By faith alone or by faith and acting?

[convicted1]

Luke, I have no idea what argument you're attempting to set up here. I can't find where any of the people you've identified have espoused faith plus works. I see where some are using the rebuttal of the Dort synod to present a position about what arminians believe, instead of simply using Arminius' writings (available at ccel.org) to actually show what Arminius believed and wrote about. It's much easier to argue against someone else's position when you set up their position for them, instead of actually using their own writings.

As I have declared myself in the past, I am an arminian with some calvinistic leanings. To me, the end of the argument for this alleged "faith plus works" position is simply Ephesians 2:8-10. We are saved by grace, through faith, unto good works. We can work at making it more complicated if anyone desires to do so; but simplicity works for me, because I'm about as simple (minded) as they come.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

Faith precedes action, action is simply evidence of the faith that was present beforehand.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Paul here says that any man who calls on Jesus to forgive their sins will be saved. Then he asks "how" can a man call on him in whom they have not believed?

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for your sins and rose from the dead, you are not going to call on him. It is really that simple. The calling on Jesus is simply an evidence of the faith a person already had.

I have heard the analogy of someone running into a crowded theater and shouting, Fire!, fire!. You can easily tell who believes, because they will immediately jump up and head for an exit. Those who do not believe will remain in their seats.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

What are you talking about?

There was another thread started by one on our side that was refuting Calvinism, and why they thought it was wrong. Threads like this gender way more heat than light. Threads like this are attacking the supporter as much as the what is being supported. It broadens the chasm more than brings us closer. It makes it appear than either side is more intellectual than the other.

 

[convicted1]

Faith alone.

Works accompany faith as smoke accompanies fire. They issue from faith. Not by choice or volition, but by nature as smoke issues from fire. They are the signs of faith. Where there are no works, there is no faith.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[kyredneck]

No. It is scriptural. Paul wrote a few books of the bible about it.

Paul also wrote:

......the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:14

......by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16

 

[preacher4truth]

There was another thread started by one on our side that was refuting Calvinism, and why they thought it was wrong. Threads like this gender way more heat than light. Threads like this are attacking the supporter as much as the what is being supported. It broadens the chasm more than brings us closer. It makes it appear than either side is more intellectual than the other.

Brother, respectfully, I think what you are saying is only a superficial look at what is actually going on. I do appreciate your heart in it though. An honest look at this would be revealing.

When one sees a thread started with merely subjective accusations against Calvinists, and there have been many, then we have a problem. The OP wants to argue on his ground of subjective personal experience as though it's true, and then ask for proof, even from Scholars, that what he says isn't true. Of course, that's begging the question as the OP knows scholars haven't commented on his own personal opinions, experiences or subjective beliefs. Typically, other anti-cals come in to offer their pejoratives for "Calvinist" brothers, parades of thumbs, ridicule and other nonsense.

Thus we have thread after thread started against Calvinists, and are meant to be demeaning, and a few actually have the fortitude to say something about them to the OP. More should step up to the plate. If one doesn't step up to the plate to address the OP as being this way, then the crying about it should stop. Anyone can complain about it. It's like the US, a lot of complainers who do nothing about the situation.

We also have threads which lay out the actual truths of Arminianism and non-calvinist theology. Are the actual truths addressed? No. What happens? The same non-cals come into this thread as well to offer pejorative laden comments for the OP, then comes the parade of thumbs, and the actual documented evidence is never discussed. This too turns into an attack on Calvinists.

 

[convicted1]

Brother, respectfully, I think what you are saying is only a superficial look at what is actually going on. I do appreciate your heart in it though. And honest look at this would be revealing.

When one sees a thread started with merely subjective accusations against Calvinists, and there have been many, then we have a problem. The OP wants to argue on his ground of subjective personal experience as though it's true, and then ask for proof, even from Scholars, that what he says isn't true. Of course, that's begging the question as the OP knows scholars haven't commented on his own personal opinions or subjective beliefs. Typically, other anti-cals come in to offer their pejoratives for "Calvinist" brothers, parades of thumbs, ridicule and other nonsense.

Thus we have thread after thread started against Calvinists, and are meant to be demeaning, and a few actually have the fortitude to say something about them to the OP. More should step up to the plate. If one doesn't step up to the plate to address the OP as being this way, then the crying about it should stop. Anyone can complain about it. It's like the US, a lot of complainers that do nothing about the situation.

We also have threads which lay out the actual truths of Arminianism and non-calvinist theology. Are the actual truths addressed? No. What happens? The same non-cals come into this thread as well to offer pejorative laden comments for the OP, then comes the parade of thumbs, and the actual documented evidence is never discussed. This too turns into an attack on Calvinists.

What I am attempting to get at is this: there has to be a better way to make your point than in a demaning fashion. I have been guilty too. It's just we can debate, minus the hate. We can make our point minus vitriol.

 

[preacher4truth]

What I am attempting to get at is this: there has to be a better way to make your point than in a demaning fashion. I have been guilty too. It's just we can debate, minus the hate. We can make our point minus vitriol.

Which is why I believe we should use documentable evidence of beliefs. When these aren't addressed and we instead get the pejoratives directed at the OP then we have a problem. It's called walking in the flesh. Many come in to offer their thumb to others who behave this way.

 

[kyredneck]

What I am attempting to get at is this: there has to be a better way to make your point than in a demaning fashion. I have been guilty too. It's just we can debate, minus the hate. We can make our point minus vitriol.

I fail to see anything demeaning in the OP.

Because he named names? Get real.

Winman didn't seem at all offended.

 

[convicted1]

Which is why I believe we should use documentable evidence of beliefs. When these aren't addressed and we instead get the pejoratives directed at the OP then we have a problem. It's called walking in the flesh. Many come in to offer their thumb to others who behave this way.

OUCH!! :laugh:

 

[convicted1]

I fail to see anything demeaning in the OP.

Because he named names? Get real.

Winman didn't seem at all offended.

It's more like, "well, you don't agree with DoG, so you're dumber than me", or "you don't agree with 'non cal', so I am smarter than you". We can debate minus the hate. I am not the BB police, but we are one the same side, the side of Jesus, and Him crucifed for us. We tend to act like the opposing side is our mortal enemy, and not fellow CHRISTians in Christ.

 

[Luke2427]

There was another thread started by one on our side that was refuting Calvinism, and why they thought it was wrong. Threads like this gender way more heat than light. Threads like this are attacking the supporter as much as the what is being supported. It broadens the chasm more than brings us closer. It makes it appear than either side is more intellectual than the other.

Posts like this accomplish that too.

 

[kyredneck]

It's more like, "well, you don't agree with DoG, so you're dumber than me", or "you don't agree with 'non cal', so I am smarter than you". We can debate minus the hate. I am not the BB police, but we are one the same side, the side of Jesus, and Him crucifed for us. We tend to act like the opposing side is our mortal enemy, and not fellow CHRISTians in Christ.

Wow, are you reading the same OP as I am? Where in the world are you getting all of this? I don't see any of it.

Methinks you carry your feelings in your hands along with an imagination working overtime. Go get some sleep Willis.

 

[convicted1]

Wow, are you reading the same OP as I am? Where in the world are you getting all of this? I don't see any of it.

Methinks you carry your feelings in your hands along with an imagination working overtime. Go get some sleep Willis.

Well I do think it is my bedtime, seeing that I work the hoot owl shift. :laugh:


Now to the OP, faith w/o works is dead. W/O works, there is no faith.

 

[convicted1]

My apologies.

I am sorry if I have come off as the "BB police". I just want us to disagree in love, and not vitriol. If I have offended anyone, please forgive me. That wasn't my attempt.

 

[Aaron]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Pay very close attention to what I said. Don't be so quick to agree with me. What I said is the antithesis of your chair analogy.

 

[convicted1]

Pay very close attention to what I said. Don't be so quick to agree with me. What I said is the antithesis of your chair analogy.

Be aware Bro. Aaron, that there are some Calvinistic tendencies I hold to. While I may not agree entirely with what you said, I agree that works show who we have our faith in.

 

[Benjamin]

What I’m hearing here is that some Calvinists don’t believe in the kind of faith of which they could freely respond…err…act upon it in love of the truth; apparently they wish to strongly believe/attempt to prove that they had to be determined to respond…err act only after the gift of grace through faith was forced on them, so what else is new?! This tread seems to be just another way to express the same point (Hard/hyper Determinism). I'm just curious as to what do they call their "action" if not free, a determined response/action because of “hate of the truth”?

 

[webdog]

Since I have the author of the op on ignore, but was able to see it due to Willis quoting it in it's entirety (gee, thanks Willis ) and have been asked a question I will respond.

Question for Skandelon, Webdog, Winman, Quantum, and the other non-cals:
What ACT along side of faith must we perform to be saved?

Nothing. As my 4 year old would say, "easy, peasy"

 

[Phillip]

Arminians do not believe in sola fide. I think they give lip service to it and may even think they believe in it, but if the last thread along these lines is any indication, it is apparent that they are at their core not sola fide.

What was said numerous times was that you must believe AND ACT UPON THAT FAITH.

Salvation is therefore not by grace alone through faith alone but through faith plus some ACT that you perform once you have faith.

Support for that line of reasoning came in the form of various proof texts like "Faith without works is dead."

But don't we all really know that what James is saying is that TRUE FAITH will manifest itself in the performance of godly works?

Who REALLY thinks that James meant by that that salvation comes once you believe AND start performing works?

Peter said, "Believe AND be baptized... and you shall be saved." But Peter goes on to clarify what he meant by saying, "Whoever does not believe will be damned."

So OBVIOUSLY Peter was saying that it is FAITH that saves us from damnation- not faith AND baptism.

Only the Calvinist can cling to sola fide (I know some Calvinists have not, but only the Calvinist really can). Because only the Calvinist recognizes that faith is something through which we are ACTUALLY saved- not potentially saved. And only the Calvinist understands that faith is not a choice but a condition.

Question for Skandelon, Webdog, Winman, Quantum, and the other non-cals:
What ACT along side of faith must we perform to be saved?

In other words, if I understand you correctly, you say one must ACT upon his faith to be saved. Faith alone is not enough to save because, as you say, "the devils believe" and are not saved.

So what work or ACT upon our faith (faith that does not save us by itself) must we perform?

This is interesting because the pastor at the IFB church I HAVE been attending determines if children were old enough to be saved by whether they start acting better for a week before he will baptize them. This is the way he did my grandson and I'm not convinced my grandson even understands the salvation grace given by Jesus' sacrifice. He's 7 years old and his dad (who is now a church "elder" (been divorced so he can't be a deacon, but he's an elder after two years of church membership)) sat with the preacher for several hours discussing his behavior the past week to determine if it had changed enough to meet the requirements of the Bible for a "saved" person.

They decided he was and dunked the kid. Sadly, I am afraid he will go through exactly what I did; a lot of years of confusion, indecision and pain. Due to the fact my mother talked me into walking the isle because she thought God was dealing with me. Don't get me wrong. My mother was one of the best Christians I know, but for some reason I wasn't meant to be saved that day.