Common Ground Clavinist, Armenien

Pluto? It's a tiny gas world. Free-willers can go there first. We'll catch up later.

 

Do you mean Arminians? If so, yes, every week at a luncheon, I get together with believers of the above-mentioned and we share from each others ministry, while respecting each others distinctives.

 

...only if it's predestined

 

You're so funny. :laugh:

 

1. I'm a five point Calvinist without reservation, because it is all biblical.

2. Just preach away without using the labels, because they raised red flags among those who are anti or not properly educated in the Doctrines of Grace.

3. Charles Haddon Spurgeon says it best, "Calvinism is a nickname for the gospel."

 

Since Romans 8 - 10 is dealing with Israel, (the elect)...if it was used to prove individual election unto salvation, I would be negative, too.

 

For the record, Calvinists are Calvinistic in theology, and they baptize infants

Armenians are a group of eastern orthodox folks from Armenia

Arminians, in the beginning, followed the teachings of Jacob Van Harmin (Jacobus Arminius), a Dutch Calvinist who wanted to modify scholastic "high" calvinism to a degree.

Most of his followers quickly moved toward rank liberalism, even denying penal substitution in favor of Hugo Grotius' Governmental Atonement Theory.

Most Bible believers who think they are Arminian aren't.

Any Baptist who considers himself to be a calvinist probablly is not, and most baptists aren't Arminians either.

 

In context, though, chapters 8-10 are dealing with the nation of Israel.

I agree not to disregard them...but know what they mean in context.

It does have a lot to say...about Israel, and not individual salvation.

 

(check the title of thread)

Clavinist? I have played a Yamaha Clavinova in the past. Does that make me a clavinist?



Carry on...

 

As a person of Armenian descent (my great-grandfather was a refugee from the Turkish genocide in the early 20th century)....

And as someone who considers himself generally Arminian ...

I will say that there is much common ground between classical Arminans and Calvinists. Both are thoroughly evangelical and committed to the sovereignty of God (though Arminians believe that the sovereignty does not require unconditional personal election). Both belief in the complete and total depravity of humanity apart from the grace of God. Arminians just believe in prevenient grace to enable a response from the unbeliever.

However, there are definitely major differences in thinking, especially on the prospect of the loss of salvation, as classical Arminians, though they do not believe that salvation is lost very often (typically only in the case of intentional apostasy), they do not affirm the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance.

Nevertheless, classical Arminians have much more in common with Calvinists on perseverance than either group has with those of Charles Stanley's ilk. Simply put, Calvinists and classical Arminians both believe that those who continually believe will be in a continual state of grace. Neither group, though, would endorse the idea that one can be saved one minute, renounce the faith and then somehow remain irrevocably in a state of grace. Calvinists would deny that this person was ever truly saved, whereas Arminians might say that the salvation never occurred, or the individual apostasized, thereby losing his salvation. Neither side believes in saved unbelievers.

Of course, once you get past the Arminianism of Arminius himself and into the realm of Wesley and other "Arminians," all bets are off. It is quite difficult to find much common ground between a Wesleyan holiness theologian who believes in a "here today, gone tomorrow, here again the next day, gone by Friday" soteriology and a traditional Calvinist. You'll hit everything from a governmental theory of the atonement to near full-blown Pelagianism in some circles.

Though theologically suspect, the phrase "Dr. Arminius would roll in his grave" sounds remarkably suitable.

Then again, I think the labels are horribly inaccurate in most cases. In a theological world where Norm Geisler can run around claiming to be a "Moderate Calvinist" (actually a confused 0-point Calvinist, as he redefines all of TULIP), I suppose labels are useless.

EDIT: typo

 

Yes, before GOD as EVERY knee shall bow and where EVERY tongue shall confess Jesus as LORD!

 

Get your heresies straight. The hyper-dispensationalist position on Romans is about Romans 9-11, not 8-10. Romans 8 teaches on a lot of things that are vital to every believer, not just about the Grace question (sanctification, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the ministry of the Spirit to all of God's people, etc. ) Paul starts addressing Israel in 9:1, but not Israel exclusively. The hyper-dispensationalist erasure of scripture by the "Israel" card concerns chapters 9-11. Paul is talking in 9-11 about his own grappling with the issue of his lost loved ones (Israel), but not exclusively about them. Indeed, Romans 10:9-10 refers to "the Word of Faith that we preach," and only the most hyper of hyper-dispies would say that Paul preached two different gospels, one for Israel and one for the church. Romans 9-11 teaches that gentile believers have been grafted into Israel, not that we have replaced Israel, but that some of the branches were cut off to allow us to be grafted in. "Rightly dividing the word of Truth" can never be implemented with a hatchet. You cannot escape Romans 8:28-39 with the Israel Card, and much of 9-11 is also univerally applicable. The hyper-dispie, hyper-arminian views are just as incorrect as the hyper-calvinist views.

When the Bible says that Christ "tasted death for every man," that is universal. When the Bible says that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, that is the whole world. Similarly, when the word "elect" is used, or "election" or any of the synonyms, it usually is talking about individuals, not nations, and when it does talk about national Israel, that does not solve any problems for those who want to deny God's Sovereignty in salvation, rather it creates more problems. There are paradoxes hard to understand (2 pet 3:15-18) in Paul's writings, but that does not give us the right to cut out of the Bible parts that we don't like. And, as Page Patterson says, we cannot escape the universal nature of the atonement by the "facile handling" of texts we don't like. If "Jabob I have loved and Esau I have hated" offends you, you only reduce the scope of the problem by attempting to erase it with the Israel Visa Card--it still raises questions.

As with the Trinity, there are some things we just must believe, whether we understand them or not (Job discovered this--Job 42:1-6). For me, the important distinction is this: God tells us some things because He wants us to believe them and know they are true (usually to destroy our pride), and He tells us some things because He wants us to do something about them. Any understanding of this issue which causes "calvinists" to back off one inch from the spreading of the Gospel is wrong. Similarly, any understanding of this issue which places one iota of our salvation as being "our contribution" is wrong. God did not tell us about Rom 8:28-39, Eph 1:3-14, 1 Thes 1:1-10, etc., to cause us to back off in our soulwinning--He told us those things to humble us before Him. Similarly, He did not tell us about Mat 28:19-20 to cause us to generate some plan of man to win the lost, but to give us HIS way to win the lost.

Instead of not reading and studying the parts you don't like, deal with them, you may find out that you are neither calvinist nor arminian.

 

:thumbs: What you said Major B!

I never could figure out how the logic that Romans 9 was dealing with Israel exclusively avoids God electing some and not electing others!

 

Pastor Faulk,

Per your OP, I would first acknowledge that scripture speaks of both free will and predestination, ergo, it obliges us all to discover how thoes factors play out theologically.

Second, I would say that regardless of which theology one believes, salvation comes through believing on Christ -- actually turning/repenting from our sin (To His blood) and from our life (to His flesh) to Him. That is the entire meaning of communion, BTW -- that we must partake of His death (drink His blood) for sin (unto eternal life) and partake of His life (eat His flesh) in order to have "abundant life" here and now (John 10:10).

Now, had God already figured out which ones were "elect?" Sure! Were we "elect" even before we believed? Yes, because that question presumes what is patently true -- that we believe now. Does that take the responsibility off of us to repent and accept Christ? No, else we are unbelievers and non-elect!

But there are no "elect" unbelievers. That is precluded by the "law of noncontradiction" -- no one thing can be another in the same way at the same time.

The point is to get everyone to "point A" (saved/justified) -- "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph 4:3-6 This is the unity of the saved in Christ -- even of the babe in Christ!

"Point B" (sanctification) is this -- "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.... 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; Eph 4:8,11-13 This is the "grown man" -- mature Christian -- that knows God's mind together with the rest of the church.

Notice it doesn't say we bring our theology in from outside the fellowship. To some extent, I believe that BSF has tried to operate this way. Their only probelm is they do not insist upon members meeting the first "hurdle" to unity -- that is, persoanal salvation in Christ.

No, I doubt there will be unity until we use the words of scripture alone and acknowledge the scriptural context and meaning of terms we now so glibbly bandy about in our little cliques.

skypair