Calvinist and Arminiam Debate

James,
Great post. Calvinist doctrine is absoulety 100% for missions. Matt 28:19 is quite clear. How any credible doctrine could exclude missions is beyond not Scriptural.

The question comes to mind, why would anyone send out missionaries for a purpose other than sharing the Gospel with the lost? If they already know the Gospel, what on earth are you doing when there are lost people next door? It is our job to share the Gospel, their reaction to it is a work of the Holy Spirit. And if as said above in another post, missionaries are sent out to tell the Gospel "already known to God" but maybe not them yet, it would be really interesting to know how one would know who is "already known to God" so no mistakes are made.

We wonder sometimes why there are so many denominations today from the one church that started in Acts. This is a great example. Lets make a church based on excluding Matt 28:19 and Matt 5:32. Or lets make one based on no musical instruments. Or baptism to be saved. On and on it goes.

 

Thanks for your input and explanation.

I did not come out here to save souls, but to be God's tool to save souls. And it is amazing that where there are missionaries who proclaim the Gospel, God elects souls--and the countries which do not have missionaries are still heathen!

So where are the Primitive Baptist missionaries in Japan? This is a serious question, I'm not mocking or anything. I've never met nor heard of a Primitive Baptist missionary.

I appreciate this. And I appreciate that you did stick around and fellowship for awhile on the missions/evangelism thread. You know where to find me anytime!:wavey:

To my knowledge you have never insulted my grandfather, John R. Rice. If you did, you and me would find a dojo somewhere and do some kumite to work it out, you old karateka. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm glad to know this. I'll keep an eye out for you on the missions/evangelism forum. You know where to find me!

Wonderful story! Thanks for sharing it.

I don't see how anyone could claim to truly follow Jesus and be His disciple, Calvinist or Arminian or whatever in between, without obeying His commands to the "11 disciples" (Matthew's Great Commission), "the eleven" (Mark), the eleven and those who were gathered with them (therefore, the church in Luke), "the disciples" (John) and the apostles (Acts).

 

Well, no, it is not that God elects souls because there are missionaries in a given place. Whether or not there are missionaries in any given place at any given chronological period, God has elected certain souls unto salvation, and saved those souls in Christ, and will regenerate them by His Spirit with or without the gospel being preached to them.
Gospel instruction as to kingdom living here in time, though, as well as doctrines, is what preaching and teaching is all about and is what Paul meant, when he wrote Romans 10:14-15.

But, let's save discussing those if and when they open the C/A board again.

Until then, we can probably start a thread here or there in the debate forums.

 

God sent Paul into a place at one point with the statement, because "I have many people in that city", indicating the urgent need for evangelization of them. God knows them that are His and allows us to be HIs voice and share in passing on the good news to them!

 

Grace and Peace DeaconDean and to everyone else,

If you don't mind allow me to address a few points to your post. I believe you and others have some preconienved assumptions about me and my points regardless if they are Classic Arminian or not.

As I have pointed out in my views on this whole matter I don't suggest that man saves himself (palgarianism). I've never said that; please read any of my posts and I'll be happy to stand on anything that I've said.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: - Ephesians 2:8

I nor anyone who has argued suggest that we are saved by merit or through the Law but 'by Grace through Faith', period. My belief is that Calvinist Theology has a very different view of exactly what the second half of this two part recipe is. My guess is that we both would agree on what Grace is (i.e. God's unmerited favor) but I believe we each share a different view of exactly what 'faith' means in this verse and what role we play in it.

I can appreciate Calvinism for it's attempt to insure that salvation remain ultimately a work of God and not a work of man 'least any man should boast' but it is my belief that Calvinist reduction of the salvific work to remove 'wholly' man's response to Grace is in error. Good intention but ultimately the wrong outcome. By removing 'wholly' man's response to God's Grace Calvinism has removed man's responsibility for his condition (that being sinful).

 

I visited a Reformed Baptist Church yesterday. They support several missionaries and the pastor's son is leaving for Africa this morning. No shortage of missionary zeal there.

Debate is good. Without debate,we would not have the reformation. Ever heard of the "95 thesis" of Martin Luther? What was he doing? He was inviting debate. The "Diatribe" of Erasmus gave birth to "The Bondage of the Will" by Luther, one of the great works in church history. How about the Canons of Dordt? A product of debate. Bunyan's life was a life of debate against the edictorial Church of England.

I know some folks that refuse to get bogged down in debate but not because they are opposed to debating - they just have a other things to do that God has called them to.

I wonder the author that spoke against debating was really saying that we shouldn't waste our time debating with someone that has their mind made up. If that's the case, then I agree. I could name a number of people in my life (not even counting BB members) that I will not speak to about doctrine for that very reason. I'll be more than glad to if they have questions and display a willingness to think about what I'm saying, but if they just want to argue, forget it.

PUBLIC debate, such as internet forums like BB, is a different story. The endless merry-go-round between C and A may seem fruitless, but we look to present our arguments in a way that will hopefully convince someone that is looking on, that haven't closed their minds.

Debate also helps us individually to sharpen our language and biblical skills. And most importantly, it challenges us to think and re-think our positions, to be sure that we really believe what we say we believe, and that that belief is grounded in the truth of scripture.

 

Let me give this quote:

""you [Arminians] ... say that the Augustinian tradition subordinates the love of God to the will of God ... But this is not what distinguishes the Augustinian tradition from the Arminian tradition. The distinction is between intensive and extensive love, between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular.

Or if you really wish to cast this in terms of willpower, it's the distinction between divine willpower and human willpower. Or, to put the two together, does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done?

The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?"
- Steve Hays

Charles Spurgeon said:

"What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, 'I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,' marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow."

Calvinism depends wholey on the working of God. While Arminianism preaches man working in co-operation with God. That is why I reject Arminianism.

Questions that must be answered biblically by all Arminians:
What makes you to differ from others? Grace or faith? If your neighbor was given the same grace as you prior to faith, why do you believe in Christ, while your unbelieving neighbor does not? How did your hostility to Christ turn to love for Him? Is this something you were innately gifted with (but not your neighbor?) Is it grace that makes you to differ from other men or your free will? If by grace then why don't all men have the same response? As a natural man were you more spiritually sensitive, wise or did you naturually generate affection for Christ? Did you disarm your own hostility to Christ? Was the humility itself needed to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel, from grace or from your autonomous free will? Does God love you because of your obedience to His command to believe? Does not that make the love of God conditional, in the Arminian scheme? Can you thank God for your faith? Or is this the one thing you can thank yourself for?

Everybody I talk to rejects the God of Calvin because they think all actions, even the sinfull ones are "predetermined" or "predestinated" by God. No man can act outside of what God has predestinated for them. They reject Calvinism because we preach "predestination" as stated in Eph. 1:5. Yes God did predestinate me to be one of His before the founding of the world. They reject Calvinism because they say it limits "free-will" which Arminianism stands for. I say, they are wrong. Predestination does not limit "free-will." What if one who is "predestinated" to be one of the "elect," lives a lifetime of sin. And upon his death bed he/she comes to the realization that they are going to die without Jesus and spend an eternity in hell. So they accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior just before they die. Does that work against predestination and free-will? No it does not. Predestination simply says that we were chosen to be His before the world was founded, it never says when we are to come to Him. Predestination does not counter "free-will."

"Oh!" saith the Arminian, "men may be saved if they will." We reply, "My dear sir, we all believe that; but it is just the "if they will" that is the difficulty. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he be drawn; nay, we do not assert it, but Christ himself declares it--"Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;' and as long as that "ye will not come' stands on record in Holy Scripture, we shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will." It is strange how people, when talking about free-will, talk of things which they do not at all understand. "Now," says one, "I believe men can be saved if they will." My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful. supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ. You reply, that men sometimes are willing, without the help of the Holy Spirit. I answer--Did you ever meet with any person who was?... "

- C.H. Spurgeon (Human Inability)

I question whether we have preached the whole counsel of God, unless predestination with all its solemnity and sureness be continually declared.

- C.H. Spurgeon (Sermons, Vol. 6, p. 26)


That and so much more is why I reject Arminianism.

Till all are one.

 

First time I've seen the answers to poll questions as questions!

We used to have a C-A debate thread where all the C-A debates could rage away from us innocent people! I wish they would bring that thread back -- please! raying: It would help to keep them out of our hair on other threads.

 

I really wish we could put the whole Calvinism/mission/evangelism issue to rest once and for all. There may be some hyper-Calvinists out there who don't believe in evangelizing, but they're disobeying the commands in the Bible. I personally have never come across a reformed church (even reformed Presbyterian) that didn't have a great concern for evangelism and missions.



​

 

You have my vote on this, Marcia!

 

Npetreley, on the BB, some of the Calvinists attack any kind of evangelism that doesn't fit their own pattern, often using loaded terms such as "decisional regeneration" and "salvation by a prayer." (I know you don't do this.) I was once attacked this way, and it wasn't even a C/A thread. The attack was full of misconceptions about how I do evangelism, which could have been avoided if the poster had just asked instead of telling me what I do! This approach by BB Calvinists simply perpetuates the stereotype! :type:

 

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. -Jude 1:3.

If what we sometimes refer to as the "Doctrines of Grace" were delivered unto the saints, and I believe they were, then they should be contended for. Some doctrines cause contention and debate, but we should expect the truth to have that effect.

 

We should expect the truth to have that effect, but who says the truth resides in how you understand the Scripture.