What say ye in regard to this statement by John Gerstner:

[Scott Bushey]

What say ye in regard to this statement by John Gerstner:

"There have been essentially only three theologies in the history of the church. One is usually called Augustinian, Calvinistic or reformed. The second is called Semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or (often) evangelical. The third is called Pelagian, Socinian, or liberal (Modernist).

Only the first two (Calvinistic and Arminian) can qualify for the terms Christian or biblical. Calvinism is consistent Christianity and Arminianism is inconsistent Christianity."

 

[Dachaser]

"There have been essentially only three theologies in the history of the church. One is usually called Augustinian, Calvinistic or reformed. The second is called Semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or (often) evangelical. The third is called Pelagian, Socinian, or liberal (Modernist).

Only the first two (Calvinistic and Arminian) can qualify for the terms Christian or biblical. Calvinism is consistent Christianity and Arminianism is inconsistent Christianity."

I understand that Calvinism would be the best system to explain the method by which God operates while saving lost sinners, and that non Calvinists also are saved by that same process, but they just misunderstand it fully, as they bring in usually their need to have real free will and what they view as fairness kept intact.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

John Owen calls the Arminian propagators of free will "amor et deliciaj humani generis, corrupted nature's deformed darling, the Pallas or beloved self-conception of darkened minds, finds open hearts and arms for its adulterous embraces." Works, (Vol. 10), i.e. the Death of Death.

And the Synod of Dordt said of Arminianism, that it "leads the minds of men away from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; the stronghold of Satan..."

Dordt stated that in reaction to the Arminian and Remonstrant Articles and Opinions, that Arminius and the Remonstrants, “summon back from hell the Pelagian error.”[1] They said that Arminianism “deceive(s) the simple,”[2] “is an invention of the human brain,”[3] is a “pernicious error,”[4] “smacks of Pelagius,”[5] “runs counter to the entire Scripture,”[6] is “gross error,”[7] “militate(s) against the experience of the saints and is contrary to Scripture,”[8] “contradict(s) Scripture,”[9] “attempt(s) to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism,”[10] “contradict(s) the apostle” and “contradict(s) the Savior,”[11] “is an insult to the wisdom of God,”[12] “is opposed to the plain testimonies of Scripture,”[13] “is a teaching that is entirely Pelagian and contrary to the whole of Scripture.”[14] Christians should know that “the early church already condemned this doctrine long ago in the Pelagians,”[15] “is obviously Pelagian,”[16] and “nullifies the very grace of justification and regeneration.”[17]


[1] Synod of Dordt, Canon 2 Article 3 in the Rejection of Errors.

[2] Synod of Dordt, Canon 1 Article 1 in the Rejection of Errors.

[3] Synod of Dordt, Canon 1 Article 2 in the Rejection of Errors.

[4] Synod of Dordt, Canon 1 Article 3 in the Rejection of Errors.

[5] Synod of Dordt, Canon 1 Article 4 in the Rejection of Errors.

[6] Synod of Dordt, Canon 1 Article 5 in the Rejection of Errors, and Synod of Dordt, Canon 3 Article 4 in the Rejection of Errors.

[7] Synod of Dordt, Canon 1 Article 6 in the Rejection of Errors.

[8] Synod of Dordt, Canon 2 Article 1 in the Rejection of Errors.

[9] Synod of Dordt, Canon 2 Article 4 in the Rejection of Errors.

[10] Synod of Dordt, Canon 2 Article 6 in the Rejection of Errors.

[11] Synod of Dordt, Canon 2 Article 7 in the Rejection of Errors.

[12] Synod of Dordt, Canon 3 Article 1 in the Rejection of Errors.

[13] Synod of Dordt, Canon 4 Article 4 in the Rejection of Errors.

[14] Synod of Dordt, Canon 3 Article 7 in the Rejection of Errors.

[15] Synod of Dordt, Canon 3 Article 9 in the Rejection of Errors.

[16] Synod of Dordt, Canon 5 Article 2 in the Rejection of Errors.

[17] Synod of Dordt, Canon 5 Article 3 in the Rejection of Errors.


The orthodox professors, theologians, and ministers of Holland and England sought incessantly to suppress the teaching of the Arminians and to prohibit the exercise of that faith which they were firm in condemning as heretical. This they were able to do quite effectively by the convening of the Synod of Dort. Arminianism, for these reasons, has always been viewed as not only error, but heresy.

 

[Jack K]

As for the terminology... my mind has never equated "evangelical" with "Arminian." I have viewed evangelicals as falling into two camps: some are Arminians and some are Calvinists.

 

[RamistThomist]

"There have been essentially only three theologies in the history of the church. One is usually called Augustinian, Calvinistic or reformed. The second is called Semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or (often) evangelical. The third is called Pelagian, Socinian, or liberal (Modernist).

Only the first two (Calvinistic and Arminian) can qualify for the terms Christian or biblical. Calvinism is consistent Christianity and Arminianism is inconsistent Christianity."

It might be theologically accurate, but it is historically false. While Eastern Orthodoxy is semi-Pelagian, none of their theology stems from Pelagius's teachings

 

[Scott Bushey]

As for the terminology... my mind has never equated "evangelical" with "Arminian." I have viewed evangelicals as falling into two camps: some are Arminians and some are Calvinists.

Hey Jack,
Most evangelicals I have come into contact with generally embrace some petals of our beloved tulip; generally, not all 5 points. At least, thats how I have seen them. Can we call them Calvinists? Not really. Thats the rub and part of the problem w/ the term 'Reformed', today.

 

[earl40]

It might be theologically accurate, but it is historically false. While Eastern Orthodoxy is semi-Pelagian, none of their theology stems from Pelagius's teachings

Maybe true, but it is a mystery to me.

 

[Jack K]

Hey Jack,
Most evangelicals I have come into contact with generally embrace some petals of our beloved tulip; generally, not all 5 points. At least, thats how I have seen them. Can we call them Calvinists? Not really. Thats the rub and part of the problem w/ the term 'Reformed', today.

Perhaps that has been your experience, but I have been a member of four solidly Calvinistic churches in the course of my adult life, and every one of these churches has embraced the "evangelical" label (among other labels). "Evangelical" has been a way to distinguish themselves from theological liberals and from fundamentalists. It's been a broad but useful label in that regard.

If we narrow the label and say only Arminians are evangelical, many people will think this means Calvinists must belong in the liberal camp. Too many Arminians already think this; they think Calvinists are people who don't believe what the Bible says about the need for personal faith in Christ, just like the liberals. I tell them no, I'm an evangelical too. I believe the Bible is inerrantly true, and I believe sinners need to repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I tell them no, I'm an evangelical too.

Yea, I guess it needs to be defined. I use the term in a wider sense than what I should; in a narrow sense, I am NOT evangelical.

 

[Jack K]

Yea, I guess it needs to be defined. I use the term in a wider sense than what I should; in a narrow sense, I am NOT evangelical.

Doubtless, the term is used in differently ways by different people, and also is rapidly evolving, especially as it is used in discussions of politics. We may be in need of a new, agreed-on term that means "not a liberal and not a wacky Bible-thumper either."

 

[Dachaser]

Hey Jack,
Most evangelicals I have come into contact with generally embrace some petals of our beloved tulip; generally, not all 5 points. At least, thats how I have seen them. Can we call them Calvinists? Not really. Thats the rub and part of the problem w/ the term 'Reformed', today.

All of the Reformed are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Reformed.

 

[Scott Bushey]

All of the Reformed are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Reformed.

Nope. Close, but no cigar, pal. Calvinists, i.e. after the teaching of J. Calvin includes all of JC's teaching, i.e. Presbyterian polity, paedobaptism etc. etc. etc.
The term has been hijacked. Just to be accurate.

 

[Dachaser]

Nope. Close, but no cigar, pal. Calvinists, i.e. after the teaching of J. Calvin includes all of JC's teaching, i.e. Presbyterian polity, paedobaptism etc. etc. etc.
The term has been hijacked. Just to be accurate.

I am not trying to hijack this thread, but was just saying that how one defines these term are indeed important, as Calvinism and Reformed is not always exactly the same.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I am not trying to hijack this thread, but was just saying that how one defines these term are indeed important, as Calvinism and Reformed is not always exactly the same.

I never said that u were hijacking the thread; I said the term has been 'hijacked'.

This is exactly why I have said to you, a number of times, David, are u reading the posts?

It is the same thing. Your definition is flawed. Read Calvin and get back to me in a few years.

 

[Scott Bushey]

John Owen calls the Arminian propagators of free will "amor et deliciaj humani generis, corrupted nature's deformed darling, the Pallas or beloved self-conception of darkened minds, finds open hearts and arms for its adulterous embraces." Works, (Vol. 10), i.e. the Death of Death.

I found it:

'And here, secondly, free-will, “amor et deliciæ humani generis,” corrupted nature’s deformed darling, the Pallas or beloved self-conception of darkened minds, finds open hearts and arms for its adulterous embraces; yea, the die being cast, and Rubicon passed over, “eo devenere fata ecclesiæ,” that having opposed the free distinguishing grace of God as the sole sworn enemy thereof, it advanceth itself, or an inbred native ability in every one to embrace a portion of generally exposed mercy, under the name of free grace.'

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 10 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 150.

 

[timfost]

John Owen...

said:

"I no way doubt but that many men do receive more grace from God than they understand or will own, and have a greater efficacy of it in them than they will believe. Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which, in opinion, they deny to be imputed: for the faith of it is included in that general assent which they give unto the truth of the gospel, and such an adherence unto Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of the way whereby they are saved by him shall not defraud them of a real interest therein. And for my part, I must say that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about justification (some whereof are full of offense and scandal), I do not believe but that the authors of them (if they be not Socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ) do really trust unto the mediation of Christ for the pardon of their sins and acceptance with God, and not unto their own works or obedience; nor will I believe the contrary, until they expressly declare it."

https://books.google.com/books?id=X...f it in them than they will believe."&f=false

 

[VictorBravo]

We may be in need of a new, agreed-on term that means "not a liberal and not a wacky Bible-thumper either."

I thump my Bible often before opening it. It keeps the dust off the pages. And I know some of my colleagues think I'm wacky, but I have a compulsion to afflict the comfortable while comforting the afflicted.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

All of the Reformed are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Reformed.

Moderator Note:

I agree with this statement and have made it often, so I am fairly certain David is quoting me from past encounters with my posts here and elsewhere.

We can quibble that Calvinists qua Calvin are indeed Reformed, but the statement is made (by me at least) speaking contemporaneously today. Hence a true statement that drives home the point that Reformed is much more than the five points.

I do not think David or anyone needs to go off in a corner for a few years to read Calvin and then get back to anyone about the matter. Of course, reading Calvin is a good thing to do but he is not anyone's regula fidei, so let's not make the Institutes a shibboleth for orthodoxy.

In other words, let's all of us dial down the rhetoric a wee bit.

 

[bookslover]

Scott: Gerstner's statement seems reasonable, broadly speaking. However, your underlining skills (if that was you doing it) could use some honing. Heh.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Today's Arminian is a but a shadow of the Arminians in the days of Dordt. I have yet to run into an actual Arminian of that stripe. The more informed fellow we may assign the label of Arminian to will usually balk at the charge, holding fast to their view that they contributed no works to their salvific claim.

Even when I am fortunate enough to get one of these folks to admit, after much back and forth, that the difference between them and their non-believing neighbor was that they did something, knew something, discerned something, that their poor neighbor did not, they will still claim their actions were not in any way contributing to their newfound faith and they have no real reasons to boast. Getting these persons to distinguish between regenerative monergism and the subsequent synergism of their apprehending of faith is an ongoing chore. Not a few of us do a poor job of reminding others that we do not hold that God is doing all the believing for us.

So, in the best charity I can muster, it seems to me that these are but confused believers, as are we all to different degrees. I refuse to consign all that disagree with that which I hold dear to eternal perdition, and I count not a few so-called "Arminians" as brothers and sisters until and if at some time their own words and deeds betray themselves.

Sometimes the well-worn joke rings too true for us "learned" types. All of which ends up with an even more ring of truth caricature:

Spoiler

So Bill dies and goes to heaven and St. Peter is giving him the tour.

They walk by this group of people hanging out with the Virgin Mary and a couple of saints. “Who’s that?” asks Bill.

“Oh, that’s the Catholics.” St. Peter tells him.

The continue walking and pass another group of people who are rolling on the ground. “Who’s that?” asks Bill.

“Oh, that’s the Pentecostals.” St. Peter tells him.

Then they come across to a huge mansion and St. Peter makes Bill duck down and sneak very quietly beneath the windows and then they continue walking. “Who’s in there??” Bill asks.

Spoiler

“Oh,” whispers St. Peter, “That’s the Calvinists, they think they’re the only ones here.”

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scott: Gerstner's statement seems reasonable, broadly speaking. However, your underlining skills (if that was you doing it) could use some honing. Heh.

This is me trying to highlight an area as I read...I am so engrossed in what is being said I could care less to draw a straight line.

 

[Dachaser]

Moderator Note:

I agree with this statement and have made it often, so I am fairly certain David is quoting me from past encounters with my posts here and elsewhere.

We can quibble that Calvinists qua Calvin are indeed Reformed, but the statement is made (by me at least) speaking contemporaneously today. Hence a true statement that drives home the point that Reformed is much more than the five points.

I do not think David or anyone needs to go off in a corner for a few years to read Calvin and then get back to anyone about the matter. Of course, reading Calvin is a good thing to do but he is not anyone's regula fidei, so let's not make the Institutes a shibboleth for orthodoxy.

In other words, let's all of us dial down the rhetoric a wee bit.

My own experience in reading and in discussion with various Christians regarding Calvinism and Reformed would be that many Baptists would consider themselves to be Calvinist as they do accept TULIP as the way of salvation, but by rejecting the full Covenant theology package, would not be viewed as also Reformed.

 

[Dachaser]

I never said that u were hijacking the thread; I said the term has been 'hijacked'.

This is exactly why I have said to you, a number of times, David, are u reading the posts?

It is the same thing. Your definition is flawed. Read Calvin and get back to me in a few years.

Good advice, as I have not read Calvin in several years, as right now trying to wade through the Systematic Theology of Berkhof.

 

[Matthew1344]

I read the same thing in “the reformed doctrine of predestination” for tnars


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matthew1344]

Made sense to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RBachman]

I was saved in an Armenian Church (Nazarene). I can't remember if it was the eighth or ninth alter call, but it was somewhere around there that I decided to follow Jesus. I came to Calvinism quite a bit later. I have never looked back except to quake at the horrors that Armenianism (watered down into thinking that it's not works salvation) has wrought. I would not classify it as heretical, but the older I get the more I see the harmful heresies in it and deriving from it. The Church's fixation with numbers, with sales pitches, with feel good encouragement homilies, with Hollywood worship, with ecumenicalism, with easy believism: all these are the fruits that come from an Armenian fountain. If you go back the 19th century and see how this thinking leads logically to the Finney's and Moody's and Graham's in the 20th century you can't help but think the Kingdom and God's name have been besmirched, and the visible church diluted with unelect people harboring a false hope handed to them by one of these evangelists.

I recently discussed with a Pastor friend a particular 3-lettered Presbyterian denomination that we both belong to, and their lack of evangelistic zeal. Upon reflection I am worried that what we think of as evangelistic outreach is all boogered up with the same nonsense that led the 20th Century America into thinking they were a Christian nation - because they went to an alter call at some point. The very same nation that gave birth to Hugh Hefner and hedonism on a new global scale and VR! If this mass evangelistic approach, based on the view that all we have to do is convince people to accept Christ and they are won, was so effective why is Europe and now the US Church on the decline? And the young vibrant Churches are being run by heretic wannabes like Bill Johnson (Bethel) and Rick Warren that have retooled the Grahameque alter call using better musical mysticism complete with lights and smoke. Armenianism requires an ever improving sales pitch for it to be effective, an arms race with other worldly distractions.

I am beginning to think the visible church needs to shrink a lot more, experience intense refining persecution, and begin to actually look like the bride of Christ.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I was saved in an Armenian Church

West Asia - or spell-check?

 

[VictorBravo]

West Asia - or spell-check?

Right. Here are some Armenians who would not like to be called Arminians:

http://www.armenianreformedbiblechurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ARBC-Who-Are-We.pdf

 

[RBachman]

Woops