-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are there NO Arminians here, JUST cals/non cals?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
You have asked this question, or some variation of it, many times before.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=75234
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=74806
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=74764
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73010
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72259
Do you see yourself as being one?
I'm not sure what your definition of an Arminian entails. Since classic Arminianism believes a person can lose their salvation, then no, I'm not an Arminian.
I have no idea what an Arminian is and can't answer the question. I have always gone to mostly independent fundamental Baptist churches in Michigan, but all I find down south are southern Baptist churches.
One difference I've found that I don't like is that the song services of the southern Baptist churches are rather slow and dead. I find that strange since I love southern gospel music, and it is rarely slow and dead. Having always been the song leader in Michigan and other states, I don't understand why so many southern pastors prefer to lead the singing instead of taking advantage of a trained, experienced song leader when one is available. Of course, getting the pianist and the congregation to speed up their singing when they're used to all the songs being song like they're at a funeral would be quite a battle. That's why I did no more than offer my services as a song leader one time and haven't said any more about it. Besides, they sing a lot of songs I've never heard before and rarely sing the old time hymns I've used to singing and leading.
One difference I've found that I don't like is that the song services of the southern Baptist churches are rather slow and dead. I find that strange since I love southern gospel music, and it is rarely slow and dead. Having always been the song leader in Michigan and other states, I don't understand why so many southern pastors prefer to lead the singing instead of taking advantage of a trained, experienced song leader when one is available. Of course, getting the pianist and the congregation to speed up their singing when they're used to all the songs being song like they're at a funeral would be quite a battle. That's why I did no more than offer my services as a song leader one time and haven't said any more about it. Besides, they sing a lot of songs I've never heard before and rarely sing the old time hymns I've used to singing and leading.
Not only has this question been asked multiple times, and obvioulsy has been repeated by the same person also who doesn't seem to care that he has done so
, BUT also the strawman so often often put with the question about the belief of losing one's salvation has been addressed multiple times as well. :sleep:For those interested in the facts who have good reading comprehension skills:
Article 5.
[Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.
These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.
The Articles of the Remonstrants are adapted from Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1996, pp 545ff.
Last edited by a moderator:
JesusFan/DaChaser1/Yeshua1 is what my father called an INSTIGATOR. Remember Junior High School when two boys would get in an argument and a crowd would gather? There would always be one fellow who got behind one of the boys and pushed him into the other to start a fight. That is an instigator.
Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Yeshua1 enjoys sowing discord.
Let us not forget this is the same person, who has been banned twice, who continues to ask these inane questions.
He was not banned because he keeps asking the same questions, but the purpose of these questions is to instigate conflict between us.
It is difficult enough for non-Cals and Cals to discuss their differences in a civil manner without someone purposely stirring the pot.
Yeshua1 is not sincerely asking questions, his questions have been answered many times, yet he asks them over and over again. I do not know about others, but I am not fooled.
Many question my reading comprehension so it is will some expectation of ridicule that I question the premise that "Classical Arminianism" affirms salvation cannot be lost. Jesus said, if you are not for me, you are against me. To dangle the "possibility" of loss of salvation as an incentive to due diligence may seem wise, but the ends do not justify the means.
Scripture seems clear to me, they go out from us because they are not of us, i.e never born again. Thus you can think you were once saved, and then reject Jesus, but from my side of the street, you were never saved, just another tare spreading falsehood over truth.
Lets look at the first part of the first sentence, "incorporated into Christ" by "true" faith. Are we put into Christ by our faith or by God putting us there? Who decides whether or not our "faith" is true? Scripture says God does when He credits it as righteousness.
Do we become partakers of the Spirit when we learn from the gospel, or only when we are sealed in Christ. Just exactly what is meant by this ill defined phrase may underlie the division on the loss of salvation issue.
Scripture seems clear to me, they go out from us because they are not of us, i.e never born again. Thus you can think you were once saved, and then reject Jesus, but from my side of the street, you were never saved, just another tare spreading falsehood over truth.
Lets look at the first part of the first sentence, "incorporated into Christ" by "true" faith. Are we put into Christ by our faith or by God putting us there? Who decides whether or not our "faith" is true? Scripture says God does when He credits it as righteousness.
Do we become partakers of the Spirit when we learn from the gospel, or only when we are sealed in Christ. Just exactly what is meant by this ill defined phrase may underlie the division on the loss of salvation issue.
Classic Arminians believe a Christian can forfeit, but not lose, their salvation by making a decision to stop trusting in Christ.
Wesleyan Arminians believe a Christian can lose their salvation, while still trusting in Christ, by long term resistance to the conviction of the Holy Spirit by refusing to be remorseful for know sins and refusing to repent.
When I was a kid, and we did not have the needed number of players, we forfeited the game, meaning it was marked as a loss for us and a win for the other team. So when you say forfeit but not lose, are you saying the person still goes to heaven but as one escaping from a fire?
And those who believe in once saved, always saved, say that Christian the Wesleyan Arminians think lost his or her salvation was never saved because they go out from us because they are not of us.
And those who believe in once saved, always saved, say that Christian the Wesleyan Arminians think lost his or her salvation was never saved because they go out from us because they are not of us.
The Classic Arminian believes that a Christian who makes a decision to stop believing, forfeits his salvation and therefore does not go to heaven because he no longer believes. In this sense, you don't lose something that you decided to give up.
The Wesleyan Arminian also believes a Christian can forfeit his salvation; but he also belives a Christain can lose his salvation by long term resistance of the conviction of the Holy Spirit concerning known sins, while he is still believing.
Not attempt to debate here; just clarifying what a Classic Arminian believes.
I am neither. I am a Dispensationalist so that does not make me Arminian nor Calvinist.
I concur and agree with the above. This is why I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian.
The Classic view seems to define forfeit as intentional loss, whereas loss refers to unintentional loss. And of course, from my side of the street, both concepts are unbiblical.
In summary the Arminian positions so far:
1) Salvation might be lost
2) Salvation can be intentionally lost
3) Salvation can be unintentionally lost.
Not if you are going to lob the label Arminain around so loosely.
Fundamentally, Arminianism is non-committal on the issue of Eternal Security or OSAS or whatever one wants to call it. Arminianism of the Classical Remonstrant style has no definitive position on the issue as Arminius and the Remonstrants had no official position on the issue. I believe strongly in OSAS myself and I am ostensibly willing to consider/call myself Arminian with the caveat that I also lean towards a Molinist view of Sovereignty. In the same way that "Calvinism" might be a camp which can include both Supra-lapsarians or Infra-lapsarians, or those who hold to double Pre-destination or not; So is Arminianism a "camp" with a tent "large" enough to accomodate those who believe in Eternal Security and those who don't. That was what (I believe) Benjamin was trying to convey by posting the official articles of the Remonstrants.
This is "Politician-Speak" for: "Don't know, ain't touching it with a ten-foot pole, and hopefully, this statement is loose enough for anyone to supply their own interpretation to it and read into it what they want"-----:thumbsup:"Vote For ME!!:wavey:"
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=Are_You_an_Arminian_and_Dont_Even_Know_It
This is these guys' take on it, and at brass-tacks, I like the way they posed their questionairre. Their standard is Straight Classical (Remonstrant) Arminianism.
This is "Politician-Speak" for: "Don't know, ain't touching it with a ten-foot pole, and hopefully, this statement is loose enough for anyone to supply their own interpretation to it and read into it what they want"-----:thumbsup:"Vote For ME!!:wavey:"
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=Are_You_an_Arminian_and_Dont_Even_Know_It
This is these guys' take on it, and at brass-tacks, I like the way they posed their questionairre. Their standard is Straight Classical (Remonstrant) Arminianism.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status