Is Cal/Non-Cal important enough to divide?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You seemed surprised that:

Well Universalism is way past Arminianism.

The PB's I know are certainly NOT universalists....this must be some weird offshoot. Ask Kyred if he is a universalist when you see him & let me know what he tells you.

 

[Jerome]

Kyredneck is well acquainted with these PB Universalist 'No-Heller' brothers:

FYI, in my area there is a rift in the PBs between mainstream and no-hellers, but by no means is it to the point of non fellowship. In fact, there are mainstream PB Churches that will allow no-hellers to preach with the stipulation that they don't preach no-hell doctrine. And, personally, some of the most spiritual, uplifting sermons I've ever heard came from the mouths of no-hellers.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Kyredneck knows these PB Universalist 'No-Hellers' well:

Perhaps he knows them, but they dont represent his or traditional PB Theology.

 

[JonC]

Conditional salvation is a conerstone of Arminian theology.

That is why I am not Arminian.

John

Calvinists believe in conditional salvation – “When, on man’s side, he places the only way of receiving salvation in faith alone, he rejects all other means on which men are accustomed to rely.” (Calvin) (God draws the elect unto himself, otherwise man is not capable of seeking God).

Arminians believe that only the elect are saved. - “That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ. ” (Art 1) (The elect are those who will believe, out of their own will, known by God from eternity past).

I think you mean conditional election.

 

[mandym]

Calvinists believe in conditional salvation – “When, on man’s side, he places the only way of receiving salvation in faith alone, he rejects all other means on which men are accustomed to rely.” (Calvin) (God draws the elect unto himself, otherwise man is not capable of seeking God).

Arminians believe that only the elect are saved. - “That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ. ” (Art 1) (The elect are those who will believe, out of their own will, known by God from eternity past).

I think you mean conditional election.

That's not right

 

[JonC]

That's not right

I may be wrong. Which part is not right?

 

[mandym]

I may be wrong. Which part is not right?

Calvinists believe only the elect are saved

 

[JonC]

Yes, Calvinists believe only the elect are saved. But salvation is conditioned by faith. Salvation is conditioned by faith and man cannot obtain that faith apart from God. This faith is God’s grace. But there is none who are saved that do not believe. Believing is still a condition of salvation.

Calvinism just holds that God meets this condition because man cannot.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism stems from differences in election – not conditional/unconditional salvation (both parties think you have to believe in Christ to be saved).

(I did not mean to imply that Calvinists don't believe that only the elect are saved, only that Arminians believe this as well - although they disagree on that election).

 

[seekingthetruth]

Calvinists believe in conditional salvation – “When, on man’s side, he places the only way of receiving salvation in faith alone, he rejects all other means on which men are accustomed to rely.” (Calvin) (God draws the elect unto himself, otherwise man is not capable of seeking God).

Arminians believe that only the elect are saved. - “That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ. ” (Art 1) (The elect are those who will believe, out of their own will, known by God from eternity past).

I think you mean conditional election.

Arminians believe that every man has the free will to accept or reject salvation.

But they also believe that their salvation is conditional in that they can lose it. They have to mantain a christian life to remain saved. They believe that once saved that they have to continually "earn" their right to keep their salvation, or they will lose it.

What we would call "backsliden" they would call "lost" and in need of getting saved again.

So, no, I meant conditional salvation, not election.

John

 

[12strings]

A denomination reflects differences of something of the same kind. If my understanding is dogmatically Calvinistic, then I would probably attend that type of church. If it is dogmatically Wesleyan, I’d probably find that type of church.

If, however, I do not believe that either system of understanding is infallible but instead I hold to an understanding that they present important aspects under debatable conclusions because each are based on human reasoning, then I may be content to attend a church that defines itself as neither.

I'm sorry this post is way too reasonable to be allowed into this discussion...:tongue3:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvinists believe only the elect are saved

Which Calvinist are you referring to?

 

[seekingthetruth]

Arminians believe that every man has the free will to accept or reject salvation.

But they also believe that their salvation is conditional in that they can lose it. They have to mantain a christian life to remain saved. They believe that once saved that they have to continually "earn" their right to keep their salvation, or they will lose it.

What we would call "backsliden" they would call "lost" and in need of getting saved again.

So, no, I meant conditional salvation, not election.

John

In other words, they believe that we can become saved then lost, saved then lost, saved then lost according to how they are living their lives.

John

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Then Christ is a lier when he said "It Is Finished"

 

[seekingthetruth]

Then Christ is a lier when he said "It Is Finished"

On this, you and I can agree on.:applause::thumbsup:

Once a person is saved, nothing can break the seal of the HS.

This is my favorite Bible passage:


Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Who indeed?
John

 

[12strings]

The SBC is NOT Arminian. General Baptists and Freewill Baptists are two baptists that I know of that are Arminian, but the SBC is certainly not.

Some are Cal but none are Arminian. At least none that Ihave ever heard of. They all, as far as I know believe in eternal security, which is not Arminian by any stretch.

John

-If you go to this website - http://evangelicalarminians.org/Are_You_an_Arminian_and_Dont_Even_Know_It - which is one of the best at showing what classical Arminians believe, you will see that though hardly any SBCers call themselves Arminians, Many, probably over half, believe nearly the same things. Rejection of eternal security is not a hard-and-fast tenet of Arminianism. Arminius himself was undecided on the subject.

In addition, the recent Book, "Whosoever Will" (a collaboration of some SBC leaders in critique of Calvinism) lays forth what is, with few exceptions, Basic Arminian beliefs...even though none of the writers would call themselves Arminians based on their belief in eternal security, and their belief that Armininans don't.

If you don't like the word, that is fine; but as far as similarity of beliefs, many sbc people are "arminianistic"

 

[seekingthetruth]

-If you go to this website which is one of the best at showing what classical Arminians believe, you will see that though hardly any SBCers call themselves Arminians, Many, probably over half, believe nearly the same things. Rejection of eternal security is not a hard-and-fast tenet of Arminianism. Arminius himself was undecided on the subject.

In addition, the recent Book, "Whosoever Will" (a collaboration of some SBC leaders in critique of Calvinism) lays forth what is, with few exceptions, Basic Arminian beliefs...even though none of the writers would call themselves Arminians based on their belief in eternal security, and their belief that Armininans don't.

If you don't like the word, that is fine; but as far as similarity of beliefs, many sbc people are "arminianistic"

I agree that SBC doctrine does mostly line up with Arminianism on most points, election, free will, ect.

But the point that really matters, eternal security, is the one that really seperates true Arminians from most SBC churches.

Just like election is the cornerstone of DoG, conditional salvation is the cornerstone of Arminianism, which leaves most SBC churches out.

John

 

[jonathan.borland]

I never said it did..... I did say that it appears insane to think that God would stand there & offer a guy salvation only to be rejected & look ridiculous. Further I asked why would anyone given new life would ever reject it....I certainly did not....did you? Haven't had an answer to my satisfaction.

God looks ridiculous when people reject life? No, he looks righteous when they inherit eternal damnation for their willful rejection of almighty God.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

In other words, they believe that we can become saved then lost, saved then lost, saved then lost according to how they are living their lives.

John

Arminian or General Baptists don't believe that.

 

[quantumfaith]

You dont say! And Thinking Stuff is now a Roman Catholic.! Would you say he is closer to your way of thinking or mine?

I don't know the answer to that, but I will say I have a great deal of respect for Thinkingstuff.

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree that SBC doctrine does mostly line up with Arminianism on most points, election, free will, ect.

But the point that really matters, eternal security, is the one that really seperates true Arminians from most SBC churches.

Just like election is the cornerstone of DoG, conditional salvation is the cornerstone of Arminianism, which leaves most SBC churches out.

John

Seeking the truth, perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I "think" you may be "confusing" a couple of things. Arminianism has not "official" stand on "perserverance", Arminius himself was ambivalent about the issue. It is true, Methodism largely adheres to the ability to walk away (lose) ones salvation, but Arminianism does not officially endorse such a position. Accept my apologies if I am misdunderstanding your point or position.