To work or not to work, that is the question.

[Deleted member 11804]

I made a comment on a thread and someone suggested that I start an entire thread of this topic.

I have always took the stand that Arminianism is heretical. For it teaches that one can lose the free gift in which you would have to either 1)work to keep OR 2) work to get back. I think @Jerusalem Blade put it very well, that as a shepherd of his flock if this type of doctrine would arise in it, he would address it, teach the truth and call the person(s) to repentance. Unfortunately I have this conversation far to often that goes along the lines of "they are our brothers, and you can't let satan bring division". However I see a clear message in Galatians 1, and through out the NT that warns us of these types of doctrines. I do believe that God would have mercy on people who stay in this doctrine as lay-persons, as the scriptures clearly state: "1 Timothy 2:3–4 (LSB) This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth." But as teachers of the Word, I am not so sure? We can only pray that God would grant these people repentance and knowledge of His truth. I stand firm on my belief of this, and this article looks pretty interesting that was posted.

The topic would be about the first line. "I have always took the stand that Arminianism is heretical. For it teaches that one can lose the free gift in which you would have to either 1)work to keep OR 2) work to get back." to further expand on this I will list what I believe if the reason for my views.

1) Salvation is clearly laid our in scripture as a free gift by the grace of God though our own faith in Christ.
2) Salvation is NEVER by works or our own merit.
3) Salvation is not of ourselves but a workmanship of God.

Now, if God has given you a free gift, as Scripture clearly states that God never changes, is a promise keeper, true to His covenants, faithful, and just how is it He would take back this free gift solely on the basis of something you had done and/or didn't do?

in the garden of eden God could have completely destroyed the earth and all of humanity in it, however he made a promise Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."
The moment God sent adam from the garden was Him being true to His promise. He had a plan to redeem humanity though His Son, Jesus Christ. He did not destroy His creation and/or start over.

Arminianism hold's the belief that you can lose this salvation that God has given us. Now, how would you lose this salvation you ask? Most would argue because people fell away from the faith but if you look closely they view perseverance to the end, based on works, persevering in works and holding to the faith. I would say that this is a works based salvation because as stated above you must either 1)work to keep it and/or 2)work to gain it back again. Now some would say not all Arminians hold to the belief that you can lose salvation, and I would respond that they are then not Arminian. The problem here is that we would fellowship with these types, and consider them brothers and sisters, share and even evangelise with them in some cases. Would we view a catholic, holding to the sacraments saved? No. would we fellowship with the Mormon? No. We would evangelize these people as they are in a false teaching of the Gospel message. When we ignore this fact, and put it on the top shelve, we are saying that they are right in their doctrine of salvation and thus hindering them from hearing the true Gospel message. These people need Salvation that is free, and we must consider their understanding of Salvation as heretical and preach to them, the Salvation that saves souls, as we are called to preach the Gospel to all creation.

Please feel free to add your input or expand on this idea.

 

[Jude24]

I would agree that consistent, thought-out, Arminianism as you have stated it is heretical. The issue is that, fortunately, most Arminians do not fully grasp the significance and conclusion of their beliefs. Most Arminians I have spoken with (and I grew up as one) still proclaim that salvation is of Christ alone. They certainly add to that that you have to “accept it”, however. I’m not sure that any average Arminian would go so far as to proclaim that their salvation is of works, even though that is truly what they believe. Because of that, I would say most Arminians are in severe error, but not full-blown heretics. Arminianism as a theological system brought to its consistent conclusion, however, is heretical.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

I would agree that consistent, thought-out, Arminianism as you have stated it is heretical. The issue is that, fortunately, most Arminians do not fully grasp the significance and conclusion of their beliefs. Most Arminians I have spoken with (and I grew up as one) still proclaim that salvation is of Christ alone. They certainly add to that that you have to “accept it”, however. I’m not sure that any average Arminian would go so far as to proclaim that their salvation is of works, even though that is truly what they believe. Because of that, I would say most Arminians are in severe error, but not full-blown heretics. Arminianism as a theological system brought to its consistent conclusion, however, is heretical.

I wouldn't consider these people Arminian. Mainly this would be consistent with people who do not adhere to the once saved always saved doctrine.

I was once Arminian I suppose but I had really no idea of God's election and when confronted with it I was confused and upset. I didn't understand it. It took me a lot of prayer and alone time in the scriptures (and John MacArthur was a huge part) to come to the conclusion that election is biblical. Looking back now, I still don't understand how I could just ignore any verse that have these words.

 

[Sam Jer]

This is part of the greater problem of where to draw the lines. Are Lutherans out because of their'e christology? Are particular baptists out because the won't baptize children and reject the promise to them? Are people who disagree on a small point with us on any issue out? It's clear there is a line, and that Rome has crossed it, but I'm not sure where exactly it goes, and the gray area is very highly populated.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

This is part of the greater problem of where to draw the lines. Are Lutherans out because of their'e christology? Are particular baptists out because the won't baptize children and reject the promise to them? Are people who disagree on a small point with us on any issue out? It's clear there is a line, and that Rome has crossed it, but I'm not sure where exactly it goes, and the gray area is very highly populated.

I'm not sure how any of these things you mentioned are based on works? Children are not elect because their parents are. We don't know who the elect are. And baptism is for believers in Christ. If a child believes then sure let him/her be baptised. But do you give your child communion as well? I think this goes hand in hand. If

you believe you can lose salvation, then you're working to keep it and working to get it back, meaning it's a works based salvation. There is no line, it's quite simple actually.

 

[Sam Jer]

I'm not sure how any of these things you mentioned are based on works?

Is works the only heresy? To the exclusion even of Arianism and false religions?

Children are not elect because their parents are. We don't know who the elect are. And baptism is for believers in Christ. If a child believes then sure let him/her be baptised. But do you give your child communion as well? I think this goes hand in hand. If

you believe you can lose salvation, then you're working to keep it and working to get it back, meaning it's a works based salvation.

Do you know what the Reformed view is? Federal Vision and Presumptive Regeneration are minority opinions, the former is also works-salvation.

If you think paedocommunion goes hand in hand with paedobaptism you are clearly getting too much of your'e information from the likes of Doug Wilson.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Please note, one of you is a Baptist and the other is an Anglican. There are going to be differences in who each of you think should be baptized.

 

[alexanderjames]

Arminianism hold's the belief that you can lose this salvation that God has given us. Now, how would you lose this salvation you ask? Most would argue because people fell away from the faith but if you look closely they view perseverance to the end, based on works, persevering in works and holding to the faith. I would say that this is a works based salvation because as stated above you must either 1)work to keep it and/or 2)work to gain it back again.

What about the Arminian who believes they may lose their salvation by a rejection of the gift they once received? That is to say, for example, I received Christ some number of years ago, but now I find myself disillusioned with the faith, and turn my back on Christ by no longer believing the Gospel.
The Arminian might thus argue - a gift once accepted and later rejected is not works.

And as we know, there is a real danger of apostasy, and one which the Scriptures warn against. The difference is that the "Arminian" believes this is possible for a born again child of God, whereas the "Calvinist" believes the apostasy demonstrates an unregenerate heart.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

Is works the only heresy? To the exclusion even of Arianism and false religions?


Do you know what the Reformed view is? Federal Vision and Presumptive Regeneration are minority opinions, the former is also works-salvation.

If you think paedocommunion goes hand in hand with paedobaptism you are clearly getting too much of your'e information from the likes of Doug Wilson.

Obviously I know the reformed view. I'm a Reformed Baptist. Calvinistic, I just don't baptize children. However this isn't the topic at hand. I'm not saying communion and peadobaptism go hand in hand, the question was rhetoric. I believe those who are baptised should also observe the Lords supper. However this is not a requirement for salvation. I don't even know who Doug Wilson is or have read any of his meterials.

My statement is pertaining to the losing and gaining of salvation by wabof works as in the Arminian veiw.

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

I've never placed Arminianism in the camp of heresy. Serious error? yes. Damning error? I pray not, and I think it certainly goes too far to call it heresy as a blanket statement.

There are many Arminians who would profess salvation by grace through faith in Christ and would deny works as having any bearing on salvation. Among us Baptists, there are some Free-will Baptists who would be much more Biblically consistent (For Instance, J. Matthew Pinson's well written book) than our friends who deny unconditional election but preach "eternal security". This has always bothered me much more than full-fledged Arminianism, because it makes our "Decision" (A Work which they would interpret as faith) the deciding factor in our eternal state rather than union with Christ through faith. In reality, a large number of Baptists hold to this wildly inconsistent system.

So I will be quick to yell "Error" as I look to help old-school Dispensationalists and new Baptists see the beauty of Reformed Theology, yet I will remain slow to yell "Heresy".

 

[Deleted member 11804]

I've never placed Arminianism in the camp of heresy. Serious error? yes. Damning error? I pray not, and I think it certainly goes too far to call it heresy as a blanket statement.

There are many Arminians who would profess salvation by grace through faith in Christ and would deny works as having any bearing on salvation. Among us Baptists, there are some Free-will Baptists who would be much more Biblically consistent (For Instance, J. Matthew Pinson's well written book) than our friends who deny unconditional election but preach "eternal security". This has always bothered me much more than full-fledged Arminianism, because it makes our "Decision" (A Work which they would interpret as faith) the deciding factor in our eternal state rather than union with Christ through faith. In reality, a large number of Baptists hold to this wildly inconsistent system.

So I will be quick to yell "Error" as I look to help old-school Dispensationalists and new Baptists see the beauty of Reformed Theology, yet I will remain slow to yell "Heresy".

So you don't think a works based salvation is heresy?

You can claim grace through faith in Christ all day, but if you believe you can lose salvation, then you either are working to keep it, or working to gain it back again..

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The Arminian hymn writer Charles Wesley wrote:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quick'ning ray,
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free;
I rose, went forth and followed Thee.

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

So you don't think a works based salvation is heresy?

You can claim grace through faith in Christ all day, but if you believe you can lose salvation, then you either are working to keep it, or working to gain it back again..

A works based salvation is indeed heresy, but there are many evangelical Arminians who would not hold to a works based salvation (even if that is the consistent conclusion of their system). I do believe that there are many in both camps which I previously mentioned who are in error on perseverance and election, yet still believe that salvation is by grace through faith.

I'm not trying to defend their systems, because I do indeed believe they easily lead to a works-based salvation mindset... I just want to be fair and not blanket call 3/4 (If not more) of evangelicals heretics.

 

[No Other Name]

So you don't think a works based salvation is heresy?

You can claim grace through faith in Christ all day, but if you believe you can lose salvation, then you either are working to keep it, or working to gain it back again..

I am sorry, dear brother, but you are mistaken re: Arminians.

I will speak only of those I went to church with while growing up and are still part of my family and extended family:

They deny limited atonement. They see Christ as dying for everyone and salvation as a "gift" to be accepted or rejected, while at the same time, they acknowledge that nothing we do - even getting up in the morning - is without the grace of God. This means when someone "accepts the gift" and comes forward and declares Christ is Lord they do not praise the new convert but they do praise the Lord.

Now they do believe salvation can be lost and they will press urgently the need for discipleship but that is because they believe the failing can be on the convert's part - "leaving the gift alone and living your own life". Not God's failing, and when a "prodigal comes back home" they again praise the Lord and not necessarily the prodigal (although some probably might, none of the ones I know would).

I already can hear your objections. "If a decision is needed, even if such a small percentage as 1% of your salvation was needed, while God did 99% of the work, you have a works-based salvation".

As a matter of fact, I remember sharing James White vs. Mike Winger video and the responses were varied:

One guy said "No it's like calculus, it is a limit that approaches zero but it does exist".

Another guy said: "God knows who will accept or not, so God already from eternity knows the acceptors from the rejectors and arranges everything so the maximum possible acceptors get in and it is impossible for all to get in due to the complexities of the interchanges between people, but I am not denying the omnipotence of God since he cannot do the impossible (like make a square circle) and that is not an indicator that he is still not the ultimate among all beings with agency as he definitely is"

Bottom line was: none of the ones I talked to (nor Mike Winger in the videos) embraced works-based salvation.

In fact they went the opposite way towards faith-based salvation.

Now, when they do that, their explanation may absolve them of works-based soteriology (by their own words) but then promptly fall in other errors re: God's sovereignty, decrees, providence, human will or all of the above.

Like Rev. Head, I am certainly not defending their inconsistent systems, just pointing out your statements are too cursory as I read them.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

A works based salvation is indeed heresy, but there are many evangelical Arminians who would not hold to a works based salvation (even if that is the consistent conclusion of their system). I do believe that there are many in both camps which I previously mentioned who are in error on perseverance and election, yet still believe that salvation is by grace through faith.

I'm not trying to defend their systems, because I do indeed believe they easily lead to a works-based salvation mindset... I just want to be fair and not blanket call 3/4 (If not more) of evangelicals heretics.

I'm not calling all evangelicals heretics. Only the ones who claim they can lose their salvation. The point is that of you can lose something them you must work to keep it. I just don't understand why know one can grasp that concept. Even if you claim it's not by works, well how would you keep your salvation of you can lose it? The only obvious conclusion would be, working to keep it, this it's a works based gospel.

I am sorry, dear brother, but you are mistaken re: Arminians.

I will speak only of those I went to church with while growing up and are still part of my family and extended family:

They deny limited atonement. They see Christ as dying for everyone and salvation as a "gift" to be accepted or rejected, while at the same time, they acknowledge that nothing we do - even getting up in the morning - is without the grace of God. This means when someone "accepts the gift" and comes forward and declares Christ is Lord they do not praise the new convert but they do praise the Lord.

Now they do believe salvation can be lost and they will press urgently the need for discipleship but that is because they believe the failing can be on the convert's part - "leaving the gift alone and living your own life". Not God's failing, and when a "prodigal comes back home" they again praise the Lord and not necessarily the prodigal (although some probably might, none of the ones I know would).

I already can hear your objections. "If a decision is needed, even if such a small percentage as 1% of your salvation was needed, while God did 99% of the work, you have a works-based salvation".

As a matter of fact, I remember sharing James White vs. Mike Winger video and the responses were varied:

One guy said "No it's like calculus, it is a limit that approaches zero but it does exist".

Another guy said: "God knows who will accept or not, so God already from eternity knows the acceptors from the rejectors and arranges everything so the maximum possible acceptors get in and it is impossible for all to get in due to the complexities of the interchanges between people, but I am not denying the omnipotence of God since he cannot do the impossible (like make a square circle) and that is not an indicator that he is still not the ultimate among all beings with agency as he definitely is"

Bottom line was: none of the ones I talked to (nor Mike Winger in the videos) embraced works-based salvation.

In fact they went the opposite way towards faith-based salvation.

Now, when they do that, their explanation may absolve them of works-based soteriology (by their own words) but then promptly fall in other errors re: God's sovereignty, decrees, providence, human will or all of the above.

Like Rev. Head, I am certainly not defending their inconsistent systems, just pointing out your statements are too cursory as I read them.

I am not mistaken. I just think brother, that you don't understand my perspective. I am not including every Arminian. I am however including every teaching Arminian who teaches you can lose salvation. Above this response I quoted another person and explained what happens when you believe you can lose salvation .

The whole fact is that we as Christians put these types on the back burner and think they are saved, and thus we do not preach to them that Gospel, in which they so desperately need.

 

[Jude24]

I'm not calling all evangelicals heretics. Only the ones who claim they can lose their salvation. The point is that of you can lose something them you must work to keep it. I just don't understand why know one can grasp that concept. Even if you claim it's not by works, well how would you keep your salvation of you can lose it? The only obvious conclusion would be, working to keep it, this it's a works based gospel.

I am not mistaken. I just think brother, that you don't understand my perspective. I am not including every Arminian. I am however including every teaching Arminian who teaches you can lose salvation. Above this response I quoted another person and explained what happens when you believe you can lose salvation .

The whole fact is that we as Christians put these types on the back burner and think they are saved, and thus we do not preach to them that Gospel, in which they so desperately need.

I think you might be combining Arminianism and Pelagianism into one system. While I completely agree that both ways of thinking end up leading to a basic view of salvation by works, the actual practice of each is different.

By your definition of what an Arminian must be, that really only leaves Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and other groups who explicitly state that salvation is not of faith alone. However, Arminians-even if they do so by ignoring the implications of their system-do claim that salvation is of faith alone.

I 100% agree with you that Arminians and anyone who believes that true salvation can be lost is in severe error and should be guided to the truth. But the reality is that the vast majority of Christians are, unfortunately, Arminian. At the same time, the majority of those are not proclaiming a works based, pelagian view of salvation. I am thankful that most Arminians still hold to some form of truth even if it is in error.

I’m certainly not defending Arminianism. However, I strongly hesitate to call our non-Calvinist brothers and sisters “heretics” because they are in error.

 

[Sam Jer]

I'm not calling all evangelicals heretics. Only the ones who claim they can lose their salvation. The point is that of you can lose something them you must work to keep it. I just don't understand why know one can grasp that concept. Even if you claim it's not by works, well how would you keep your salvation of you can lose it? The only obvious conclusion would be, working to keep it, this it's a works based gospel.

I am not mistaken. I just think brother, that you don't understand my perspective. I am not including every Arminian. I am however including every teaching Arminian who teaches you can lose salvation. Above this response I quoted another person and explained what happens when you believe you can lose salvation .

The whole fact is that we as Christians put these types on the back burner and think they are saved, and thus we do not preach to them that Gospel, in which they so desperately need.

Are Lutherans who believe you can loose your'e salvation heretics by this logic?

Do you conceed at least some non-predestinarian Evangelicals, even who deny preservation and "once saved always saved", might hold to a "happy inconsistency", as Sproul would put it?

 

[Deleted member 11804]

I think you might be combining Arminianism and Pelagianism into one system. While I completely agree that both ways of thinking end up leading to a basic view of salvation by works, the actual practice of each is different.

By your definition of what an Arminian must be, that really only leaves Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and other groups who explicitly state that salvation is not of faith alone. However, Arminians-even if they do so by ignoring the implications of their system-do claim that salvation is of faith alone.

I 100% agree with you that Arminians and anyone who believes that true salvation can be lost is in severe error and should be guided to the truth. But the reality is that the vast majority of Christians are, unfortunately, Arminian. At the same time, the majority of those are not proclaiming a works based, pelagian view of salvation. I am thankful that most Arminians still hold to some form of truth even if it is in error.

I’m certainly not defending Arminianism. However, I strongly hesitate to call our non-Calvinist brothers and sisters “heretics” because they are in error.

Again, as stated above, this does not apply to anyone who does not believe they can lose salvation. Please, ask yourself this question: If I can lose salvation how did I:

• a) Get it to begin with?
• b) Keep it, so I do not lose it?
• c) Get it back when I do lose it?

Are Lutherans who believe you can loose your'e salvation heretics by this logic?

Do you conceed at least some non-predestinarian Evangelicals, even who deny preservation and "once saved always saved", might hold to a "happy inconsistency", as Sproul would put it?

Yes I believe that, the belief of the ability to lose ones Salvation is heresy. This even applies to free will baptist who believe the same.

**Edit**

To avoid double posting: I replied to a brother and wanted to put it here as well.

I don't know why people can't understand, no matter how many times I say it or how plainly I wrote it down

Salvation is a gift you can't lose.
Losing salvation would require you to do something to keep it (works)
Gaining back salvation would only be by merit. (Works)

I've said it 5 different ways and even Made a whole new thread about it called "to work or not to work, that is the question". The est response I get is that they don't agree with me but they're not so fast to tag them as heretics.

If you believe you can lose salvation then it's not even salvation to begin with. The word saved is indefinite. You don't get carried out of a burning fire by firefighters so burn and die out side of the house afterwards... You're saved.

You're not being saved, were as you have to worry that the fire might somehow come crawling along and get you. The fire was extinguished the moment the fighters hit it with water and put it out. You don't have to continue to keep putting the fire out because the firefighters did it for you.

When Jesus said "it is finished " he didn't go die again and raise. He died once for all (elect).

 

[No Other Name]

The whole fact is that we as Christians put these types on the back burner and think they are saved, and thus we do not preach to them that Gospel, in which they so desperately need.

Did you read my post? Did you read my interactions with Arminians I have had? I believe my Arminian minister family members are saved by the normal means of evaluating anyone's salvation: fruits of the Spirit, evidences outlined in 1 John, the Beatitudes, etc.

They are mistaken and in serious error. They hold to an inconsistency in their systematic of soteriology and theology proper and anthropology (namely, the will) but they both verbally - and in everyday practice of their ministry and preaching - deny works-based salvation.

Their teachings regarding "losing salvation" focuses on sanctification - again, with an inconsistency as they will blame the human for "setting the gift aside" and going off to party like a prodigal. But they will give praise to God alone for "arranging the conditions for the person to pick the gift back up".

These are close to a full picture of God's grace but just off. Whenever they come into conflict, they tend to "just have faith that God holds the final answer to all these mysteries" and then go on as their faith is strengthened!

I think some of these are truly saved and mistaken and these are the ones who will lean on faith in God when the inconsistencies are pushed by non-believers and mockers or by friendly debate between me and them. Their faith inspires these statements that show they love God and His Word above all else and they do not have a sense of pride in the best idea of their theology.

Maybe this whole thing you are on simply needs more qualifiers than your categorical statements have thus far allowed?

 

[MyCrows]

They are mistaken and in serious error. They hold to an inconsistency in their systematic of soteriology and theology proper and anthropology (namely, the will) but they both verbally - and in everyday practice of their ministry and preaching - deny works-based salvation.

Their teachings regarding "losing salvation" focuses on sanctification - again, with an inconsistency as they will blame the human for "setting the gift aside" and going off to party like a prodigal. But they will give praise to God alone for "arranging the conditions for the person to pick the gift back up".

Isn't the confusing of sanctification and justification the same place where the RC church errs? Maybe a difference of degree, but once we speak of loss of salvation, and the subsequent regaining of it, we are no longer in the realm of sanctification, but justification.

 

[No Other Name]

Isn't the confusing of sanctification and justification the same place where the RC church errs? Maybe a difference of degree, but once we speak of loss of salvation, and the subsequent regaining of it, we are no longer in the realm of sanctification, but justification.

It may seem so, but it's nuanced and not like Rome at all. Since they do not want any part of Rome, they would teach that there is no need to fear any stray thought but trust in God for growth in holiness.

Their sanctification theology and its connection to incremental growth and demonstrable improvement is remarkably similar to our traditional view.

(I used to have Stanley Horton's Systematic Theology and the author of the chapter of the doctrine of sin: Dr. Bruce Marino was my Theology I, II and III professor back when I was in Arminian Bible school).

The line gets really fuzzy where the growth shrinks, craters and fully capsizes and the "gift is rejected" and they leave those lines to mystery.

However, they ultimately would approach it the same as we do - looking at one's life and seeing such evidence of anti-Christ and anti-Biblical behavior that there is no way that person can be saved. We Reformed would rightly reject their initial "altar call response" as real.

They use the same metric as we do: (seeing their lives and watching the pitfall into obvious and outright sin - either in secret or public) but they do define it differently as a gradual "rejection of the gift" (they even even act as if they are more charitable than we are in the act of looking back on their initial "altar call" moment), but essentially, they do have a doctrine of the sovereignty of God and they do see all acts of real salvation under His providence and not the human's.

I do recall Turretin teaching that "sanctification is distinct to and yet inseparable from justification" and that "believers are a willing people who ought not to be impelled to good works by necessity ..., but spontaneously and voluntarily. But still, works do not cease to be necessary by the necessity of means and of debt. Although all coaction is necessity, not all necessity is coaction." (Turretin vol 2 p. 705)

These guys would agree with Turretin while Rome would not (here only though; their Arminian house of cards fall down in other Topics and I have met none of them who even have the remotest interest of constructing a thorough system without holes somewhere).

Again they seem to be far more comfortable with holes in their system in a misguided and child-like application of faith where it doesn't make sense in human terms (but it does in God's). They clearly have a low view of logic as part of God's revelation to man.

So as they go through the objections to their system being a "works-based salvation", they then lapse into some variant of open theism or other, rejecting full open theism though.

So the more they dialogue, the more they just get confused in their theology proper, human will, and their inconsistency in soteriology (works? not works?) that the OP picks up on is like a budding at the topsoil of deeper errors that are factually not works-based errors in nature.

The Arminians who I met and I believe are saved based on Biblical criteria will lean heavily on their faith in the certainty of God's Word and God's overall nature of pure goodness and mercy and justice to be somehow fully understandable in some future date as opposed to other Arminians who would embrace works-based salvation - of whom I personally have met or encountered none but I suppose there might be some out there.

 

[MyCrows]

The Arminians who I met and I believe are saved based on Biblical criteria will lean heavily on their faith in the certainty of God's Word and God's overall nature of pure goodness and mercy and justice to be somehow fully understandable in some future date as opposed to other Arminians who would embrace works-based salvation - of whom I personally have met or encountered none but I suppose there might be some out there.

That is found in Christ. Not some future, yet to be understood revelation. Jesus gives eternal life. Eternal life, by definition, is eternal.

Trusting in God's "overall God nature of goodness and mercy", is something many people do, without finding it in Christ.

 

[No Other Name]

That is found in Christ. Not some future, yet to be understood revelation. Jesus gives eternal life. Eternal life, by definition, is eternal.

Trusting in God's "overall God nature of goodness and mercy", is something many people do, without finding it in Christ.

They would agree.

 

[MyCrows]

They would agree.

I hope so.

I have to admit I am not sure of what definition of "arminian" we are using.

What is distinctive about arminianism specifically?

 

[No Other Name]

I hope so.

I have to admit I am not sure of what definition of "arminian" we are using.

What is distinctive about arminianism specifically?

I already specified their distinctives from Reformed theology. What exactly are you struggling with in my comments so I can answer more clearly?

 

[MyCrows]

I already specified their distinctives from Reformed theology. What exactly are you struggling with in my comments so I can answer more clearly?

Because one of their distinctive is that man can so sin, as to fall from grace. That God does not, in his sovereignty, keep them in a state of grace.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

Did you read my post? Did you read my interactions with Arminians I have had? I believe my Arminian minister family members are saved by the normal means of evaluating anyone's salvation: fruits of the Spirit, evidences outlined in 1 John, the Beatitudes, etc.

Mormons, jahovawitness and SDA all show fruit as well. You can have sanctification like fruit in your life without being justified. Look at the secular, people who do good things for others and who are generally good people.. they have "fruit of the spirit" but don't even know the Lord.

 

[No Other Name]

Because one of their distinctive is that man can so sin, as to fall from grace. That God does not, in his sovereignty, keep them in a state of grace.

Ok I understand now. They would say that God knows the future and he guides our "choices" in whatever way he wants. So take the example of the prodigal son, they argue that he is initially "saved" and living in the grace of his father's house.

Or take David. He "accepts" God's calling within God's grace and then is "outside grace" when he sins and under grace, repents and is renewed.

Like I agreed, they do have error and their inconsistency in language reveals not only a weird "works?/not works?" fluttering in their confusing soteriology but more primarily a deficiency in God's attributes, decrees, providence, sovereignty and how it works with human will.

If one does come at them with the idea of saying it logically follows they are in fact works-based, the ones I know and talk to will deny that outright and from there, the dialogue will go into the areas of theology I mentioned. Not justification necessarily - more primary than that.

Mormons, jahovawitness and SDA all show fruit as well. You can have sanctification like fruit in your life without being justified. Look at the secular, people who do good things for others and who are generally good people.. they have "fruit of the spirit" but don't even know the Lord.

Wow. Are the fruits of the Spirit merely being nice and kind? Are you sure? Are they not also offset against the fruits of the flesh? Are you sure Mormons and seculars do not also bear fruits of the flesh? Are you certain that SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses meet the criteria of the evidences of 1 John and the Beatitudes?

 

[Deleted member 11804]

Are the fruits of the Spirit merely being nice and kind? Are you sure? Are they not also offset against the fruits of the flesh? Are you sure Mormons and seculars do not also bear fruits of the flesh? Are you certain that SDA and Jehovah's Witnesses meet the criteria of the evidences of 1 John and the Beatitudes?

They obviously show fruits of wrath, that's not what we were discussing. I think it's best not to assume. Who, or when was this even mentioned?

You see these types with Bible's, evangelizing other lost people, in the name of Jesus. That's what I'm talking about.

As for secular people, they can clearly show sanctification, in the fact that they are good people in the world's standard. Obviously gods standards are higher.

Lots of people who don't believe in Jesus , feed the hungry, cloth the cold, and house the homeless. There's whole organizations set on these types of things. Jesus said if you love me tend to my sheep(speaking to Peter) and Ive used and continue to use soup kitchens on a daily basis to eat. (It also gives me opportunity to cultivate friendships with these people and evangilislze then after) So in terms of what Jesus said do these people love Him? No of course not. (If you love me.yoy will follow my commandments)

There is an underlying problem with thinkinging you can lose the salvation given to you by God. First off it's calling God wicked and evil. You can't nearly lose it but who's would essentially ripping it from you. (Blot out your name) if you look at.the verses they use to justify their reasoning, they call God evil.

 

[No Other Name]

They obviously show fruits of wrath, that's not what we were discussing.

But if they show fruits of the flesh, they cannot likewise show fruits of the Spirit. That is a binary, not a spectrum. One cannot be patient, kind, loving, with self-control while simultaneously living in fornication with his girlfriend or living with two or more wives.

You see these types with Bible's, evangelizing other lost people, in the name of Jesus. That's what I'm talking about.

My basis for evaluating others' genuine salvation was given as fruits of the Spirit, 1 John, Sermon on the Mount and Biblical picture of a genuine disciple of Christ, this sentence is not particularly helpful.

As for secular people, they can clearly show sanctification, in the fact that they are good people in the world's standard. Obviously gods standards are higher.

The world's standard is not what I appealed to and I agree with you is irrelevant. Fruits of the Spirit =/= world's standard.

There's whole organizations set on these types of things. Jesus said if you love me tend to my sheep(speaking to Peter) and Ive used and continue to use soup kitchens on a daily basis to eat. (It also gives me opportunity to cultivate friendships with these people and evangilislze then after)

God bless you and all your work for the kingdom.

There is an underlying problem with thinkinging you can lose the salvation given to you by God.

Agreed. I am not arguing otherwise here.

First off it's calling God wicked and evil.

This is unfairly reductive of their system. Some of the "cage stage" Arminians make the same claim about us regarding how they interpret our view of God's sovereignty while operating under a misguided understanding of our confessions (and also misunderstanding Romans 9 and Ephesians 2 etc).

This is kind of why I asked if you ever talked with an earnest Arminian who loves the Lord.

It is also why I asked you if you had been reading my posts regarding their position.

To them, God knows the future (but they will deny full open theism which again I don't see how) and arranges for the maximum number of people to be saved, but cannot possibly save all due to the complexity of human interactions. This view has God loving all (and dying for all in an unlimited atonement way) and is not restrictive of God's power or agency since he cannot do anything logically impossible like make a square circle.

The verses you mention like "blot out your name" is interpreted in their distinctive manner in a way that perserves God's mercy and power but compromises severely on His aseity, human will, providence and outright denies the doctrine of God's eternal decrees.

I will try to close this off by saying again I am not defending their system at all. I am not denying they have serious theological error.

I am denying their primary issue is works-based soteriology. They know salvation by works is heresy and will deny works-based salvation strenuously in a way that leads them to other errors in theology proper and the nature of man and the nature of the atonement.

What I am grappling with is why the definition of "heresy" and its historical application should even be considered at all when talking with another person as opposed to the fruits of the Spirit, 1 John, Sermon on the Mount and other Biblical principles of how genuine followers of Christ the Lord will carry themselves?