Featured The Nature of Theology

I do not see many of those statements regarding Arminianism to be reflected in many od their doctrinal statements. That Arminianism holds as foundational the necessity of the work of the Spirit in salvation, and without such no man will be saved, is stated fairly clearly in the articles challenged at Dort. But they do believe this differently.

Arminius did leave the security of the believer open, and there was a disagreement there. If I recall he even stated that there are passages that seem to indicate man can fall away. Again, however, there are differences in belief here. I don't think OSAS is biblical, but I affirm the eternal security of the believer.
To answer your question, I do not think Arminians believe another gospel.

 

I agree with you, brother, that what is sometimes referee to as Arminianism here is often something else. And there are false gospels out there....probably some holding falsely to a correct understanding of the gospel as well.

I believe that all of our theologies are less than perfect and that we should be cautious not to lean on our understanding. There is a difference between what we believe about the gospel and whether or not we believe the gospel.

I have chosen not to provide a list of passages as my point here is the flaw inherent in our theologies. Not that we abandon theology but that we are discerning when it comes to that relationship between what is revealed by God and what is inferred through our understanding. I also believe that we all are capable in terms of biblical literacy and while I have actually used several passages I have not cited them as such. This would be different if we were debating Calvinism or Arminianism. I see weaknesses in both (in my own views as well). Unfortunately, it seems to me that there are some people who cannot discern where Scripture itself ends and their unferstanding begins.

 

No, not at all. I believe that Christ died so that all may believe but at the same time that He died to redeem only those who would believe (the elect).

I actually side with the belief that God through Christ was reconciling the world to Himself. God (the Father) has life in Himself and granted the Son also have life in Himself. The Father gave Christ the authority to judge because He is the Son of Man (Christ was made as sinful flesh). Men will one day be resurrected, some to life and others to condemnation. All things will be subjected to Christ (except, of course, the Father) and then Christ Himself will be subjected to the Father so that God may be in all.

But I recognize, to the best of my ability, what is my understanding and what is Scripture. Those who teach Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism … and even those theologies that are not of Calvinistic trajectory….all teach the gospel (hopefully), but they do so through a theological system that is subject the imperfections that are inherent to man.

 

Icon,

I do not know if you have realize it, but often you seem to present Scripture as proof text, but only on the condition that it is accepted with your theological explanation in tow.

For example, here you seem to take the statement “the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant” with the understanding that those “secrets” are extra-biblical understandings (theology….not only Scripture but the reasoning and hermeneutics used in interpretation and doctrinal development) given via special revelation. The reason that your theology is correct, in this model, is that God granted it to a smaller portion of Christians so that they have this knowledge which has been hidden from the majority of believers (non-Calvinistic believers have simply not understood properly those doctrines). This is called Gnosticism (it’s the “blue lodge” for Christians, so to speak).

Now how do you know that his view is correct? It seems that the reason is it is your understanding…your belief. If you were an Arminian then Arminianism would replace Calvinism as that true theology given by special revelation. In fact, you can fill in the blank on the theology of which this could apply as everyone believes their understanding to be correct.

I firmly believe that God has led me through study and prayer to leave several Calvinistic doctrines behind. At the same time, I am grateful for having held that position because it corrected other errors. For future reference, and ease of posting, it is not necessary to type out each passage. I think for the most part where we disagree is not an unknown verse but interpretations of passages we both fully know and appreciate.

 

Nope...the statement as written is absolutely and undeniably true. My belief may be false and you may disagree with my line of reasoning...heck....my reasoning may even be inconsistent and illogical....but that I hold it is true nonetheless. Biggrin It is, however, very consistent. You and I do not share the same framework or theology in getting to the conclusion that Christ died to redeem only the elect. We can affirm the same truths in one sense, but they mean different things to us (there is a danger of talking past each other here). But it is true that I believe Christ died so that all may believe but only to redeem those who believe. That provision was eternal (the Cross was not necessarily limited in power to a specific time...it's effect is eternal). Those who never heard of a cross, much less Jesus dying on one, in the Old Testament are also among those for whom Christ died.

 

Salvation is completely up to God. Those who will believed will be saved and those who won’t believe won’t be saved. None are willing to believe, all have rejected God and all reject Christ. I was once a person who rejected Christ (I was a sinner, and I was unsaved). But God worked in my life (and my will) and drew me to Himself. In other words, I believe that Christ died so that everyone could be saved even though it was a reality that no one would be saved. At the same time He died to redeem those who the Father would give Him – those who would believe (those who God draws, the elect). The reason is for the glory of God and not man.

That is the question. What is the gospel. It is the “good news” of the Who…not the what (just putting a little Barth in there for flavor). The passage in 1 Corinthians 15 is dealing with the resurrection and the hope of the believer in a bodily resurrection. I do see it as a general statement (not one indicating that death alone as effectual, but that Christ died for our sin, was buried and raised as evidenced by witnesses. Paul’s argument is against the denial of a bodily resurrection, not that salvation was not made possible to mankind.

I don’t know about a requirement to “pray the prayer of faith” or “walk the aisle”, and am really not aware of a theology that believes those to be requirements. But if you are asking if we are required to repent and believe the gospel of Christ then this is something that I believe. I also believe it is a requirement for all, failed by all, but made a reality by God in the lives of some. Probably no need to argue that part because it is only the last part (those who are saved) that really matters here.

 

I don’t pretend to speak for anyone but me.

Theology by definition is “extra-biblical.” Otherwise it would be called Scripture. And again…my addition of “seems” was intended to facilitate correction to any misunderstanding that I may have had with your comments.

That is exactly what I mean, Icon. It seems to me that you chalk up those Christians (those true believers) who hold a different theology as seeing in part and those who see the truth as holding your theology. By Gnostic I mean the methodology, not the content (hence the “blue lodge” comment). But you do have my apologies if you took my comment to mean that you believed gnostic heresies. I stand by my assessment of the method, but did not mean to imply that your theology was heresy.

Is Arminianism then “another gospel” that results in a false belief (they are not Christians at all because they reject the gospel of Jesus Christ)?

.

 

No. My understanding is no one who is saved is in a state of rejecting Christ, they all believe. And that belief is of God.

In other words, it is not a contradiction at all. My belief is that we are saved through faith and not of ourselves, that salvation is a gift of God.

So for my edification, TC and Icon, how many are saved who do not believe in Christ and how many are saved who God did not elect?

 

Thank you, Icon. Please just explain how my view of salvation through faith with God providing that faith (actually, God providing salvation as a whole) is a contradiction. Then perhaps we can continue on the topic of the OP of whether or not theology can be considered special revelation (this is an interesting discussion, maybe we should follow it as well but I'm just concerned it'll turn into a Cal/Arm debate....and being neither that really wasn't my intention).

 

We do not have innate faith unto salvation to exercise.

Both Calvinists and Arminians (the two groups I mentioned) agree at least on that point.

The third article (of the five articles of the Remonstrants) states that “man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, insomuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightfully understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good.”

The Canons of Dordt in answer to the Remonstrants state that “all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.”

Neither claim that we are saved by exercising our own innate faith....I certainly didn't claim that to be the case and neither does Scripture.

Paul states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that there are none righteous, none who understands, and none who seeks for God.

Has anyone here claimed that we exercise our innate faith in salvation, or are you still winnowing down to your point?