Should Arminians and Calvinists Attend the Same Church?

[Dave G]

@Steven Yeadon :

Again, using posts from someone who is not in agreement with those that are labeled as "Calvinists" by their opponents,
I can objectively show yet another example of how difficult fellowship with those holding to opposing doctrines would be in a "mixed crowd":

Belief that salvation for anyone was secured on the cross constitutes a denial of the necessity of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:17)

Technically, I agree with this quote and I'll develop this further:

" For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." ( Romans 5:12 ).

His death reconciled those who would believe per the above...

The "we" in Romans 5:12 has its context beginning in Romans 1:7, and more immediately in Romans 5:1...those who are justified by faith.
Christ's atonement made the objects of salvation ( those who would be shown to be justified by that blood by their evidential ( Hebrews 11:1 ) faith ), clean in the eyes of God at the cross ( Colossians 2:13-14,

It was finished.

 

[Dave G]

@Steven Yeadon :
One more example:

Unbelief condemns a person, not because it is an unforgiven sin, but because it is the exclusive point of access to the grace. (Rom. 5:2)

I disagree, and my point of disagreement is a doctrinal one that I see developed by Scripture itself.

As I see it, unbelief is but one of many sins ( John 16:9 ) that condemn a person...
It is also an indicator of them already being condemned ( John 3:18 ) and of God's wrath already abiding on them ( John 3:36 ).
Belief, a work of God ( John 6:29 ) and a privilege that is given to a person ( Philippians 1:29 ) does not provide access to grace.
God-given faith ( Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 12:2, Galatians 2:16-20 ) provides that access ( Romans 5:2 ).

Therefore,
Because of how Barry and I both see belief of the Gospel functioning, we are clearly at odds with how salvation is accomplished and what things are necessary for one to believe on Christ, from God's point of view.
In other words,

1) He appears to see that a person's belief actually provides the access to God's grace.

2) I see that, foundationally, it is given by God in the behalf of Christ to both believe and to suffer for His sake ( Philippians 1:29 ).

The difference is not just benign, Steven, nor is it "secondary" in nature..
It is fundamentally different and is "primary" in nature.

At this point, who is "correct" and who is not isn't as important right now as this is...
The fact that one person sees God as the only cause of someone approaching Him ( Psalms 65:4 ) through strictly His mercy and grace ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18, Titus 3:5-7 ),
while the other sees that something man possesses and / or does is what actually provides the access to His grace, is.

 

[Barry Johnson]

Going over some old threads...
@Steven Yeadon ...

I'd like to use some quotes from someone who opposes God alone choosing sinners to salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ), to demonstrate how hard it would be to assemble in fellowship with those who don't share agreement.

The problem, in my opinion, can clearly be seen based on fundamental differences regarding how someone reads and understands the Scriptures...
Especially the ones that deal specifically with how salvation is actually accomplished by the Lord:

To respond to this statement from my own understanding of the Scriptures,
Justification is specifically mentioned in verse 30.

The largest part of justification, or being made just by God ( Romans 8:33 ), is the fact that believers are justified by His blood ( Romans 5:9 ).
That blood was shed at the cross and was spoken of by the Lord as having already happened because it was a sure thing ( Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 14:23-24, Luke 22:20, and the fulfillment of prophecy ( Isaiah 53 ).

So,
Just because there is no direct reference in the passage itself, does not mean that Christ's atonement is not included there.
Again as in other threads regarding this subject,
Only those that were foreknown will ever have the benefits of any of the rest.

" And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." ( Romans 8:28-30 )

Breaking it down according to the words,
I see that from God's perspective as revealed in the passage...

One must be foreknown to be predestinated conformed to the image of His Son.
One must be predestinated in order to be "called"...
One must be "called" in order to be justified;
And one cannot be glorified unless they are made partakers of all the rest.

In addition, those spoken here are individuals that make up a group,
indicated by the usage of the words, "whom" and them".
Basically put and according to this passage...
Them that love God are described as those that were foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified.

Outside of that, no one truly loves God.


Therefore, disagreement over this one passage would constitute a barrier to unity,
and the subject of where to establish sound doctrine within the body would stall out and revert to a "lowest common denominator" of sorts.
Truth, no matter which "side" is correct, would inevitably be cast aside in favor of unity.

Either one assembles together in a group that is characterized as the pillar and ground of the truth ( 1 Timothy 3:15 ), or one does not.
Either one worships God in Spirit and in truth ( John 4:24 ), or one does not.

We are not conformed until the Adoption. Rom 8.23 ..

 

[Barry Johnson]

@Steven Yeadon :
One more example:


I disagree, and my point of disagreement is a doctrinal one that I see developed by Scripture itself.
As I see it, unbelief is but one of many sins that condemn a person.
Belief, a work of God ( John 6:29 ) and a privilege that is given to a person ( Philippians 1:29 ) does not provide access to grace.
God-given faith ( Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 12:2, Galatians 2:16-20 ) provides that access ( Romans 5:2 ).

Therefore,
Because of how Barry and I both see belief of the Gospel functioning, we are clearly at odds with how salvation is accomplished.
In other words,

1) He appears to see that belief provides the access to God's grace,
while
2) I see that, foundationally, it is given by God in the behalf of Christ to both believe and to suffer ( Philippians 1:29 ).

The difference is not just benign, Steven, nor is it "secondary" in nature..
It is fundamentally malignant and is not only primary, but almost completely at odds with each other.

At this point, who is "correct" and who is not isn't as important right now as this is...
The fact that one person sees God as the only cause of someone approaching Him ( Psalms 65:4 ) through strictly His mercy and grace ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18, Titus 3:5-7 ),
while the other sees that something man possesses and / or does is what actually provides the access to His grace,
Is.


Therefore and in my opinion,
Several factors would preclude the two from ever having true fellowship:

A) Whether one values truth over friendship, or friendship over the truth.
B) How much one values and believes God's actual words.
C) How much one values obedience to those words, especially with regard to separation from false doctrine.

No matter who the "heretic" ( divider ) is, isn't my focus right now...
My focus is the disparity between the two people and how that disparity will begin to affect the doctrines of the local body.

Do you understand that difficulties within a group of people can begin small, and yet end up not-so-small?
To me, if those who profess Christ and are members one of another and who care about one another to the point of perhaps one day giving their lives for them,
differ so greatly in their beliefs of what the Bible teaches,
These differences will only foster disunity and eventually drive them apart.

I agree that our main difference is ' regeneration precedes faith ' . This is a distinct and unusual teaching that comes from Augustine. Yes it has traction because it relies on the unclear verses which don't place ' faith ' in any particular order .

 

[Barry Johnson]

@Steven Yeadon :

Again, using posts from someone who is not in agreement with those that are labeled as "Calvinists" by their opponents,
I can objectively show yet another example of how difficult fellowship with those holding to opposing doctrines would be in a "mixed crowd":


Technically, I agree with this quote and I'll develop this further:

" For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." ( Romans 5:12 ).

His death reconciled those who would believe per the above...

The "we" in Romans 5:12 has its context beginning in Romans 1:7, and more immediately in Romans 5:1...those who are justified by faith.
Christ's atonement made the objects of salvation ( those who would be shown to be justified by that blood by their evidential ( Hebrews 11:1 ) faith ), clean in the eyes of God at the cross ( Colossians 2:13-14,

It was finished.

Dave WE were saved when WE believed. Is that JUST you and i that Jesus died for?.

 

[Dave G]

@Steven Yeadon :

Therefore and in my opinion,
Several factors would preclude the two from ever having true and lasting fellowship:

A) Whether one values truth over friendship, or friendship over the truth.
B) How much one values and believes God's actual words.
C) How much one values obedience to those words, especially with regard to separation from false doctrine.

No matter who the "heretic" ( divider ) is, isn't my focus right now...
My focus is the disparity between the two people and how that disparity will eventually begin to affect the doctrines of the local body.

Do you understand that difficulties within a group of people can begin small, and yet end up not-so-small?

To me, if those who profess Christ, are members one of another and who care about one another to the point of perhaps one day giving their lives for them,
differ so greatly in their beliefs of what the Bible teaches,
The question needs to be asked:
How will these differences not lead to disunity and to eventually driving them apart?

In the spirit of Amos 3:3, two cannot walk together unless they be agreed.

Therefore, those that God has gifted to be teachers and preachers within the local body, must be in agreement with one another.
Those who are the recipients of other gifts within the body must also be in agreement with one another, at least eventually.
Otherwise, confusion results.

But we also know that God is not the author of confusion in His churches.

I hope all that long-winded and very involved "wall of text" helps to describe my beliefs about the matter, sir.
May God bless you greatly in your continued studies,
and may He be pleased to remind you of His grace towards you, every time that you awake in the morning.

 

[Dave G]

This is a distinct and unusual teaching that comes from Augustine.

I didn't learn it from Augustine, Barry.

In fact and with all due respect,
I don't have any use for commentaries, nor for systematic theologies...
And I certainly didn't "cut and paste" it from any "Calvinistic" teachers.

Again, you are free to call me a liar if you wish.

Yes it has traction because it relies on the unclear verses which don't place ' faith ' in any particular order .

I don't "interpret the unclear by the clear"...
I let God's word speak, and if anything is unclear I keep studying until He clears it up for me.

Dave WE were saved when WE believed.

I disagree, Barry.
God determined to save people from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ), and He chose them to it ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ) through ( not because of ) their sanctification and their belief of the truth.

Is that JUST you and i that Jesus died for?

No, Barry...
He died for all of His sheep.



@Steven Yeadon :
Do you see the problem?

 

[Barry Johnson]

@Steven Yeadon :
One more example:


I disagree, and my point of disagreement is a doctrinal one that I see developed by Scripture itself.

As I see it, unbelief is but one of many sins ( John 16:9 ) that condemn a person...
It is also an indicator of them already being condemned ( John 3:18 ) and of God's wrath already abiding on them ( John 3:36 ).
Belief, a work of God ( John 6:29 ) and a privilege that is given to a person ( Philippians 1:29 ) does not provide access to grace.
God-given faith ( Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 12:2, Galatians 2:16-20 ) provides that access ( Romans 5:2 ).

Therefore,
Because of how Barry and I both see belief of the Gospel functioning, we are clearly at odds with how salvation is accomplished and what things are necessary for one to believe on Christ, from God's point of view.
In other words,

1) He appears to see that a person's belief actually provides the access to God's grace.

2) I see that, foundationally, it is given by God in the behalf of Christ to both believe and to suffer for His sake ( Philippians 1:29 ).

The difference is not just benign, Steven, nor is it "secondary" in nature..
It is fundamentally different and is "primary" in nature.

At this point, who is "correct" and who is not isn't as important right now as this is...
The fact that one person sees God as the only cause of someone approaching Him ( Psalms 65:4 ) through strictly His mercy and grace ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18, Titus 3:5-7 ),
while the other sees that something man possesses and / or does is what actually provides the access to His grace, is.

27labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28¶Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29¶Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30¶They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

 

[Barry Johnson]

I didn't learn it from Augustine, Barry.

In fact and with all due respect,
I don't have any use for commentaries, nor for systematic theologies...
And I certainly didn't "cut and paste" it from any "Calvinistic" teachers.

Again, you are free to call me a liar if you wish.

I don't "interpret the unclear by the clear"...
I let God's word speak, and if anything is unclear I keep studying until He clears it up for me.

I disagree, Barry.
God determined to save people from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ), and He chose them to it ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ) through ( not because of ) their sanctification and their belief of the truth.

No, Barry...
He died for all of His sheep.



@Steven Yeadon :
Do you see the problem?

I leave you with what I've already said and its worth pondering . Regeneration precedes faith is an unusual teaching that has its origins with Augustine . Its not found anywhere else .

 

[Dave G]

@Steven Yeadon :
Another example, if I may...

27labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28¶Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29¶Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30¶They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Do you see what Barry has quoted?
To me he understands this passage as a "back-and-forth" between unbelieving Jews ( see verse 36 where the Lord identifies that they do not believe ) and Himself, as do I.
But the difference is,

I see Barry taking verse 29 as Jesus telling the Jews the answer to His question in verse 28...
That the only work that they might do ( that is pleasing to God ) is belief;

In other words, the work that God requires from unbelievers is to believe on Him whom He has sent.
I once saw this that way, until one day in my reading it occurred to me...

1) Jesus's words are not carnal, they are spiritual in nature ( see John 6:63 ).
Therefore, the Lord did not answer them according to their question, He answered them according to what He wanted to reveal to the reader.

2) Just as the example of the phrase "Saul of Tarsus", I see this describing a work "of" ( by or from, originating with ) God.

There fore, it could be read one of two ways...
Either the only work that an unbeliever can do to access God's grace is to believe...
Or, that even the sinner's belief is a work of God, in and of itself.

In other words, while God doesn't actually do the believing, God does the work that results in a man or woman placing their trust in Christ as Saviour.



To me, the first understanding leads to something a person can potentially boast about;
And further, it obligates God to save a person based on their performance of an act.

Example:
The Lord: "Why should I not cast you into Hell where you rightfully belong?"
Sinner: " Because I did the one thing that you required...I believed."

The second understanding completely strips the sinner of any means by which they can possibly gain God's favor by performing as act;
His obligation starts and ends with His mercy and kindness, and is dispensed as He sees fit per Romans 9:

Example:
The Lord: " Why should I not cast you into Hell where you rightfully belong?"
Sinner: " Because you chose me from the foundation of the world, caused me to approach you, and it was given to me to believe in the behalf of Christ."



Do you see the difference?

One understanding results in teaching a cooperative effort that we can potentially take credit for,
and one understanding results in teaching an operative effort that we as men can take zero credit for.

With competing teachings like this in a local body,
there would be no consistency in doctrine.



God's gracious work towards sinners,
and man's efforts at gaining God's favor,
would both be taught.

 

[Dave G]

I leave you with what I've already said and its worth pondering . Regeneration precedes faith is an unusual teaching that has its origins with Augustine . Its not found anywhere else .

I'm sorry, Barry.
Again I have to disagree, and I've pondered this now for many years.

Here's what I found after careful study...
It is found in Scripture, and right here:

John 3:3
Acts of the Apostles 16:14.
1 Corinthians 2:14.

When I realized what these actually said, it was very sobering for me.

That God makes a person born again so that they will "see", spiritually, the kingdom of God;
That God opens the heart first, so that a person will listen to His words;
That we as men, in our natural state, cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God... such as His words;

Not only is it amazing and gracious in that it overpowers our natural inclination to reject His words,
but it clearly punctuates how very desperate our condition before God and the truth of His words, really is without that grace.

Truly,
he that is "of God" hears God words, and those that aren't, do not ( John 8:43-47 ).


I wish you well, sir, as always.

 

[Barry Johnson]

I didn't learn it from Augustine, Barry.

In fact and with all due respect,
I don't have any use for commentaries, nor for systematic theologies...
And I certainly didn't "cut and paste" it from any "Calvinistic" teachers.

Again, you are free to call me a liar if you wish.

I don't "interpret the unclear by the clear"...
I let God's word speak, and if anything is unclear I keep studying until He clears it up for me.

I disagree, Barry.
God determined to save people from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ), and He chose them to it ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ) through ( not because of ) their sanctification and their belief of the truth.

No, Barry...
He died for all of His sheep.



@Steven Yeadon :
Do you see the problem?

You won't find many notable reformed theologians that say they didn't learn calvinism from another calvinist directly or indirectly . We are all influenced by teachings .And as Calvinism is so unusual and distinctive its impossible to arrive at this worldview from scripture alone .

 

[Scarlett O.]

We used to have reformed people in my church - about three or four young couples. They have since moved on - no harm, no foul - we still keep in touch and love each other. I don't recall ever having any Arminians as my church teaches the security of the legitimate believer.

My church is just the regular people who don't ascribe to either group.

 

[AustinC]

We used to have reformed people in my church - about three or four young couples. They have since moved on - no harm, no foul - we still keep in touch and love each other. I don't recall ever having any Arminians as my church teaches the security of the legitimate believer.

My church is just the regular people who don't ascribe to either group.

An easier distinction is monergist or synergist.
Monergist = God does all the work in salvation.
Synergist = Man cooperates with God in salvation.

My guess is your church is populated with synergists.

 

[Scarlett O.]

An easier distinction is monergist or synergist.
Monergist = God does all the work in salvation.
Synergist = Man cooperates with God in salvation.

My guess is your church is populated with synergists.

I don't see the difference. I believe that God does all the work in saving people. And people have to agree and submit to that. At some time, you must say, "Yes, God has saved me. I love him and submit to him."

If they are like Cain and the rich young ruler - they don't experience being made righteous even after the calling by God and Christ.

 

[Benjamin]

I don't see the difference. I believe that God does all the work in saving people. And people have to agree and submit to that. At some time, you must say, "Yes, God has saved me. I love him and submit to him."

Yes, it is wise not to accept the attempt to use those labels as if they somehow lock in some kind of systematic theological monopoly toward being saved by God's grace or not.

 

[37818]

And people have to agree and submit to that.

It is not a submitting but receiving God's gift. Romans 6:23, John 1:12, 1 John 5:9-13.

 

[Scarlett O.]

It is not a submitting but receiving God's gift. Romans 6:23, John 1:12, 1 John 5:9-13.

Semantics. Accept. Receive. Believe. Submit to. Obey.

The person God saves MUST acknowledge that in some way.

I'll leave ya'll to the word plays.

 

[37818]

Semantics. Accept. Receive. Believe. Submit to. Obey.

The person God saves MUST acknowledge that in some way.

I'll leave ya'll to the word plays.

It comes down to an issue of receiving salvation as a free gift. Or some how needing to deserve to be saved. If one needs to deserve to be saved, how is it a really a gift?

 

[AustinC]

I don't see the difference. I believe that God does all the work in saving people. And people have to agree and submit to that. At some time, you must say, "Yes, God has saved me. I love him and submit to him."

If they are like Cain and the rich young ruler - they don't experience being made righteous even after the calling by God and Christ.

You are a synergist. "People have to..."
Most US Christians are synergists.
Arminianism is a theological position that many synergists will not be in full agreement. This is why, for me, it is easier to see the difference as monergist or synergist.