions of the gospel and adding certain components of understanding or meaning that must accompany those propositions before you will accept them as true. It seems like a classic display of insecurity: you chafe at the language of "choose Christ" yet that is biblical language!
The same thing is not found in Scripture: They don't shy away from general proclamations of the gospel focusing on the significance of human volition in turning to Christ.

Also: if you were trusting in yourself, as you claim, then you were not saved... though I'd be interested to know if this verdict is just your present understanding being imposed on your former understanding, or if you actually used to say, "I saved myself!" And if your church was explicitly trusting in themselves, as you claim, then they are not saved. Was this a hyper Charismatic church or something?

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by houseparent

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

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.'

I wanted to respond to this since this is actual Bible. My hope is that you, Adam, will see that you should be a little more careful in your use of Scripture...

Here is the passage beginning at verse 23:
Acts 28:23-28
23 When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. 24 And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved. 25 And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: 26 "'Go to this people, and say, You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. 27 For 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.' 28 Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen."

Get this? Paul seeks to convince the entire group, some are convinced, others not... Paul quotes Isaiah saying how the people have hardened themselves and how they intentionally do not see or hear... because they do not want to turn and be healed. As a result, God sends the gospel to the gentiles because they will respond.
This passage actually highlights the human element of salvation. This passage is stuffed full of human responsibility for 1) not believing and 2) for believing.

Of course, there is more to biblical soteriology than this passage... but this passage does stress the human element.

Since the Bible is not afraid to emphasize the human, volitional, aspect of salvation... neither am I.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Magma2]

So, I am an Arminian? Brother Sean, you are wrong about me.

How do I know if you´re an Arminian? You and Ben seem very dedicated in defending Arminians and Arminianism.

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

How so, Sean?

You´re kidding, right? I guess not. Maybe this will help, it´s from Boettner´s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:

Arminianism, "” which holds that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual of mankind, for those who perish no less than for those who are saved: that election is not an eternal and unconditional act of God; that saving grace is offered to every man, which grace he may receive or reject just as he pleases; that man may successfully resist the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit if he chooses to do so; that saving grace is not necessarily permanent, but that those who are loved of God, ransomed by Christ, and born again of the Holy Spirit, may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the contrary) throw away all and perish eternally.

Spurgeon is definitly not scripture (he believed the Baptist trail blood myth), but if you read him in context he is not saying what you are saying. Spurgeon considered Arminians his Brothers.

I agree there are serious problems in Spurgeon, but it was still a good quote

 

[ReformedWretch]

From my personal experience today's Arminian or Evangelical feels that everyone can choose Christ. They believe that the only thing one must to in order to obtain salvation is believe the biblical testimony and say that out loud.

Yes, I believe what the bible teaches, that Jesus is God, and died for the sins of mankind. Absolutely.

That's it, once you've done this you are on your way to Heaven.

Look, my daughter will say that! She knows the truth and even believes the truth but she refuses place Christ as Lord of her life. She lives as she chooses, and while that doesn't mean she's evil, she certainly does not live for Chirst. She certainly does not desire Him and His ways above all else. I am confident that she is NOT saved.

You are concerned that some of us refuse to use biblical language like "choose Christ", but the problem with that is this, like the term "Christian" it's abused, and abused heavily. To "choose Christ" today means simply to believe in His story. Even Satan believes, and trembles right?

As for what I used to say, I used to say and believe that I chose to be saved and that it was my responsability to see that others chose salvation for themselves as well.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Magma2
How do I know if you´re an Arminian? You and Ben seem very dedicated in defending Arminians and Arminianism.

What? I'm only defending Arminians and Arminianism from those who would consign them to hell!

 

[Magma2]

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

Really? Seems to me that you and Brett´s Arminian friend have a lot in common. You both seem to profess the same impotent Christ. I confess, I can´t seem to find that Christ in Scripture.

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.

Quick question; does Redeemer Church, PCA, have alter calls?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Magma2
How do I know if you´re an Arminian? You and Ben seem very dedicated in defending Arminians and Arminianism.

What? I'm only defending Arminians and Arminianism from those who would throw them out of the orthodox camp!

 

[ReformedWretch]

Wait...so they are not only NOT going to Hell, but they are also orthodox as well?!

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by houseparent
From my personal experience today's Arminian or Evangelical feels that everyone can choose Christ. They believe that the only thing one must to in order to obtain salvation is believe the biblical testimony and say that out loud.

Yes, I believe what the bible teaches, that Jesus is God, and died for the sins of mankind. Absolutely.

That's it, once you've done this you are on your way to Heaven.

Look, my daughter will say that! She knows the truth and even believes the truth but she refuses place Christ as Lord of her life. She lives as she chooses, and while that doesn't mean she's evil, she certainly does not live for Chirst. She certainly does not desire Him and His ways above all else. I am confident that she is NOT saved.

You are concerned that some of us refuse to use biblical language like "choose Christ", but the problem with that is this, like the term "Christian" it's abused, and abused heavily. To "choose Christ" today means simply to believe in His story. Even Satan believes, and trembles right?

As for what I used to say, I used to say and believe that I chose to be saved and that it was my responsability to see that others chose salvation for themselves as well.

I think what you're alluding to here is the doctrine known as "easy believism," and not actual Arminianism.
"Easy believism" is, I think, even more dangerous than Arminianism because it seeks to give assurance of salvation on the basis of a one-time mental assent to the propositions of the Gospel.
I hope you realize that an Arminian would never say this: Arminians stress the importance of perseverance.

This is why I really dislike popular evangelical soteriology: it tries keep Arminian notions of salvation except for at the point of assurance.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Well, my easy believism friends all claim Arminian ideals as well.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by houseparent
From my personal experience today's Arminian or Evangelical feels that everyone can choose Christ. They believe that the only thing one must to in order to obtain salvation is believe the biblical testimony and say that out loud.

Yes, I believe what the bible teaches, that Jesus is God, and died for the sins of mankind. Absolutely.

That's it, once you've done this you are on your way to Heaven.

Look, my daughter will say that! She knows the truth and even believes the truth but she refuses place Christ as Lord of her life. She lives as she chooses, and while that doesn't mean she's evil, she certainly does not live for Chirst. She certainly does not desire Him and His ways above all else. I am confident that she is NOT saved.

You are concerned that some of us refuse to use biblical language like "choose Christ", but the problem with that is this, like the term "Christian" it's abused, and abused heavily. To "choose Christ" today means simply to believe in His story. Even Satan believes, and trembles right?

As for what I used to say, I used to say and believe that I chose to be saved and that it was my responsability to see that others chose salvation for themselves as well.

I think what you're alluding to here is the doctrine known as "easy believism," and not actual Arminianism.
"Easy believism" is, I think, even more dangerous than Arminianism because it seeks to give assurance of salvation on the basis of a one-time mental assent to the propositions of the Gospel.
I hope you realize that an Arminian would never say this: Arminians stress the importance of perseverance.

This is why I really dislike popular evangelical soteriology: it tries to keep Arminian notions of salvation except for at the point of assurance.

 

[Magma2]

What? I'm only defending Arminians and Arminianism from those who would throw them out of the orthodox camp!

Don´t get me wrong Ben. I can see you share a considerable amount of theological territory with the Arminians you defend. Perhaps Brett can now understand what I meant when I said most P&R churches are in large measure Arminian. You´ve been a great aid to me and hopefully a benefit to Brett. Thank you.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Magma2

What? I'm only defending Arminians and Arminianism from those who would throw them out of the orthodox camp!

Don´t get me wrong Ben. I can see you share a considerable amount of theological territory with the Arminians you defend. Perhaps Brett can now understand what I meant when I said most P&R churches are in large measure Arminian. You´ve been a great aid to me and hopefully a benefit to Brett. Thank you.

Sean, I have been in many R&P churches, and have yet to meet an Arminian or hear a sermon with Arminian leanings.

You do realize that our denom (PCA) allows Arminians membership in the Church?

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Magma2

So, I am an Arminian? Brother Sean, you are wrong about me.

How do I know if you´re an Arminian? You and Ben seem very dedicated in defending Arminians and Arminianism.

Actually, I believe that I am defending the Gospel. The logic you are using to anathamatzie Arminians from Christianity actually distorts the Gospel. You should know I am not an Arminian by taking my word for one (I believe in the WCF).

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

How so, Sean?

You´re kidding, right? I guess not. Maybe this will help, it´s from Boettner´s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:

Arminianism, "” which holds that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual of mankind, for those who perish no less than for those who are saved: that election is not an eternal and unconditional act of God; that saving grace is offered to every man, which grace he may receive or reject just as he pleases; that man may successfully resist the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit if he chooses to do so; that saving grace is not necessarily permanent, but that those who are loved of God, ransomed by Christ, and born again of the Holy Spirit, may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the contrary) throw away all and perish eternally.

Right, they have a serious error on soteriology, but how is that denying the Gospel? You keep providing me quotes from fallible men, and have yet to offer any scripture that demonstrates that ARminians deny the Gospel. What is the Gospel in your view?

Spurgeon is definitly not scripture (he believed the Baptist trail blood myth), but if you read him in context he is not saying what you are saying. Spurgeon considered Arminians his Brothers.

I agree there are serious problems in Spurgeon, but it was still a good quote

[/quote]

I like Spurgeon fine, but he didn't believe what you are trying to prove. You need to stop misrepresnting me just because I don't agree with you.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Magma2

Quick question; does Redeemer Church, PCA, have alter calls?

LOL, I go to a Redeemer Pres also. Anyway, we are about as far from the American evangelical scale as you get. We have liturgical worship, weekly communion, etc. I have never heard of any PCA having an alter call, but I am sure it has happened somewhere.

Once again Sean, you are assumming way too much.

 

[Civbert]

A Coletti rule for debate:

When you perceive an jab from your opponent, and you respond (either by crying foul, or by returning the favor) you lose a point.

I know because I get caught doing this often. I read a perceived insult, a negative tone, a jab or a snipe, and I whine about it or return the favor - and lose points. But when I ignore the jab, and carry on as if my opponent post was nothing more than a dry technical argument, then I win points. If I can actually complement my opponent, he will lose some of his sting. But if he get worse, he will be taken less seriously by others too. And half the time is was not a jab anyway and just my reading between the lines, so I will look foolish by complaining about it.

So my suggestion to all you cry-babies, buck up, take it on the chin, smile at your opponent, and carry on as if it were so inconsequential that you did not notice it.


A related rule for discussion:



Ignore tone if it bothers you. Luther was a jerk. Calvin was too. Some of the best theologians of our past were harsh and offensive. Some of the people you can learn the most from, will use uncompromising terms - take no prisoners - fire and brimstone. God kills people. The damed will suffer eternal punishment. Atheists are morons, Agnostics are fools. If we whine about the tone of a person, then we betray that we are whimpy emasculated American men who have given in to the sensitivity soul searching fuzzy-whuzzy image that liberals have hoisted upon us. Rather, let us gird up our loins and go to battle.



P.S. I need some trumpet blowing smilies.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Magma2]

Sean, I have been in many R&P churches, and have yet to meet an Arminian or hear a sermon with Arminian leanings.

I get the impression it wouldn´t even raise an eyebrow. Then again perhaps you need to hear Ben´s sermon on Mat. 23:37.

You do realize that our denom (PCA) allows Arminians membership in the Church?

No, I didn´t realize that. I thought membership in the PCA was based on a credible profession of faith? When did they amend the BOC? Of course and For what it's worth, I welcome Arminians as well. After all, they need to hear the gospel too.

LOL, I go to a Redeemer Pres also.

Well look at that! So you do. That explains a lot.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Magma2]

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Magma2

Sean, I have been in many R&P churches, and have yet to meet an Arminian or hear a sermon with Arminian leanings.

I get the impression it wouldn´t even raise an eyebrow. Then again perhaps you need to hear Ben´s sermon on Mat. 23:37.

LOL, you are a hoot. I don't approve of Arminianism, and if I heard a PCA pastor preaching what I thougth was free will, I would confront that issue.

You do realize that our denom (PCA) allows Arminians membership in the Church?

No, I didn´t realize that. I thought membership in the PCA was based on a credible profession of faith? When did they amend the BOC? Of course and For what it's worth, I welcome Arminians as well. After all, they need to hear the gospel too.

THey have to answer 5 questions, and it has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism. So, it is the PCA you have a problem with. Perhaps you should contact your Presbytery?

LOL, I go to a Redeemer Pres also.

Well look at that! So you do. That explains a lot.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Magma2]

[/quote]

What does that explain? I guess you have me all figured out. What do you suppose my Church is like?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by houseparent
Look, my daughter will say that! She knows the truth and even believes the truth but she refuses place Christ as Lord of her life. She lives as she chooses, and while that doesn't mean she's evil, she certainly does not live for Chirst. She certainly does not desire Him and His ways above all else. I am confident that she is NOT saved.

So is she a child of the devil or an adopted child of God?

My intent is not to cause sorrow with truth, but to point out some inconsistencies that are becoming apparent. Along with Civbert's excellent post, I would say we need to be consistent with our bold approach to scripture. You seem to be confident to "gird up our loins and go to battle" with the Arminian heresy, yet you will say that someone who is not saved is not evil by nature.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Civbert

Ignore tone if it bothers you. Luther was a jerk. Calvin was too.

Civbert, I appreciate your thoughts here. You are probably right.

Anyway, you are right about Luther and Calvin, but at least they knew what they were talking about. Also, they tried to at least learn what their opponents believed.

 

[smhbbag]

People who think that the "truth is the truth" and never has to be seasoned with grace are either not married or immature or both. When I say immature it is not meant to be pejorative. I mean that with good experience comes wisdom, restraint, and an ability to express oneself and have insight into people's lives. Those who give flippant answers to relationship issues express an immaturity of the faith that they need to work on if they ever aspire to be an Elder in Christ's Church.

OK, to the point at hand...

I would caution you, Brett, in assuming that your Arminian friend has it "together" as much as you suspect. If there is one thing that leadership has taught me over the years is that people can live lives of apparent external happiness or piety while there is a literal disaster area within their spirit and their home.

You ask about the "practical applications for the Arminian error." One of them is that your friend, who externally seems very pious and happy and devoted, may struggle mightily with doubt. I read a statistic that about 50% of missionaries surveyed for a broadly evangelical ministry were in the mission field out of some sense of guilt. They were desirous to show their worth. I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bath water and, insofar as Christ's name is proclaimed I rejoice, but severe doubt and restlessness is very common among Christians who are in Arminian Churches.

Notice the appetite that they have for talismans or "How to" books. Whether it is WWJD bracelets or The Prayer of Jabez, they are always trying to figure out why they aren't being blessed. The Promise Driven Life and 40 Days of Purpose is but the latest method to fill the restlessness of spirit that they feel. Why doesn't Promise Keepers pack stadiums and fill the Mall in D.C. anymore? Because it got tired and people needed something new. People will still be reading the Promise Driven Life in a few years but something else will have taken its place with the same promise of fixing the feeling that most Evangelicals feel today.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not saying it to be smug. I worship among them. I counsel some of them. As a sort of a "magistrate" I have had detailed information into the lives of many of them.

That Christ is proclaimed I always rejoice but that Arminian doctrines mute the message and rob people of the ability to wonder at the Grace of their salvation so that they don't know how to cry: Abba! Father is terrible. That Arminian doctrines have robbed them of the sense of God's majesty and most Churches exchange wonder of a Holy God preached from the Word for gnostic experiences in repetitious and banal "praise songs" is reprehensible. That Arminian doctrines have moved so much preaching into practical advice or piety that they no longer sense a need to Protest Rome makes me weep.

Again, when Christ's name is proclaimed I rejoice, but when the message reveals to me predictable patterns of decay it is lamentable to see.

Personally I say what I can where I can within the bounds of the friendship or relationship. I've told my family that the Church they worship in is a false one (but I think they began to figure that out when I wasn't Roman Catholic anymore). They've heard it and I season certain discussions with good theology and contradict bad stuff politely but, in the end, I'm not going to break contact with them. It's the same thing with former close friends who are in bad Churches. They know where I stand on certain things. I say them politely but it's not my job to damn them.

Work relationships that are merely casual friendships (all my close friendships are in the Church) are a bit different. I season my speech with faith at times but it is not always appropriate, in all circumstances, to offer unsolicited theological critique. In the middle of a staff meeting I can't interrupt the Chaplain and tell her I don't believe the Scriptures allow the ordination of women for instance. I'm also in a position of authority where it is inappropriate to use my influence to require people to listen to me tell them about the Gospel. I don't have any set rules but let Prudence be my guide.

If your friend is truly close then ask him if you could sit down and talk about his faith with him. I think a good point to draw out would be self-doubt as I spoke of above. I'd be surprised if he was not struggling with some secret sin that, combined with his doctrine, would be causing him to wrestle mightily with assurance. He may even be joining the ministry convinced that, if he takes that leap of faith, that it will be the thing he needs to give him purpose and fill that restlessness in his heart. Don't bog him down with issues of election and reprobation. Focus on our utter sinfulness and inability and show him that God saved him in spite of Himself.

Express to him the wonder of Galatians 3 and 4 that causes Paul to exclaim "Abba! Father!". That's getting good theology in the bloodstream. All the other doctrinal stuff is important but isn't the immediate issue. Minister to the Arminian where they need it - preach Peace to him.

- SemperFideles

This is one of the best posts I've ever read here. I have nothing to add, just thought it could use an appearance on the second page

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by smhbbag

People who think that the "truth is the truth" and never has to be seasoned with grace are either not married or immature or both. When I say immature it is not meant to be pejorative. I mean that with good experience comes wisdom, restraint, and an ability to express oneself and have insight into people's lives. Those who give flippant answers to relationship issues express an immaturity of the faith that they need to work on if they ever aspire to be an Elder in Christ's Church.

OK, to the point at hand...

I would caution you, Brett, in assuming that your Arminian friend has it "together" as much as you suspect. If there is one thing that leadership has taught me over the years is that people can live lives of apparent external happiness or piety while there is a literal disaster area within their spirit and their home.

You ask about the "practical applications for the Arminian error." One of them is that your friend, who externally seems very pious and happy and devoted, may struggle mightily with doubt. I read a statistic that about 50% of missionaries surveyed for a broadly evangelical ministry were in the mission field out of some sense of guilt. They were desirous to show their worth. I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bath water and, insofar as Christ's name is proclaimed I rejoice, but severe doubt and restlessness is very common among Christians who are in Arminian Churches.

Notice the appetite that they have for talismans or "How to" books. Whether it is WWJD bracelets or The Prayer of Jabez, they are always trying to figure out why they aren't being blessed. The Promise Driven Life and 40 Days of Purpose is but the latest method to fill the restlessness of spirit that they feel. Why doesn't Promise Keepers pack stadiums and fill the Mall in D.C. anymore? Because it got tired and people needed something new. People will still be reading the Promise Driven Life in a few years but something else will have taken its place with the same promise of fixing the feeling that most Evangelicals feel today.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not saying it to be smug. I worship among them. I counsel some of them. As a sort of a "magistrate" I have had detailed information into the lives of many of them.

That Christ is proclaimed I always rejoice but that Arminian doctrines mute the message and rob people of the ability to wonder at the Grace of their salvation so that they don't know how to cry: Abba! Father is terrible. That Arminian doctrines have robbed them of the sense of God's majesty and most Churches exchange wonder of a Holy God preached from the Word for gnostic experiences in repetitious and banal "praise songs" is reprehensible. That Arminian doctrines have moved so much preaching into practical advice or piety that they no longer sense a need to Protest Rome makes me weep.

Again, when Christ's name is proclaimed I rejoice, but when the message reveals to me predictable patterns of decay it is lamentable to see.

Personally I say what I can where I can within the bounds of the friendship or relationship. I've told my family that the Church they worship in is a false one (but I think they began to figure that out when I wasn't Roman Catholic anymore). They've heard it and I season certain discussions with good theology and contradict bad stuff politely but, in the end, I'm not going to break contact with them. It's the same thing with former close friends who are in bad Churches. They know where I stand on certain things. I say them politely but it's not my job to damn them.

Work relationships that are merely casual friendships (all my close friendships are in the Church) are a bit different. I season my speech with faith at times but it is not always appropriate, in all circumstances, to offer unsolicited theological critique. In the middle of a staff meeting I can't interrupt the Chaplain and tell her I don't believe the Scriptures allow the ordination of women for instance. I'm also in a position of authority where it is inappropriate to use my influence to require people to listen to me tell them about the Gospel. I don't have any set rules but let Prudence be my guide.

If your friend is truly close then ask him if you could sit down and talk about his faith with him. I think a good point to draw out would be self-doubt as I spoke of above. I'd be surprised if he was not struggling with some secret sin that, combined with his doctrine, would be causing him to wrestle mightily with assurance. He may even be joining the ministry convinced that, if he takes that leap of faith, that it will be the thing he needs to give him purpose and fill that restlessness in his heart. Don't bog him down with issues of election and reprobation. Focus on our utter sinfulness and inability and show him that God saved him in spite of Himself.

Express to him the wonder of Galatians 3 and 4 that causes Paul to exclaim "Abba! Father!". That's getting good theology in the bloodstream. All the other doctrinal stuff is important but isn't the immediate issue. Minister to the Arminian where they need it - preach Peace to him.

- SemperFideles

This is one of the best posts I've ever read here. I have nothing to add, just thought it could use an appearance on the second page

Looks like you were one post too late.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
People who think that the "truth is the truth" and never has to be seasoned with grace are either not married or immature or both. When I say immature it is not meant to be pejorative. I mean that with good experience comes wisdom, restraint, and an ability to express oneself and have insight into people's lives. Those who give flippant answers to relationship issues express an immaturity of the faith that they need to work on if they ever aspire to be an Elder in Christ's Church.

OK, to the point at hand...

I would caution you, Brett, in assuming that your Arminian friend has it "together" as much as you suspect. If there is one thing that leadership has taught me over the years is that people can live lives of apparent external happiness or piety while there is a literal disaster area within their spirit and their home.

You ask about the "practical applications for the Arminian error." One of them is that your friend, who externally seems very pious and happy and devoted, may struggle mightily with doubt. I read a statistic that about 50% of missionaries surveyed for a broadly evangelical ministry were in the mission field out of some sense of guilt. They were desirous to show their worth. I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bath water and, insofar as Christ's name is proclaimed I rejoice, but severe doubt and restlessness is very common among Christians who are in Arminian Churches.

Notice the appetite that they have for talismans or "How to" books. Whether it is WWJD bracelets or The Prayer of Jabez, they are always trying to figure out why they aren't being blessed. The Promise Driven Life and 40 Days of Purpose is but the latest method to fill the restlessness of spirit that they feel. Why doesn't Promise Keepers pack stadiums and fill the Mall in D.C. anymore? Because it got tired and people needed something new. People will still be reading the Promise Driven Life in a few years but something else will have taken its place with the same promise of fixing the feeling that most Evangelicals feel today.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not saying it to be smug. I worship among them. I counsel some of them. As a sort of a "magistrate" I have had detailed information into the lives of many of them.

That Christ is proclaimed I always rejoice but that Arminian doctrines mute the message and rob people of the ability to wonder at the Grace of their salvation so that they don't know how to cry: Abba! Father is terrible. That Arminian doctrines have robbed them of the sense of God's majesty and most Churches exchange wonder of a Holy God preached from the Word for gnostic experiences in repetitious and banal "praise songs" is reprehensible. That Arminian doctrines have moved so much preaching into practical advice or piety that they no longer sense a need to Protest Rome makes me weep.

Again, when Christ's name is proclaimed I rejoice, but when the message reveals to me predictable patterns of decay it is lamentable to see.

Personally I say what I can where I can within the bounds of the friendship or relationship. I've told my family that the Church they worship in is a false one (but I think they began to figure that out when I wasn't Roman Catholic anymore). They've heard it and I season certain discussions with good theology and contradict bad stuff politely but, in the end, I'm not going to break contact with them. It's the same thing with former close friends who are in bad Churches. They know where I stand on certain things. I say them politely but it's not my job to damn them.

Work relationships that are merely casual friendships (all my close friendships are in the Church) are a bit different. I season my speech with faith at times but it is not always appropriate, in all circumstances, to offer unsolicited theological critique. In the middle of a staff meeting I can't interrupt the Chaplain and tell her I don't believe the Scriptures allow the ordination of women for instance. I'm also in a position of authority where it is inappropriate to use my influence to require people to listen to me tell them about the Gospel. I don't have any set rules but let Prudence be my guide.

If your friend is truly close then ask him if you could sit down and talk about his faith with him. I think a good point to draw out would be self-doubt as I spoke of above. I'd be surprised if he was not struggling with some secret sin that, combined with his doctrine, would be causing him to wrestle mightily with assurance. He may even be joining the ministry convinced that, if he takes that leap of faith, that it will be the thing he needs to give him purpose and fill that restlessness in his heart. Don't bog him down with issues of election and reprobation. Focus on our utter sinfulness and inability and show him that God saved him in spite of Himself.

Express to him the wonder of Galatians 3 and 4 that causes Paul to exclaim "Abba! Father!". That's getting good theology in the bloodstream. All the other doctrinal stuff is important but isn't the immediate issue. Minister to the Arminian where they need it - preach Peace to him.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SemperFideles]

I just saw your post Rich. I appreciate your advice, but I don't think you know the situation. I do desire to convert him to my line of thinking, but I will consider him a brother never the less.

Having said that, I think you have him all wrong. He would certainly admit being a sinner in need of God's saving grace. Anyway, the problem with your posts is that you don't have any idea where he is at or who he is.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by houseparent
Look, my daughter will say that! She knows the truth and even believes the truth but she refuses place Christ as Lord of her life. She lives as she chooses, and while that doesn't mean she's evil, she certainly does not live for Chirst. She certainly does not desire Him and His ways above all else. I am confident that she is NOT saved.

So is she a child of the devil or an adopted child of God?

My intent is not to cause sorrow with truth, but to point out some inconsistencies that are becoming apparent. Along with Civbert's excellent post, I would say we need to be consistent with our bold approach to scripture. You seem to be confident to "gird up our loins and go to battle" with the Arminian heresy, yet you will say that someone who is not saved is not evil by nature.

That's not what I said. I wasn't speaking of her "nature" I simply didn't want to imply that she was living some horrid life style that is shameful to me. While she is not a Christian, she lives a moral, decent life. I never want to imply that she is out whoring it up, or hurting others on purpose, etc.

Of course her NATURE is evil.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by houseparent

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by houseparent
Look, my daughter will say that! She knows the truth and even believes the truth but she refuses place Christ as Lord of her life. She lives as she chooses, and while that doesn't mean she's evil, she certainly does not live for Chirst. She certainly does not desire Him and His ways above all else. I am confident that she is NOT saved.

So is she a child of the devil or an adopted child of God?

My intent is not to cause sorrow with truth, but to point out some inconsistencies that are becoming apparent. Along with Civbert's excellent post, I would say we need to be consistent with our bold approach to scripture. You seem to be confident to "gird up our loins and go to battle" with the Arminian heresy, yet you will say that someone who is not saved is not evil by nature.

That's not what I said. I wasn't speaking of her "nature" I simply didn't want to imply that she was living some horrid life style that is shameful to me. While she is not a Christian, she lives a moral, decent life. I never want to imply that she is out whoring it up, or hurting others on purpose, etc.

Of course her NATURE is evil.

Ok, fair enough.

A child of wrath can be someone living some horrid life style that is shameful to you OR they could be someone who actually casts out demons in the name of Jesus.

Either way, those "whoring it up, or hurting others on purpose" and those who appear to be moral but are not indwelt with the Spirit of Christ are both shameful to God.

If you are not careful it can appear that a professing Arminian is more shameful to you than a moral child of wrath. *shrug*

But I understand you now, Adam.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by houseparent
Wait...so they are not only NOT going to Hell, but they are also orthodox as well?!

Sure! Well, maybe my definitions are off, but as I understand it, orthodox is the opposite of heretical. Thus, "orthodox" is the label attached to doctrine that is within the bounds of legitimate Christian belief. By that definition, if something is unorthodox, then it is outside the bounds of legitimate Christian belief and is, therefore, heretical.

As you can see, "orthodoxy" is relatively broad. By "orthodox" we don't mean "one who has all their theological ducks in perfect alignment with Reformed theology." Thus, Presbyterians can be orthodox, Lutherans can be orthodox, Anglicans can be orthodox, Dispensationalists can be orthodox, Baptists can be orthodox, Methodists can be orthodox... even Pentecostals and charismatics can be orthodox.

Of course that doesn't mean that any of these groups necesarily affirm doctrine so as to be able to fellowship with us in regular ecclesiastical relationships, but that doesn't mean we consider them as being other than brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Magma2

LOL, I go to a Redeemer Pres also.

Well look at that! So you do. That explains a lot.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Magma2]

Notice that I go to a Redeemer Pres, and not the same one Ben goes to. I see in your U2U that you assumed Ben was my interim Pastor. I have never even met Ben as he goes to a PCA in a different State. I was just commenting on the name. YOu could have known from our signatures, but you would rather hastily judge.

This is demonstrable of your inability to read what someone writes.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Magma2

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

Really? Seems to me that you and Brett´s Arminian friend have a lot in common. You both seem to profess the same impotent Christ. I confess, I can´t seem to find that Christ in Scripture.

Give me a break. You're obviously the type of person who gives Calvinism a bad name. It seems you won't allow a passage to speak for itself. Respond to the text. Jesus is not impotent, but as the God-man he is a good model for the type of brokenness we should have.

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.

Quick question; does Redeemer Church, PCA, have alter calls?

No... and to sort of reiterate the point that I made above about Calvinists and evangelism: I can't recall one evangelistic message being preached at my church since I've been there. Not that the rudimentary points of the gospel have been utterly absent, but I do not recall ever having heard a single sermon whose intent was to present the gospel with the explicit intent of leading them to make a confession of faith.

The problem with "alter calls" is not one of principle. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with using an "alter call." The problem lies with those who use them so routinely with the result being that they cannot conceive of someone giving an invitation to recieve Christ apart from the use of it.

A quick question for you, magma2 (by the way, your name is aptly suited to you!): When was the last time you shared the gospel with a nonbeliever with the intent of leading that person to faith in Christ? (In case, by some chance you just so happened to do it yesterday...) How often do you actually present the gospel to unbelievers with the intent of leading those persons to faith in Christ?

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by houseparent
Wait...so they are not only NOT going to Hell, but they are also orthodox as well?!

Sure! Well, maybe my definitions are off, but as I understand it, orthodox is the opposite of heretical. Thus, "orthodox" is the label attached to doctrine that is within the bounds of legitimate Christian belief. By that definition, if something is unorthodox, then it is outside the bounds of legitimate Christian belief and is, therefore, heretical.

As you can see, "orthodoxy" is relatively broad. By "orthodox" we don't mean "one who has all their theological ducks in perfect alignment with Reformed theology." Thus, Presbyterians can be orthodox, Lutherans can be orthodox, Anglicans can be orthodox, Dispensationalists can be orthodox, Baptists can be orthodox, Methodists can be orthodox... even Pentecostals and charismatics can be orthodox.

Of course that doesn't mean that any of these groups necesarily affirm doctrine so as to be able to fellowship with us in regular ecclesiastical relationships, but that doesn't mean we consider them as being other than brothers and sisters in Christ.

If by orthodox, you mean true believers, I agree. On the other hand, what the ARminians teach is unorthodox according to the Western Church even predating the reformation. I do not think Synergism is orthodox, nor does it lead to orthopraxy.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by raderag
If by orthodox, you mean true believers, I agree. On the other hand, what the ARminians teach is unorthodox according to the Western Church even predating the reformation. I do not think Synergism is orthodox, nor does it lead to orthopraxy.

Again, my definition of "orthodox" may be a bit off.