Featured Arguments Against Calvinism...

I suppose it depends of your definition of "believe" doesn't it. By the way sanctification has to do with the physical engagement of growth. You are conflating that with the intent to submit. Two entirely different things.

 

Tony,

Did you listen to that entire clip? If so, what is Paul Washer saying? Well, for starters, we know that Paul Washer believes that repentance is part of salvation (Acts 17:30). Saving faith and repentance (or repentance and saving faith - take your pick of the order) are inexorably linked. What Paul Washer is doing is condemning mainline Conservative Baptist evangelism; an evangelism that emphasizes decision over all else. If the person prays the prayer then we are to proclaim them saved. We are not to examine their fruit for evidence that they truly are saved. That is what Paul Washer condemns and I whole heartedly agree with him.

Here are two excepts from the clip you provided:

This does not mean a person will never sin. It means that their life will be one of walking the narrow way. Along the path they may experience the chastisement of the Lord (Hebrews 12:5), but they will repent and continue their pilgrimage.

Tony, I lived this reality. I attended the Word of Life Bible Institute in Pottersville, NY. Word of Life was big on evangelism; using drama productions that always ended with a Billy Graham type invitation. After a person walked the aisle and made their decision for Christ, they were given a little sticker to put in their bible to remind them of their spiritual birthday. We, as student counselors, were instructed to tell them never to question their salvation. That sticker in their bible was their reminder that they were now God's child. Nearly 27 years later I look back and grieve that I ever bought into that. I was part of Word of Life's traveling choir, the Collegians. We performed at churches that were just like Word of Life when it came to evangelism. I wonder how many people came to our concerts, walked the aisle, and got their sticker only to go into the world and by the way they lived their lives repudiate the very profession they made. No call to repentance. Just a pat on the fanny and away you go in the world where it was all rainbows and unicorns.

Does Paul Washer come on strong? Oh, yes. But I am not an apologist for brother Washer. He is a big boy who can handle himself. I happen to believe that any Gospel message that does not include repentance from sin is a deficient gospel.

 

You know if I changed LSers to non-cals I would have what I was taught growing up about Salvation in the church that I went to growing up. I lost count of how many times I pointed out to people that if you have to work to keep your salvation you are working for your salvation. One of the many reasons I'm so grateful for the truth of Reformed Theology with the security of our Salvation all in Gods hands. Takes the yoke of the law off.

 

If one is not Reformed then what are they?
I hope you are not inferring that either Tony or myself are Arminians. Many Calvinists do. I don't know of any Arminians on this board. We both are non-Cals. I like to think of myself as a "Biblicist" to the chagrin of some. I am certainly not an Arminian as they believe they can lose their salvation.

Whitfield was influenced by Wesley and came to the Lord largely by his influence. Later they parted ways over doctrine. Wesley went his "Arminian" ways and Whitfield became a Calvinist. They always remained the closest of friends. But Whitfield's main contention with Wesley was in two primary areas:
1. He believed he could lose his salvation.
2. He believed in entire sanctification.
--Out of the latter belief arose the Pentecostal movement.

I am not a Calvinist, nor an Arminian. I do believe in eternal security.
I have never believed that one can lose their salvation or that my salvation is due to works or anything that I have done. None of those beliefs are due to anything remotely resembling a Reformed or Calvinistic church.

 

And that is why I prefer the term "Synergist" as opposed to Arminian. And yes, you are a Synergist just as I am a Monergist.

 

I know you prefer to be called non-cals which is what I referred to my church as. I was raises Wesleyan so I am very familiar with their views on losing ones salvation and sanctification. I also know they would not refer to themselves as Reformed because like it or not Reformed Theology and Calvinism are linked and for the most part synonymous with each other.

 

Yes, I realize that.

 

The truth on this issue though is that not all who hold to the doctrines of grace, who would be a small reformed like i am, also hold to LS, as that view is reserved pretty much for those who hold to ALL reformed calvinism proper!

the ONLY basis for salvation is by the death of Jesus for my sins, and God himself has promised that He will keep me saved, not me coperating with Him in getting that accomplished!

that seems to be quasicatholic to me....If I jave to keep on doing something right to allow God to be able to keep me secured and saved!

 

Many Arminians do not think they can lose their salvation. Arminius was ambivalent on the issue.

First of all it is Whitefield. "The fields are white unto harvest."

Whitefield was converted in 1735 at 21 years of age.
Wesley had his famous Aldersgate experience in 1738 when he was 35.
Whitefield began open-air preaching in Feb. of 1739.
Wesley didn't start until two months later at the urging of Whitefield.

As usual, when it comes to Church History you get things twisted in knots.

Wesley denied biblical predestination. Aren't you familiar with Whitefield's public letter to Wesley? George was pleading for John not to preach against predestination. That's because John was denouncing election and reprobation. George insisted that "election should have a place in gospel ministrations."

George was imploring John not to arraign God's sovereignty. John kept teaching free will which was anathema to George.

Of course Wesley's superstious ways such as casting lots was also of concern to Whitefield.

 

Many calvinistics though are also holding to a more traditional Baptist approach in regards to issues concerning eschatology, so one can be holding to a calvinistic model of salvation apart from all the other more "Covenant theology" based areas!


I suspect that you and I do agree much on the scriptures in many areas, its just hard at times to get some here to agree to disagree in a christian way at times!

 

When it comes to church history you have one version of it:
A Calvinistic version of it no matter how contorted it may be:

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/199704/078_whitefield.cfm

No matter where you look, you will find in article after article that it was the influence of this "Holy Club" that brought Whitefield to salvation. This "Holy Club" was started by the Wesleys. It was due to their influence that he was saved. Check your facts.

 

Everything that I posted above is true. You can try your best to spin it away; but facts are facts.

Whitefield was saved a full three years before John Wesley. Whitefield led the way with open-air preaching. He had to cajole Wesley to do the same.

The Holy Club did have an influence on Whitefield. He realized that it was based on works righteousness. They did many good deeds and were self-denying and sacrificial --but in the end it was in vain. That's why it was disbanded.

 

Please learn your history:

http://www.lcoggt.org/Articles/george_whitefield_and_wesleyan_p.htm

 

John Wesley wrote: "I affirm I am not a Christian now. Indeed, what I might have been I know not...though I have constantly used all means of grace for twenty years, I am not a Christian." (1/4/1739)

John Wesley wrote to his brother Charles:"...and yet (this is the mystery) I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen." (6/27/1766, when he was 63 years of age)

 

I wrote: Whitefield was influenced by the Wesleys in coming to Christ. IOW the Wesleys influenced him. The fact that John Wesley had already gone on a missionary journey, had won many to the Lord, and yet still was unsaved himself is irrelevant. It is the Word that saves; the message that saves.
And there was still the influence of Charles.
Besides all of that, it was the influence of the association that Wesleys established long before John went to America that also had a great influence on Whitefield as was already noted in his testimony, "the Holy Club."
Now let me repeat again what I have already posted for your benefit:

--It was a great struggle with him. At this point he was not born again. Charles was. Charles had befriended him. They both had an influence on him according to his own testimony. It was well after that he came to salvation.