Are Arminians Saved?

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trueliberty:
[QB]Brian, eternal security is a different kettle of fish from the other Calvinistic doctrines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is for a lot of people, but that just proves the inconsistency and poor theology of many believers.

How can believers be eternally secure, if God does not keep them secure? Can YOU do it on your own?

John 10:29 (ESV)
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:


This figures, just like the hyper-hyper extremes of every other "ism" working under the banner of evangelical Christianity.-- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strawman and ad hominem are poor forms of argument. Stick to the Biblical theology.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Eric,

Right on and amen!!

 

[Kiffin]

Eric B,

You are quoting a Hardshell website not A Calvinist site since it attacks Calvinists like Spurgeon. Your sermon to us has not merit except those who are hardshellers. I hold to Double Predestination but I do not have problems with some Calvininsts and all Lutherans who hold to Single Predestination. The disagreement over Single vs Double is more over semantics than anything (And I am not referring to the Hardshell Hyper Calvinist Double Predestination).

 

[rlvaughn]

Eric B, can you check the "Predestination" link in your post. I can't access it. Has anyone else done so?

 

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Eric B, can you check the "Predestination" link in your post. I can't access it. Has anyone else done so?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The link didn't work for me either.

The following was copied from a "calvinist" site, is this the doctrine of Calvinist??

Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did
Christ atone?" Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing
that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the
future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of
specific sinners.

It sure doesn't agree with the Bible.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,

but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[rlvaughn]

I am wondering if anyone has specific information about those associated with the "Outside the Camp" website (linked in first post). Are they Baptists, "baptistic", Reformed, or some other known or previously unknown "branch" of Christianity?

 

[Kiffin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, His death is for all people of all races who believe. It is not limited to the Jews only but for Christ elect which is composed of all races and nations. It's not referring to every single individual since not every person isn't saved. That's the problem with General atonement, it teaches no atonement just a possibilty atonement.

 

[Eric B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Strawman and ad hominem are poor forms of argument. Stick to the Biblical theology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You are quoting a Hardshell website not A Calvinist site since it attacks Calvinists like Spurgeon. Your sermon to us has not merit except those who are hardshellers. I hold to Double Predestination but I do not have problems with some Calvininsts and all Lutherans who hold to Single Predestination. The disagreement over Single vs Double is more over semantics than anything (And I am not referring to the Hardshell Hyper Calvinist Double Predestination). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was that the rhetoric often aimed at Arminians would naturally lead to this "hardshell" position if it were consistently taken to it's logical conclusion. That's probably how these people got this way. So one may not be "as hard as them", but if they keep accusing the Arminians of following a weakgod, believing a false gospel (saving themselves by the "work" of Choosing Him), are "Pelagians", etc. then they are right, not only about the Arminians, but about the Calvinists who still accept them despite such grave errors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric B, can you check the "Predestination" link in your post. I can't access it. Has anyone else done so? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typo ("/html" instead of ".html")
Whenever you get a link that doesn't work, you can check for errors like that, as well as spelling, etc.
http://members.aol.com/etb700/predestination.html

 

[rlvaughn]

Good, I've got it now. Thanks, Eric.

 

[Kiffin]

Eric B said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point was that the rhetoric often aimed at Arminians would naturally lead to this "hardshell" position if it were consistently taken to it's logical conclusion. That's probably how these people got this way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These people got that way because they embrace a false form of Calvinism. Check your history both in England in the 1700's and in America in the 1800's it was Calvinists who were the fiercest opponents of Hardshellism. I have no sympathy for Hardshellism (HyperCalvinism)and they are no more Calvinists than Arminians are.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So one may not be "as hard as them", but if they keep accusing the Arminians of following a weakgod, believing a false gospel (saving themselves by the "work" of Choosing Him), are "Pelagians", etc. then they are right, not only about the Arminians, but about the Calvinists who still accept them despite such grave errors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calvinists just like Arminians often accuse the other of believing a false gospel. Such a statement by either a Calvinist or Arminian (or Non Calvinist) is unfortunate. I do not believe Arminians preach a False Gospel just not the fullness. The Gospel is simple - The Death, Burial and Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ and faith in Him. Calvinists and Arminians disagree over how one believes, the extent of the atonement, election etc...but not on that central issue.

Arminians and Calvinists often make outraegeous statements that implies the other is a cult group or is following another Gospel. Such a tone shows a lack of understanding for the other's position. I am a staunch Calvinist but I regard those who are not Calvinists but preach the Death, Burial and Resurrection and faith in Christ to be believers.

To be honest though, some of the most vicious attacks I've witnessed have come from Arminians who say Calvinists believe in a "Tyranical God" "Puppetmaster" and shows an ignorance and a reliance on Sword of the Lord type material that doesn't have a clue about what Calvinists believe and probably have never read a book by a Calvinist such as Spurgeon, Bunyan, R.C. Sproul, John Macarthur, D. James Kennedy but relies on authors as John R. Rice, Curtis Hudson or some other person who has'nt got a clue what Calvinism is. So Arminians and other Non Calvinists are not pure from making false statements.

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[Eric B]

True, but the Calvinists seem to me a bit more vociferous than the Arminians, and among moderates I do see alot of references to the "helpless god" of Arminianism. I am only cautioning about some of the hyperbole we often use, and if I ran across an Arminian group that did the same to Calvinists, I would say the same thing.
(But at least the Arminian critics capitalize the "God" they portray in Calvinism, and "Tyrannical" and "Puppetmaster" are not quite as much of a demotion of His authority as "helpless", "non-sovereign", etc.

 

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
[QB][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found that statement concerning "limited atonement" to be very "straight foreword" in
explaining their doctrine, BUT, I've also noticed "Calvinist" back away from supporting
statements which reveal the "real basics" of their belief.

"Well yes that's what we believe, BUT" (then come the qualifier)

{b]Yes, His death is for all people of all races who believe.[/b]

It is not limited to the Jews only but for Christ elect which is composed of all races and
nations.
It's not referring to every single individual since not every person isn't saved.


Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of
the whole world.

Do you deny that Joh 3;16 implies that God loved the "WHOLE" world and in Jesus dying for
"ALL SINS" offered salvation to the "whole world", or "WHOSOEVER" believed?

The problem with "limited atonement" is that during Judgment it places the blame on God for the sins of some men
remaining because of God's predestining that they would not be offered Salvation.

Is that what the above verses teach??

Ro 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Do you understand Ro 11:32, I'll explain it.

For God hath concluded them "ALL" in unbelief:
Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon "ALL MEN" to
condemnation; (Adam's sin)

that he might have mercy upon "ALL"
Ro 5:18 even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon "ALL MEN" unto
justification of life.

That "Free Gift" is offered to "ALL MEN", who believe.
Mt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

"UNBELIEF" (no faith) keeps people under condemnation, Not God, not Predestination, not
limited atonement.

God isn't "willing" that any should perish, and that he might have mercy upon "All".

How then can it be preached that God predestine some to perish (without a choice) without
contradicting the "Word of God"??

"YOU CAN'T"

Scripture doesn't contradict it's self, if your belief does, then you've interpreted "Something"
out of context.

Scripture is the only "Qualifier" for doctrine.

 

[Kiffin]

S.Baptist stated,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of
the whole world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Let's also look at some other scriptures,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that ALL the world should be taxed.(Luke 2:1) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me use your same argument, Do you deny that Luke 2:1 implies that all people in the world were taxed? Including the Chinese, Japanese, eskimos, Indians etc....?

Of course you deny it because the scripture is limiting this to the known world or the Roman Empire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!"(John 12:19 )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you deny that John 12:19 implies that all people in the world were following Jesus?

Of course you do! Because the context is referring to a great number of people following Christ not every individual though to be consistent you would have to say that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And we know that we are of God, and the WHOLE world lieth in wickedness. (1 John 5:19)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you deny that 1 John 5:19 implies that the WHOLE world including the Church is wicked and abides in ?

Of course the scripture is referring to the lost world so WHOLE is limited in it's scope here.

In each of these cases World does not mean every individual.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you deny that Joh 3;16 implies that God loved the "WHOLE" world <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I like what John Calvin stated on John 3:16,
"the Heavenly Father loves the human race, And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father"

Yes God loves the world and no Calvinist denies "Whosoever will".

You state,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The problem with "limited atonement" is that during Judgment it places the blame on God for the sins of some men remaining because of God's predestining that they would not be offered Salvation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, it doesn't. Your statement implies man deserves salvation and shows a weak understanding of original sin. None of us deserve salvation. No man seeks after God and has only himself to blame for his bondage.


You continue,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ro 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Do you understand Ro 11:32, I'll explain it.

For God hath concluded them "ALL" in unbelief:
Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon "ALL MEN" to
condemnation; (Adam's sin)

that he might have mercy upon "ALL"
Ro 5:18 even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon "ALL MEN" unto
justification of life.

That "Free Gift" is offered to "ALL MEN", who believe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using your logic, since ALL are made sinners then ALL which you imply says every single individual has eternal life since Christ death. Thus universalism! The problem with General Atonement is it teaches NO Atonement only a possibilty atonement. Jesus 2,000 years ago only made it possible for people to be saved but did not secure the salvation of any under the General Atonment scheme.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "UNBELIEF" (no faith) keeps people under condemnation, Not God, not Predestination, notlimited atonement. "<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL, You make my arguement. It is unbelief that keeps people under condemnation,(You sure you not becoming a Calvinist?) Not God, not Predestination, not limited atonement. It is their unbelieving hearts so no one deserves it but thank God He chose to rescue some of us worms.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "God isn't "willing" that any should perish, and that he might have mercy upon "All"."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Let's look at that scripture in context.

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up." (2 Peter 3:9-10)

Who is Peter writing to? Believers! The context is that God's elect will all come to repentance and not be lost. This was to encourage them to press on despite the work of ungodly scoffers who were preaching false gospels.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "How then can it be preached that God predestine some to perish (without a choice) without
contradicting the "Word of God"??

"YOU CAN'T""<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are right! That's why we don't preach that God predestined some to perish (without a choice). Man's choice in his self will is to continue to reject God. He is not in a neutral position.

My Church did it's annual door to door Christmas Evangelism campaign this week, giving out tracts, Gospels of John and Invitations to our Christmas Eve services. We did not see everybody ready to embrace Christ. Most could care less about the Gospel. Only those rebels whom the Holy Spirit opens hearts will believe. You imply man doesn't like his bondage. He does love his bondage and none of us deserve the Grace and mercy of God.

God Bless,
Randy +†+

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My Church did it's annual door to door Christmas Evangelism campaign this week, giving out tracts, Gospels of John and Invitations to our Christmas Eve services. We did not see everybody ready to embrace Christ. Most could care less about the Gospel. Only those rebels whom the Holy Spirit opens hearts will believe. You imply man doesn't like his bondage. He does love his bondage and none of us deserve the Grace and mercy of God.

God Bless,
Randy +†+<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen! Praise God.

 

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
S.Baptist stated,




You are right! That's why we don't preach that God predestined some to perish (without a choice). Man's choice in his self will is to continue to reject God. He is not in a neutral position.

My Church did it's annual door to door Christmas Evangelism campaign this week, giving out tracts, Gospels of John and Invitations to our Christmas Eve services. We did not see everybody ready to embrace Christ. Most could care less about the Gospel. Only those rebels whom the Holy Spirit opens hearts will believe. You imply man doesn't like his bondage. He does love his bondage and none of us deserve the Grace and mercy of God.

God Bless,
Randy +†+

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you preach that "Adam's sin", had the power to "condemned "ALL MEN", but Jesus's blood doesn't have the power to "save ALL MEN"??

Under "Pre Election", you can't preach Jesus died for the Sins of the whole world, only the "elect".

see the problem??

 

[Kiffin]

S.Baptist stated,


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How can you preach that "Adam's sin", had the power to "condemned "ALL MEN", but Jesus's blood doesn't have the power to "save ALL MEN"??

Under "Pre Election", you can't preach Jesus died for the Sins of the whole world, only the "elect".

see the problem??

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Adam's sin does condemn all men but if I use your argument then after Christ death it should have freed all men regardless of what they believe. Thus universalism! The fact is my friend, ALL MEN refers to all who believe or will believe on Christ (Even we I think can agree on that).

Christ death is for the elect (Mt.20:28)that is for all who believe! (John 3:16). I can preach or witness to a person that if they believe on Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that Christ died for them. Any who come to Him he will receive. Calvinists however believe the reason people believe on Christ is because they are the elect and have been enabled by the Holy Spirit.

Even you will admit that those who reject Christ receive no benefits from the atonement of Christ. So in a sense even Non Calvinists teach a form of limited atonement.

God Bless,
Randy +†+

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
How can you preach that "Adam's sin", had the power to "condemned "ALL MEN", but Jesus's blood doesn't have the power to "save ALL MEN"??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In addition to what Kiffin has said, no Calvinist denies that Jesus blood has the power to save all men. It most certianly does; but power is not the issue. The issue is what did the blood/death of Christ do.

The point of Rom 5, the way you are using must mean that all are saved. For just as all were made sinners by Adam (which is all without distinction) so all were made righteous by Christ (which, in your view, must be all without distinction). Yet we know that is not true.

The point of Rom 5 is that Christ's death affects all that are in Christ in the same way that Adam's sin affect all that are in Adam. It is talking about the modus operandi of imputation, not the numbers involved.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Eladar]

The sheep's blood had the power to save the first born males of every household in Egypt. But only those who acutally used the blood were spared.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
The sheep's blood had the power to save the first born males of every household in Egypt. But only those who acutally used the blood were spared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this doesn't help the argument because as I say, no one is talking about what Christ's death had the power to do. We all believe that it had the power and sufficiency to save all men for all time. The question is, What did the blood of Christ do? Did it propitiate the wrath of God or did it only make propitiation possible.

Furthermore, your analogy is weak because the OT was only a shadow; it was not an identity. To follow your line of argument, Christ was not a sheep; he was a person. His blood was not applied to the doorway of anything. It did not take place at night. And I could go on. In other words, the example you use is only a picture. It cannot be pressed beyond that.

By the way, the applying of the blood on the doorposts was an expression of faith. It was not the saving act itself but rather the expression of obedience that sprang from faith that God would operate according to his promise.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]