Armi-Calvinist?

[Dustin]

Palagian Baptist...

 

[JackRUS]

Palagian Baptist...

What's the point?

 

[npetreley]

doulous,

Thanks for that clarification. It does illustrate that the remonstrants stretched what Arminius taught. But even the remonstrants said...

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch 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 having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. b: "Without me ye can do nothing."

This statement is continually contradicted by the free willers on this board. Hence they do not even qualify as Arminian extremists. They've dived head first into pelagianism -- maybe not full-blown pelagianism in most cases, but at least semi-pelagianism.

From the page

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pelagian.htm

I'm sure someone can find a better source, but as far as I can tell this is accurate, so it should be instructive.

Pelagius was a biblical interpreter (he wrote a commentary on Paul's letters) and theologian who stressed the human ability to fulfill the commands of God.

[...] Pelagianism may thus be considered a reform movement within late Roman Christianity. Its doctrine, however, was condemned as heresy.

[...] In claiming that humans can do what God requires, Pelagius had emphasized the freedom of the human will and the ability to control one's motives and actions under the guidance of God's law.

[...] The keystone of Pelagianism is the idea of man's unconditional free will and his moral responsibility. In creating man God did not subject him, like other creatures, to the law of nature but gave him the unique privilege of accomplishing the divine will by his own choice. This possibility of freely choosing the good entails the possibility of choosing evil.

Does this not resemble the arguments of the free willers?

 

[Jarthur001]

Lets put this in a short line..
Pelagius held that man was unaffected by Adams sin and is "well"..not "sick" (semi-pelagians) and not dead (calvinisim).

****************

Arminians held that man DID have guilt but was removed with atonement for ALL men. Now man can cooperate with God in salvation. He said..this came as it "flowed from Gods Justice". As in...the cross.

Wesley changed this saying..mans abilty was given by prevenient grace (just before) salvation. With this gift of grace everyone is released from guilt and created new life in him which will lead him to further life...if he responds right. This means of course one can loss their salvation. What is wrong with this....nothing really happened on the cross. It was just a picture of atonement.


Anyway..what we see posted by these freewillers is much closer to semi-pelagians and in some cases full pelagians

I have also seen some "remonstrants" views posted here. they teach that guilt was not imputed, but rather only punishment to the body and intelligence but not the will. This is close to Arminianism....yet grace is not given at the cross, but the unblinding (intelligence of God) came when Christ came before His death.

In Christ...James

 

[Jarthur001]

Jack....all systems limit atonement.

Calvinisim says it is Limited to the elect. This makes Gods love pure. True love never fells.

Free-willers say Christ died for ALL..but limit atonement to those that have faith. If they did not limit atonement..all would go to heaven..which does not happen. But notice this..This view limits the power of Christ. His love is not pure..for He died for some..and had no faith.

So..freewillers limit atonement and the power of his love.


In Christ...James

 

[webdog]

If they did not limit atonement..all would go to heaven..which does not happen.

Atonement does not equal salvation, what you are implying.

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If they did not limit atonement..all would go to heaven..which does not happen.

Atonement does not equal salvation, what you are implying. </font>[/QUOTE]This is very true... salvation is not the same as atonement. However the reason all go to hell is because of our sins against a holy God. The wages of sin is death. In this case death is talking about hell. Or even better.."away from God". God can not be around sin because of His holiness. If our sins are forgiven there is no guilt. This happens at the cross In my view (calvinisim) and in the Arminianism view.

In other words Arminianism says Christ died for all of our sins. All...all of mankind. All sins forgiven. If we stop right here no man has guilt of sins. Therefore..all mankind have no wage to pay for their sins. There is no wage of death (hell) for no sins are there. All sins are forgiven. So... Arminianism goes on and says that the cross is only a picture of being forgiven. That real forgiveness is limited to those that believe.

Atonement is the only way we can rid our sins. It is though the blood of Christ or though your own death (hell). The WAGE demands it. Therefore all systems limit atonement in some way.

In Christ...James

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jarthur001:
In other words Arminianism says Christ died for all of our sins. All...all of mankind.

I don't mean to pick nits, but Arminius actually denied ever saying that. People who call themselves Arminians say that, but Arminius said that Christ did not die for all men, but suffered for all men.

I know that doesn't make sense, but then neither does Arminius or Arminianism.

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jarthur001:
In other words Arminianism says Christ died for all of our sins. All...all of mankind.

I don't mean to pick nits, but Arminius actually denied ever saying that. People who call themselves Arminians say that, but Arminius said that Christ did not die for all men, but suffered for all men.

I know that doesn't make sense, but then neither does Arminius or Arminianism. </font>[/QUOTE]That maybe true. I have not read much J Arminius work..in fact very little. But what I have read is closer to Calvinisim then what we see today. In fact I like to show this to freewillers.


******************


"I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law. But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to none except believers, I conclude that, in this sense, it may be well and properly said, to a man who believes, faith is imputed for righteousness through grace, because God hath set forth his Son, Jesus Christ, to be a propitiation, a throne of grace, [or mercy seat] through faith in his blood." Whatever interpretation may be put upon these expressions, none of our Divines blames Calvin or considers him to be heterodox on this point; yet my opinion is not so widely different from his as to prevent me from employing the signature of my own hand in subscribing to those things which he has delivered on this subject, in the third book of his Institutes; this I am prepared to do at any time, and to give them my full approval. Most noble and potent Lords, these are the principal articles, respecting which I have judged it necessary to declare my opinion before this august meeting, in obedience to your commands.

THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN BEFORE GOD
Arminius
*****************


In Christ..James

 

[Calvibaptist]

The problem is that free-willers want to have men's sins atoned for by Jesus Christ on the cross, but not have those men forgiven. By changing the meaning of the word "atonement" to mean "possible atonement if they will just have faith" they change the nature of the atonement such that it is not really atonement. In the free will view, all Christ's death did was make men saveable. It did not save anyone.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
The problem is that free-willers want to have men's sins atoned for by Jesus Christ on the cross, but not have those men forgiven. By changing the meaning of the word "atonement" to mean "possible atonement if they will just have faith" they change the nature of the atonement such that it is not really atonement. In the free will view, all Christ's death did was make men saveable. It did not save anyone.

How do you line this line of thinking up with "if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin"? If sin is automatically atoned for the elect only with Christ's death, why do you need to confess your sin...to be forgiven? It's not both.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by MRCoon:
Can you be both? I'm working the night shift and nothing going on...so I used google and wikipedia to look up Arminianism, Calvinism, Reformed Baptist, Neo-Orthodoxy, Pelagianism, The New Prespective of Paul, and other such things that I've seen 'argued' on this board. I usually stay out of these theological discussions for lack of interest and for fear/hatred of these limiting tags. That being said can someone be a combination of this schools of thought? I've always operated under the guise of "Know What You Believe and Believe What You Know" but it is funny that I find I can agree with elements from each area. So what are your thoughts?

Can we be both Arminian-Calvinist. If we believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation, then we are saved. God did not make us all the same, as we each have our own soul (personality), and probably not two of us are alike in all aspects of our thinking, temperament, judgments, and will.

The Body of Christ's Church is big, big, big, and there is room for all of us, and we have our own place in Him, even we Gentile's, for God had Mercy on us. We should praise and thank God continually for Damascus Road.

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
The problem is that free-willers want to have men's sins atoned for by Jesus Christ on the cross, but not have those men forgiven. By changing the meaning of the word "atonement" to mean "possible atonement if they will just have faith" they change the nature of the atonement such that it is not really atonement. In the free will view, all Christ's death did was make men saveable. It did not save anyone.

Very well stated brother.

 

[webdog]

Atonement does not mean "forgiven". It means:
1. Agreement
2. Expiation (satisfaciton or reparation)
3. In theology, the expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ.

The entire Bible points to man being "in Christ" for salvation. Christ atoned for sin, all of those IN HIM.

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
The problem is that free-willers want to have men's sins atoned for by Jesus Christ on the cross, but not have those men forgiven. By changing the meaning of the word "atonement" to mean "possible atonement if they will just have faith" they change the nature of the atonement such that it is not really atonement. In the free will view, all Christ's death did was make men saveable. It did not save anyone.

How do you line this line of thinking up with "if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin"? If sin is automatically atoned for the elect only with Christ's death, why do you need to confess your sin...to be forgiven? It's not both. </font>[/QUOTE]I'll have to hand it to you webdog, you have a very good point on this one. I for one..have no answer for you.

In Christ..James

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by webdog:
Atonement does not mean "forgiven". It means:
1. Agreement
2. Expiation (satisfaciton or reparation)
3. In theology, the expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ.

The entire Bible points to man being "in Christ" for salvation. Christ atoned for sin, all of those IN HIM.

Ok..I can handle this one.

The real meaning of atonement is "covering"..with this meaning "satisfaction for all offense"..or...It is reconciliation with God, of people who have sinned. It is a concept of forgiveness, in the way of payment to God who then covers the sins.

Same idea as in Gen 3...the cover of Adams sin..with the animal skins. If I remember right..this is the very idea from where we get the word. Not sure about that.

In Christ..James

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Jarthur001:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Atonement does not mean "forgiven". It means:
1. Agreement
2. Expiation (satisfaciton or reparation)
3. In theology, the expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ.

The entire Bible points to man being "in Christ" for salvation. Christ atoned for sin, all of those IN HIM.

Ok..I can handle this one.

The real meaning of atonement is "covering"..with this meaning "satisfaction for all offense"..or...It is reconciliation with God, of people who have sinned. It is a concept of forgiveness, in the way of payment to God who then covers the sins.

Same idea as in Gen 3...the cover of Adams sin..we the skins.

In Christ..James </font>[/QUOTE]I dont' know what you mean by "real meaning", but I got mine from Webster's.
You are correct that it is a concept of forgiveness...for those "in Christ".

I've used this lame analogy in the past. I can walk into a restaurant and tell the owner I am paying for everyone's meal. This does not mean that everyone has to eat their meal, or wants to eat a meal, but they are paid for regardless. If you don't want to eat the meal, or are offended by my actions or me, fine, but I still paid for it, and nothing changes that. If the person who is offended and refuses to eat leaves and starves, is it my fault they starved? This is the calvinist argument..."how can you believe that there are people burning in hell who have been atoned for by Christ"? It's a silly argument used to support reformed theology.

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jarthur001:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Atonement does not mean "forgiven". It means:
1. Agreement
2. Expiation (satisfaciton or reparation)
3. In theology, the expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ.

The entire Bible points to man being "in Christ" for salvation. Christ atoned for sin, all of those IN HIM.

Ok..I can handle this one.

The real meaning of atonement is "covering"..with this meaning "satisfaction for all offense"..or...It is reconciliation with God, of people who have sinned. It is a concept of forgiveness, in the way of payment to God who then covers the sins.

Same idea as in Gen 3...the cover of Adams sin..we the skins.

In Christ..James </font>[/QUOTE]I dont' know what you mean by "real meaning", but I got mine from Webster's.
You are correct that it is a concept of forgiveness...for those "in Christ".

I've used this lame analogy in the past. I can walk into a restaurant and tell the owner I am paying for everyone's meal. This does not mean that everyone has to eat their meal, or wants to eat a meal, but they are paid for regardless. If you don't want to eat the meal, or are offended by my actions or me, fine, but I still paid for it. </font>[/QUOTE]Right...A bad choice of words. The "root" word that carries the meaning of atonement has this idea... "covering". I do not have any books to look this up here at work. Yet i'm sure of this. Maybe someone else can help us out.

Yes..it is to all in Christ. I would say Christ work was done in full for those that will someday be saved "in Christ" and this was done...at the cross, and my guess is that you say Christ work at the cross made it so that ALL sins were washed away...yet only can be applied to those that have faith.


In Christ...James

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by webdog:
How do you line this line of thinking up with "if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin"? If sin is automatically atoned for the elect only with Christ's death, why do you need to confess your sin...to be forgiven? It's not both.

I think of it in the same way as I do praying. Jesus says the Father already knows what we need before we ask. So why bother asking? Because it strengthens the proper relationship between you and God. I think the reason for confessing our sins after we're saved is similar. It strengthens our proper relationship with God.

I also think that unconfessed sin has an adverse affect on our lives, even if it no longer condemns us to death. It's the difference between being washed clean (being saved) and having our feet washed (being cleansed periodically afterward). We don't need our whole body washed anymore, but we still need to wash our feet now and then.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by webdog:
I dont' know what you mean by "real meaning", but I got mine from Webster's.
You are correct that it is a concept of forgiveness...for those "in Christ".

But, don't you believe that Jesus' atonement was for everyone? Are you now saying that you believe in "Limited Atonement" but limiting it to all those who are in Christ?

I've used this lame analogy in the past. I can walk into a restaurant and tell the owner I am paying for everyone's meal. This does not mean that everyone has to eat their meal, or wants to eat a meal, but they are paid for regardless. If you don't want to eat the meal, or are offended by my actions or me, fine, but I still paid for it, and nothing changes that. If the person who is offended and refuses to eat leaves and starves, is it my fault they starved? This is the calvinist argument..."how can you believe that there are people burning in hell who have been atoned for by Christ"? It's a silly argument used to support reformed theology.

You are right that it is a lame illustration. There is one major fallacy to your illustration. What free-willers want to happen is that the person whose food was paid for not only decides he doesn't want it, but that he also has to pay for it again even though it has already been paid for.

If you are suggesting that this illustration is what Calvinists believe that you are completely misinformed. Calvinists would hardly make the payment of food an illustration of Christ's atonement, for food is something desireable.

A better illustration would be to say that we are all in a court of law condemned before the judges and someone comes in and tells the judge that they will pay the penalty for a few people's crime. Those whose crime was not paid for look at the judge with disgust and say, "I didn't want him to pay for my crime anyway. In fact, I don't think I am guilty of a crime. In fact, I want to go right back out and do the same things that got me here."

Those whose crime was paid for look at the judge with joy and say, "Thank you for accepting the payment on my behalf that I could never give. I desire to know that person who paid the ransom more." There is absolutely no chance of someone who has been atoned for refusing the atonement. They will gladly accept it because even the accepting was part of the work on the cross.