If you are not Reformed, you cannot believe in eternal security

[HankD]

The five points are the rebuttal to the five articles, but you are missing the fact that Arminianism is of Calvinistic trajectory (it is Calvinism except where it departed).

There are people who believe men are born with the ability to turn to God if afforded the opportunity. This is a denial of Arminianism by definition (it denies articles 3 and 4). But it is also a denial of Calvinism (it denies total depravity).

My argument is that all five points or articles are essential to the theology of each camp, otherwise they would not have been expressed. A denial of one of them is a denial of that theological system. There is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist. A Calvinist who is moderate is moderate not because he rejects an essential doctrine of Calvinism but because of his stance on how that doctrine is defined. If you reject Limited Atonement then you are not a Calvinist because you reject Calvinism as it has been defined. There is no such thing as a 4 Article Arminian either. If you reject total depravity as defined in the articles of the Remonstrants, then you reject Arminianism. If you reject the idea of predestination as defined by Arminianism, then you do not belong in that camp.

I guess that makes me "Mister Nowhere Man" except of course I know where and with whom I am going.

HankD

 

[HankD]

But your devil is a Barney Fife devil, Hank. [emoji48]

Uh, only have one bullet in my Gun?

HankD

 

[JonC]

I guess that makes me "Mister Nowhere Man" except of course I know where and with whom I am going.

HankD

Or a "Christian" .

 

[JonC]

If you deny all 5 points of Calvinism, I presume that's what you meant, or did you the 5 Arminian Remonstrants? If the former, you are Arminian by definition, whether you accept it or not. I like these people who say "I'm neither', when in fact we all are one or the other.

Arminianism holds that men do not possess the means to save himself. It holds that natural man is in a state of apostasy and sin, unable of himself to think, will, or do anything that is truly good (such as saving faith is). Men must be born again and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will and all of his faculties in order to understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good.

There are many Christians who deny both Calvinism and Arminianism. I don't say this for debate because it is a clear fact. There are some who believe men are born with the capacity to do good, to turn to God. This is a denial of both Calvinism and Arminianism. The only other avenue is to declare these people false Christians by adding to the gospel a requirement that excludes anthropological error or misunderstanding. Regardless, the belief that men posses of their own will the ability to turn to God excludes people from the Arminian camp by definition.

 

[Baptist Believer]

There is only ONE WAY to have certainty that one that day or period that you KNEW you were saved, that you would make it to glory, is if you believe the truth of Reformed Theology.

Nope. Just not true. Some of us are already experiencing the Kingdom of God in action. I have respect for Reformed Theology, but I have significant differences with it too. Fortunately, my faith is not tied to a man-made formula.

I think Arminians have never really thought out what they believe...

Not sure you have either. Any knowledgable person on this site could tear your assertions apart, but that won't help you change your mind.

Take a deep breath, relax, and now talk to people about the issues, one by one, and see if your views hold up.

 

[TCassidy]

The five points are the rebuttal to the five articles, but you are missing the fact that Arminianism is of Calvinistic trajectory (it is Calvinism except where it departed).

Which is why I eschew the words "Calvinist" and "Arminian." Neither are accurate representations of what I believe the bible teaches.

Most people in this discussion seem to be unaware that James Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED Calvinist preacher! His only disagreement with what so many call "Calvinism" was on the subject of election. He believed election was based on God looking down through the ages and seeing who would believe and who would not and electing those who would believe unto salvation.

Of course, the objection to that idea is that God is Omniscient. He already knows everything. The idea of Him looking down the ages of history to see who would believe and who wouldn't is a denial of God's Omniscience. If God learned who would be saved and who wouldn't, then he learned something He didn't previously know. And that means He was not Omniscient before learning who would be saved. God does not change. And learning something new is a change. Conditional election, in this context, is a denial of the very Nature of God Himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wrong, try again. Yes the synergist can be assured if YOU WORK, but since God has no say so in your salvation, its ultimately up to you, and you never know you can have a "Job" experience, and what arrogance to say 'oh i'd be fine", no you have NO ASSURANCE, you were the one determining salvation, you are the one determining whether you'll stay.

BTW Arminius was more Church or Rome than Protestant, as are modern liberal Baptists. Funny saw a debate Dr James White vs Roman Catholic on eternal security, the Catholic sounded EXACTLY like a liberal Baptist, and you ARE ON THEIR SIDE. Luther Himself said Free Will was the main point difference between Rome and the Protestants (Bondage of the Will), to be clear, in regards to soteriology, non-reformed Christians agree more with Rome on the weightier matters, and if on a debate stage you'd have to take their side. Only true Reformed Theology is unique among all world Religions, islam, Mormonism, liberal Baptists, doesn't matter, all the same, ALL OUR SYNERGISTIC, the Bible is MONERGISTIC, so sad you won't follow it!

Funny thing is that even Arminius himself was not sure that we could lose salvation or not!

 

[JonC]

Which is why I eschew the words "Calvinist" and "Arminian." Neither are accurate representations of what I believe the bible teaches.

Most people in this discussion seem to be unaware that James Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED Calvinist preacher! His only disagreement with what so many call "Calvinism" was on the subject of election. He believed election was based on God looking down through the ages and seeing who would believe and who would not and electing those who would believe unto salvation.

Of course, the objection to that idea is that God is Omniscient. He already knows everything. The idea of Him looking down the ages of history to see who would believe and who wouldn't is a denial of God's Omniscience. If God learned who would be saved and who wouldn't, then he learned something He didn't previously know. And that means He was not Omniscient before learning who would be saved. God does not change. And learning something new is a change. Conditional election, in this context, is a denial of the very Nature of God Himself.

I don't think they look at God "looking down through the ages" as a process, but instead something more akin to "logical order". It isn't chronological, so God doesn't "learn" as much as he "knows" and bases election on that pre-knowledge.

But I think all sides have issues when we start taking them apart. I agree with you about shying away from the words "Calvinist" and "Arminian", both because they are not accurate representations of what the bible teaches and they have to a large extent lost meaning today. I think it better to call ourselves Christians and speak plainly what we believe.

 

[Yeshua1]

You'll be waiting along time! Here's the thing, I'm pretty sure, most, that is those who have studied, have had the word of God, who've seen the verses, and reject them, yes they are just 'professing Christians' and not saved, don't possess the Spirit of God, maybe walked down some aisle and 'Gave themselves to a King", but I think some are here who don't fully understand, and will eventually come to the truth. So we have to be here for them.

Ultimate irony on all of this is that those who are saved and holding unto arminian non cal theology still have been saved by the means that calvinist see the bible supporting!

 

[TCassidy]

Fortunately, my faith is not tied to a man-made formula.

Hmmmm. Are you suggesting my Particular Baptist faith is in a man-made formula and not in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think they look at God "looking down through the ages" as a process, but instead something more akin to "logical order". It isn't chronological, so God doesn't "learn" as much as he "knows" and bases election on that pre-knowledge.

But I think all sides have issues when we start taking them apart. I agree with you about shying away from the words "Calvinist" and "Arminian", both because they are not accurate representations of what the bible teaches and they have to a large extent lost meaning today. I think it better to call ourselves Christians and speak plainly what we believe.

Think that we need to stand and rely in the end upon the scriptures, as they affirm that we can KNOW that we right now have eternal life, do to the witness of the Spirit and the word!

 

[HankD]

Or a "Christian" .

That's the rumor

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Funny thing is that even Arminius himself was not sure that we could lose salvation or not!

He believed he was secure in Christ. Remember the Remonstrance was published after his death and had been edited by his followers. It was they, not him, who left room for doubt about perseverance.

 

[Yeshua1]

He believed he was secure in Christ. Remember the Remonstrance was published after his death and had been edited by his followers. It was they, not him, who left room for doubt about perseverance.

Did not know that, so he would hold to OSAS then?

 

[InTheLight]

He believed election was based on God looking down through the ages and seeing who would believe and who would not and electing those who would believe unto salvation.

Of course, the objection to that idea is that God is Omniscient. He already knows everything. The idea of Him looking down the ages of history to see who would believe and who wouldn't is a denial of God's Omniscience. If God learned who would be saved and who wouldn't, then he learned something He didn't previously know. And that means He was not Omniscient before learning who would be saved.

I've never liked that "look down through the corridors of time" illustration. If the construct was "before the foundation of the world God knew who would be saved", does that work for you?


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[TCassidy]

I've never liked that "look down through the corridors of time" illustration. If the construct was "before the foundation of the world God knew who would be saved", does that work for you?

He knew because He elected them in eternity and saved them in time. Yep. Works for me.

 

[Yeshua1]

I've never liked that "look down through the corridors of time" illustration. If the construct was "before the foundation of the world God knew who would be saved", does that work for you?


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

As long as he knew do to Him determining that they would get saved by His will, and based on their own!

 

[JonC]

As long as he knew do to Him determining that they would get saved by His will, and based on their own!

So the difference is between God choosing and God creating.

 

[Yeshua1]

So the difference is between God choosing and God creating.

Difference between God choosing to accept based upon their own decision, and Him choosing them out based on His own decision!

 

[MennoSota]

Nope. Just not true. Some of us are already experiencing the Kingdom of God in action. I have respect for Reformed Theology, but I have significant differences with it too. Fortunately, my faith is not tied to a man-made formula.

Great, so you don't have to say the sinner's prayer and ask Jesus into your heart. We agree.