arminians are they saved?

So apparently, Spurgeon thought that heretics made it to heaven. Interesting twist, there.

 

Scott,
Are you calling "Wesley" a heretic and immplying that he is not w/ Christ?

 

As has been discussed before, Spurgeon called Arminianism a heresy. Arminians are saved, just like all Christians, by Who they know and Whose work they are trusting in, not by having all of one's theological ducks in the correct Biblical rows.

There are basics of the faith that all must believe as they affect how we live and there is no doubt in a true Christian's mind that the Bible teaches these. Differing opinions on how God brings about salvation(which is what the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate is really only about) I do not see as disqualifying anyone from being in heaven.

That's how I see it anyway.

Ken

 

I guess that explains why Jesus didn't give the thief on the cross a theology exam before telling him he'd be joining Him in paradise.

 

Nah, because Spurgeon is not the Judge of humanity.

BTW, I'm still waiting on your proof that Arminians really aren't Armianians as you promised about three weeks ago.

 

Scott emerson writes in regards to Spurgeon holding to the opinion that Heaven would indeed have *Arminians* there.......

"So apparently, Spurgeon thought that heretics made it to heaven. Interesting twist, there."

Scott Bushey previously asked:
Scott,
Are you calling "Wesley" a heretic and implying that he is not w/ Christ?

Scott Emerson's response (In an interesting same sort of *smug* fashion previously exhibited):

"Nah, because Spurgeon is not the Judge of humanity."

Scott Bushey writes:
I don't really understand your above response as it contradicts what you previously said. You said that it is "an intersting twist that Spurgeon would state that *heretics* made it to Heaven".
So, if Wesley is Arminian, he must be (as per what you have voluntered) a heretic. I guess Luther is in Hell also as he was a consubstantianist. Did I misunderstand you?

Scott Emerson writes in regards to a previous post of mine........

BTW, I'm still waiting on your proof that Arminians really aren't Armianians as you promised about three weeks ago.

Scott Bushey writes:
First of all, it was 8 days ago; not 21. Also, Arminians, ala J. Arminius or the Remonstrants, IMO, do not exist today; that was the premise of my previously made statement to you.
If you were to walk into any (what you call) Arminian assembly and ask them whether or not they embraced Arminianism in the way it was taught back in the 1600's they would say no.

The articles.........

Article 3 & 4 of the remonstants ,concerning "perseverance" state:

True believers call fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently.
True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish.

A DECLARATION OF THE SENTIMENTS OF ARMINIUS:

Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.

Q & A By Arminius:
NINE QUESTIONS
Exhibited, by the Deputies of the Synod, to Their Lordships the
Curators of the University of Leyden, for the Purpose of Obtaining
an Answer to each of them from the Professors of Divinity; and the
Replies which James Arminius Gave to them, in November, 1605.
With Other Nine Opposite Questions

8. May any man who has faith and retains it, arrive at such a moment, as, if he were then to die, he would be damned?

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

Since Election to salvation comprehends within its limits not only Faith, but likewise perseverance in Faith; and since St. Augustine says, "God has chosen to salvation those who he sees will afterwards believe by the aid of his preventing or preceding grace, and who will persevere by the aid of his subsequent or following grace; "believers and the elect are not correctly taken for the same persons. Omitting, therefore, all notice of the word "Election," I reply, believers are sometimes so circumstanced, as not to produce, for a season, any effect of true faith, not even the actual apprehension of grace and the promises of God, nor confidence or trust in God and Christ; yet this is the very thing which is necessary to obtain salvation. But the apostle says, concerning faith, in reference to its being a quality and a capability of believing, "some, having cast away a good conscience concerning faith, have made shipwreck."

Scott Bushey writes:
It sure looks as if Arminius believed this idea which I previously posted. Either that or he contradicts himself alot! Whatever the case, it is, as you previously noted, Pelagian and it does most definately deny justification by faith alone.

[ November 14, 2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Spurgeopn states that Arminianism is a heresy. He states that Wesley is a man of God. Since Wesley is Arminian, one may conclude that Spurgeon believes that heretics can make it into heaven. Does this make it easier for you?

[/quote]First of all, it was 8 days ago; not 21. Also, Arminians, ala J. Arminius or the Remonstrants, IMO, do not exist today; that was the premise of my previously made statement to you.[/quote]

Sure they do. There are more Southern Baptists who lean Arminian than there are Calvinists! By your logic, there exist no more Calvinists, and it would appear that you believe that there are, indeed, Calvinists in this world.

Such assertions are merely that - you provide no form of proof here.

And if we continue, we see that this was not held by all the Remonstrants. Some denied that a person could fall from faith. This is why the Remonstrants ended with:

So as you can see. The Remonstrants did not believe fully that a person could lose their salvation. This was something they were wrestling with.

Your own quote says that Arminius did not believe that a person caould fall from grace. He echoes the statement that a "diligent inquiry" is needed to determine whether a person could or could not lose his or her salvation.

In his works, later, Arminius writes, (Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols [Baker Book House, 1986], Vol. 1, pp. 741)

If you read closely, Arminius states that is possible for the person to lose faith - not salvation. Thanks for posting these quotes: It helps to prove my point.

I'm afraid you either didn't read the complete quote or didn't read the quote closely enough. Reading the entire body of Arminius' work, we see someone who wrestles with the idea of perseverence of the saints. He never came to a conclusion on the issue. Therefore, one can call themselves Arminian with or without believing in eternal security.

 

Scott,
Wrestling with the issue is the point. It being that he couldn't resolve the equation in his own mind, proves that Arminius did not embrace "persevering". Not embracing perseverance, implies one embraces something-correct?

One of the most central components of the Christian faith is justification by faith alone. Christ justifies alone. If Christ justifies, men persevere. Denying perseverace is tantamount to saying that the justification is by works.

 

Not at all. This is a logical fallacy. If I wrestle with the issue of whether homosexuality is a sin in the bible, does that mean I embrace homosexuality? If I wrestle with the raptiure coming before the tribulation, does that mean that I am anti-pre-tribulation? Come on, Scott. You know better than that.

Which, if you read, is the Arminian viewpoint.

This is a logical leap without support. It is an if...then statement that does not necessarily lead as you have stated it.

Even the remonstrants who did not believe in perseverance take pains in explaining that we are not saved by works. You have to be completely missing the majority of Arminius' or the Remonstrants writings to be believing that they believed that justification was by works. The literature is not in your favor, and you have been unable to show texts by the authors to support what you are stating.

 

Romans 8:29-30 - For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified these He also glorified.

 

Scott Bushey writes:
Denying perseverace is tantamount to saying that the justification is by works.

Scott Emerson responds:
Even the remonstrants who did not believe in perseverance take pains in explaining that we are not saved by works. You have to be completely missing the majority of Arminius' or the Remonstrants writings to be believing that they believed that justification was by works. The literature is not in your favor, and you have been unable to show texts by the authors to support what you are stating.

Scott Bushey reiterates:
Scott, I hear you and that is my point, they say "this", yet undermine it with "that". Their theology contradicts. They are confused! This was Dordts concession. The confusion creates heresy. *No perseverance, but not a work. So, based upon this premise, what does it imply? God can't deliver to Christ that which He promised because of.........what? Because 1 of 2 things. Either God is impotent and not able to justify or man is saved by works and not justified by faith alone.

 

Question, Rev. G: Would you say that there is a difference in reading this passage with a Jewish lens as opposed to the lens you are using now to interpret this passage?

 

No. First, the point is that those who are justified ARE glorified. In other words, they persevered. This is true regardless of the ethnic lens. Second, it was written to Roman Christians by the Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

No. First, the point is that those who are justified ARE glorified. In other words, they persevered. This is true regardless of the ethnic lens. Second, it was written to Roman Christians by the Apostle to the Gentiles.</font>[/QUOTE]I was referring more to the term "whom." I was speaking with a Messianic Jew the other Sunday (actually, he's the executive director of Jews for Jesus) who makes a huge statement in that a reading of Romans 8-11 with a Jewish lens lends heavy support to the Arminian position. I found that very interesting.

 

Yes, and I find it very interesting that Messianic Jews tend to be Dispensationalists.

Rev. G

 

As for the "Free Will" aspect of the what is the modern term "Arminian" I, like millions of my fellow Christians, claim to be Arminian.

As for the statement quoted above - we stronglhy approve such strong support for Christ's own teaching on "Forgiveness revoked" in Matt 18:23:35.

We approve suppot of Paul's concept of "Fallen from Grace" in Gal 5:1-6.

Approve those who support Ezekiel's - teaching/warnding about returning to the penalty of death in Ezek 18.

And not wanting to go on and on with the list of Biblical examples of the statement listed above - I simply add - the amen.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 15, 2002, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

The problem is stated in this fashion;

The response is given in a way that seems to support both the Arminian concept of "God Drawing ALL mankind" and that draing (John 12:32) being sufficient to enable the ability to choose - and the subsequent choice.

Having appealed to that very same (?) drawing power of God - "I will draw ALL mankind" John 12:32 that ENABLES the choice that is disabled due to the weakness of the sinful nature - Rev G seems to turn it back into a kind of doublespeak as follows

All agree that it is the enabling drawing power of God "I will draw ALL mankind" John 12:32 that MAKES this choice possible. But since God "decides" to "Draw ALL mankind" THAT "deciding factor" is not "different" from one person to the next. And so the term "deciding factor" requires that we identify what is DIFFERENT from case to case - not what is the SAME.

ALL mankind is "DRAWN" but not "ALL mankind" choose life after that drawing - nor does "ALL mankind" choose death AFTER being DRAWN.

What IS different is that SOME will choose life while many of those drawn - do not.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 15, 2002, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

But in fact we explored the distinct - unique - Calvinist terms and discovered three obvious things -
#1. Strong support for them on this board.
#2. They were NOT the terms listed above
#3. They are NOT used in Calvinist evangelism - but RATHER the terms above are used.

And of course we "Discovered' that not one of the pro-Calvinist responses claimed to be following that point - observing the obvious in this case. As if we could forget the sequence of posts. Point - and counterpoint. A curious tendency.

The "distintives" of 5 point Calvinism manifest themselves in these statements

The Calvinist response to those statements - hidden from view at the typical Calvinist evangelist crusade

#1. Strong support for these calvinist terms even on this board.
#2. YET STILL no one shows them used in Evangelism
#3. but RATHER the terms Rev G quoted are the ones used by Arminans And Calvinist evangelists as follows.

Christian terms? Yes! Distincitives of Calvinism? No. In fact most often denied by Calvinism that does NOT belive that Christ died for YOU (and that means all of You that are in attendance), that Christ is calling you (all mankind, all in attendance at the meeting) to repent such that the same Gospel of grace is made applicable to ALL of those in attendance.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 15, 2002, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

No, "Calvinist" evangelists haven't typically gone around (as "Arminians" have) saying "Christ died for you." But that is probably because we don't see this method employed in the evangelism in Acts.

Yes, "Calvinist" evangelists have typically gone around saying "God commands everyone everywhere, including YOU, to repent of your sins and to believe on Christ." This is probably because we see this method employed in the evangelism in Acts.

Rev. G