Arguments Against Calvinism...

[Revmitchell]

I wasn't saying he couldn't be saved. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." The gospel is very simple.
I am simply saying that Christ is Lord of all.
Sanctification follows salvation.
I am not a believer in LS.

Basically, I was answering this question in #92

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.

 

[Reformed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftJVYoORug
If you listen to this audio of one of Washer's sermons, you'll hear him say that the Romans Road is nothing more than Roman superstition. While I believe that there is more to it, I also believe that this was Paul offering the Romans what we today would refer to as a 30,000-foot view. Like looking out an airplane window. You can tell the major highways of the faith, but the full detail is foggy at best until you are at groundlevel. But I wouldn't go after the way Washer does, saying preachers who use the Romans Road are just "stupid evangelists."

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:

The evidence that someone is saved is that they continue walking in the narrow way (2:04).

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.

Starting at 2:05 "And this is the fault of preachers. This is the fault of preachers who had done a gospel reductionism. We talk about the Germans of the 20th century that brought on their higher criticism. It is not near as dangerous as conservative Baptists with their gospel reductionism. How dare we! All these stupid evangelists walking around telling men after they've made some little prayer that they need to write their name on the back of their bible and if the devil ever comes to them they are to show them that. That is Roman superstition. It is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

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.

 

[blessedwife318]

... LSers I know have taught a form of works-salvation, not in that works saved them, but that works maintain their salvation. I cannot take that back, as it is what has been told to me...

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[Reformed]

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.

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.

 

[blessedwife318]

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

Yes, I realize that.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't buy into it, either, EWF. Jesus is already Lord over everything, so how can I make Him Lord over my life. Instead, through salvation and the blessing of grace, I can come recognize that He is indeed Lord over everything. Perhaps Bro. Willis has a different take on Lordship Salvation than the one I'm accustomed to, but my experience with LS is that it functions essentially as a works-based salvation. You have to keep doing certain things and acting certain ways in order to maintain your salvation.

I would actually argue that a newly-minted Christian, someone just taking their first steps in the faith, would likely be turned off to God by Lordship Salvation and the requirements that LSers tend to tout. LS requires commitments that still-on-the-milk Christians simply cannot perform until they have a greater hold on both their faith and their doctrine.

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!

 

[Rippon]

I am certainly not an Arminian as they believe they can lose their salvation.

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

Whitfield was influenced by Wesley and came to the Lord largely by his influence.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[DHK]

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.

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

THE NEW BIRTH
The members of the Holy Club aggressively pursued the Christian life, meeting weekly for prayer, Bible study, and mutual support. They engaged in extended prayer vigils and frequent fasting in hopes of discovering the key to a more vital brand of Christianity. Whitefield pursued the goals of the group with special vigor. He fasted twice a week and wore plain clothes. During one Lenten season, he embarked on a 40-day fast that threatened his life and permanently weakened his health. Some of his teachers feared that he had lost his mind and considered expelling him from the university.

Whitefield grasped the meaning of the new birth more quickly than any other member of their circle. It came while reading The Life of God in the Soul of Man by Henry Scougal. Whitefield wondered what Scougal meant when he wrote: "Some falsely placed religion in going to church, doing hurt to no one, being constant in the duties of the closet, and now and then reaching out their hands to give alms.ä" If that wasn't true religion, what was? Whitefield recalled: "God soon showed me; for in reading a few lines further, 'that true religion was a union of the soul with God, and Christ formed within us,' a ray of divine light was instantaneously darted in upon my soul." Although Whitefield did not have all the light, he soon found that he had been delivered from the oppressive weight of sin and realized that salvation involved a new birth. His conversion caused him to redefine the nature of salvation, the meaning of the church, and his own mission in life.

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.

 

[Rippon]

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

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:

In the summer of 1734 George Whitefield, nineteen years old and a poor widow’s son, entered Pembroke College, Oxford, earning his keep as a servant waiting on better-off students. Shy and self-conscious, he was already in deep search of saving faith. Charles Wesley befriended him and gave him Pietist August Francke’s book Against the Fear of Man and, a bit later, Scottish Henry Scougal’s Life of God in the Soul of Man. During the following months with the Wesleys, Whitefield wrote in 1739, "religion began to take root in my heart, and I was fully convinced my soul must be totally renewed ere it could see God." Whitefield’s recently published letters make plain that as early as 1735 the idea of the new birth, though not the instantaneous assurance of it, was a commonplace among the Oxford Methodists.

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

 

[Rippon]

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)

 

[DHK]

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:

]Charles Wesley befriended him and gave him Pietist August Francke’s book Against the Fear of Man and, a bit later, Scottish Henry Scougal’s Life of God in the Soul of Man. During the following months with the Wesleys, Whitefield wrote in 1739, "religion began to take root in my heart, and I was fully convinced my soul must be totally renewed ere it could see God." Whitefield’s recently published letters make plain that as early as 1735 the idea of the new birth, though not the instantaneous assurance of it, was a commonplace among the Oxford Methodists.

--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.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.