Sympathy for the Arminian

[Iconoclast]

Thank you so much for the welcome! I was blessed to be given 100 of brother Mahan's sermons on CD. I had previously been listening to him via YouTube. His grasp and memory of Scripture are a wonder to behold!

Welcome to the BB....Brother...Benjamin Keach:thumbs::thumbs:
Henry Mahan always reverence"s Jesus and His word.He has many sermons on sermonaudio.com . Looking forward to your input.

 

[saturneptune]

Welcome to the BB....Brother...Benjamin Keach:thumbs::thumbs:
Henry Mahan always reverence"s Jesus and His word.He has many sermons on sermonaudio.com . Looking forward to your input.

I know nothing of Mahan's ministry, but I was on a ship named the USS Mahan DDG-42. Anyway, I had not seen that name in years. I will look up some of his works. Sounds like a good read.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Flotsam in the river:laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I know nothing of Mahan's ministry, but I was on a ship named the USS Mahan DDG-42. Anyway, I had not seen that name in years. I will look up some of his works. Sounds like a good read.

Yes and we have the Edna Mahan women's prison right here in Hunterdon County NJ...:tonofbricks:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thank you, Tom, for your backhanded welcome as well as the gracious invitation to take my Christianity elsewhere.

I purposefully used the designation, 'Protestant', to signify my adherence to several of the most important doctrinal truths taught and believed by the Protestant Reformers, be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist or non-Conformist. I oppose the Church of Rome on scriptural, historical and moral grounds.

I hold to the Reformed Baptist London Confession, as well as the Westminster Confession, not withstanding differences in the application and meaning of water baptism.

I have been baptized as an unbelieving infant as well as a believing adult....both of which did not save me. It was the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire by the Lord Jesus Christ which gave me the right and privilege to be called 'Christian.'

I consider English Reformed Baptist Benjamin Keach to be one of the greatest preachers and teachers to have walked the Earth. I also consider retired Kentucky Baptist preacher Henry Mahan to be a giant among God's greatest
preachers and teachers to have ever lived.

I'm sorry, Tom, if I don't fit the mold regarding your definition as to what is 'acceptable.' I suggest you take it up with the Potter. <smile>

Ha ha ha...I'm gonna like you I'm thinking! I'm more inclined to like JH Oliphant...but then in Tom's world view that makes me a hyper Calvinist. Today I'm stuck on Sinclair Ferguson.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I smell a troll. Love how the calvinists completely shun the doctrone of justice throughout the Bible and red herring right to 'fairness'.

:thumbs: :thumbs:It appears to me, by this O.P. and some of the responses I have seen from some Calvinists on this thread that they either simply can't or don't distinguish between "justice" and "fairness".

"Red-Herring"...is precisely what this is.

This O.P. is entirely based on some fictitious Arms. who are complaining about "fairness". I think one would be hard-pressed to find any non-Calvist on this board or any respectable one anywhere, who uses the term "fair" in reference to God, nor who can't distinguish between "fair" (which God isn't) and "Just" (which God is). The difference is manifold.

"After all, he isn't a tame lion"
(C.S. Lewis)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Baptists existed long before the Reformation. What a pathetic attempt to link Calvinism and Luther to Baptists. Calvin, Luther, and the RCC were ALL hostile to Baptists.

And the term Arminian is not simply used by Calvinists to identify Baptists who believe in free will. It is used to identify any Baptist who disagrees with Calvinism, period.

I perfer Anti Calvinists to be both honest and discriptive.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:thumbs: :thumbs:It appears to me, by this O.P. and some of the responses I have seen from some Calvinists on this thread that they either simply can't or don't distinguish between "justice" and "fairness".

"Red-Herring"...is precisely what this is.

This O.P. is entirely based on some fictitious Arms. who are complaining about "fairness". I think one would be hard-pressed to find any non-Calvist on this board or any respectable one anywhere, who uses the term "fair" in reference to God, nor who can't distinguish between "fairness" (which God isn't) and "Just" (which God is). The difference is manifold.

"After all, he isn't a tame lion"
(C.S. Lewis)

No He is a hurricane, a Forrest fire, a run away flood, an earth quake!

 

[Herald]

:thumbs: :thumbs:It appears to me, by this O.P. and some of the responses I have seen from some Calvinists on this thread that they either simply can't or don't distinguish between "justice" and "fairness".

"Red-Herring"...is precisely what this is.

This O.P. is entirely based on some fictitious Arms. who are complaining about "fairness". I think one would be hard-pressed to find any non-Calvist on this board or any respectable one anywhere, who uses the term "fair" in reference to God, nor who can't distinguish between "fairness" (which God isn't) and "Just" (which God is). The difference is manifold.

"After all, he isn't a tame lion"
(C.S. Lewis)

I'm sitting here at Bob Evans this morning, enjoying my Big Egg Breakfast, while perusing the BB. I can't speak for the motivation behind the OP but "fairness" has very much to do with the Arminian view of salvation (as I explained earlier in this thread). If God desires all men to be saved then it is only fair that He act consistent with His desire. That means either making sure everyone hears the gospel or exempting those who do not. This is how Arminians can say the tribal person who has never heard the gospel will still go to heaven. This is why the extreme logical conclusion of Arminianism is either Open Theism or Universalism. Romans 10:9, 10 has an asterisk in the Arminian's Bible.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm sitting here at Bob Evans this morning, enjoying my Big Egg Breakfast, while perusing the BB. I can't speak for the motivation behind the OP but "fairness" has very much to do with the Arminian view of salvation (as I explained earlier in this thread). If God desires all men to be saved then it is only fair that He act consistent with His desire. That means either making sure everyone hears the gospel or exempting those who do not. This is how Arminians can say the tribal person who hasoh never heard the gospel will still go to heaven. This is why the extreme logical conclusion of Arminianism is either Open Theism or Universalism. Romans 10:9, 10 has an asterisk in the Arminian's Bible.

Lol...now you consider me an Arminian.....oh that's rich

 

[Herald]

Lol...now you consider me an Arminian.....oh that's rich

No. I consider you a man who endured a terrible tragedy in his life; a tragedy that I would wish on no one. My personal view of infants dying in infancy, and those who are impaired and not able to believe the Gospel notwithstanding (see my prior post where I explained that), I believe your view of God saving a person who has not heard the Gospel is contrary to Scripture. I cannot help but believe your view has been shaped by your experience. Does that make you an Arminian? No. Why? Because you affirm the doctrines of grace. I just think the part of your theology we are discussing is inconsistent with the doctrines of grace.

P.S. I will quote chapter 10 of the 1689 LBC:

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

The framers of the Confession wrestled with the issue of infants dying in infancy and those individuals who had cognitive/mental disorders that prevented them from hearing the Gospel. Basically they threw themselves upon the mercy of God and their knowledge that God has chosen His elect from eternity. Those who do not fall into those two categories (infants and incapable) are bound to believe the Gospel. That God is not obligated to expose them to the Gospel is irrelevant. After all, God is not fair in the sense that men define fairness. God is not under obligation to His creation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No. I consider you a man who endured a terrible tragedy in his life; a tragedy that I would wish on no one. My personal view of infants dying in infancy, and those who are impaired and not able to believe the Gospel notwithstanding (see my prior post where I explained that), I believe your view of God saving a person who has not heard the Gospel is contrary to Scripture. I cannot help but believe your view has been shaped by your experience. Does that make you an Arminian? No. Why? Because you affirm the doctrines of grace. I just think the part of your theology we are discussing is inconsistent with the doctrines of grace.

P.S. I will quote chapter 10 of the 1689 LBC:



The framers of the Confession wrestled with the issue of infants dying in infancy and those individuals who had cognitive/mental disorders that prevented them from hearing the Gospel. Basically they threw themselves upon the mercy of God and their knowledge that God has chosen His elect from eternity. Those who do not fall into those two categories (infants and incapable) are bound to believe the Gospel. That God is not obligated to expose them to the Gospel is irrelevant. After all, God is not fair in the sense that men define fairness. God is not under obligation to His creation.

And of course...my sister who, through no fault of her own, because she was both nmentally and physically handicapped...what is Gods pronouncement on her since He is under no obligation to save her?

I tell you in all deference friend that I could hate...HATE God for His way. HOWEVER I do not..I will not be robbed of my humanity. I still will operate as a superior being by enriching my mind and my soul. God can put me in hell but he cannot take my heart & soul & humanity...that is what I myself to offer.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I can't speak for the motivation behind the OP but "fairness" has very much to do with the Arminian view of salvation (as I explained earlier in this thread).

I didn't name your post specifically, so as not to start a row, but yours was one which I.M.O. specifically failed to differentiate between "fairness" and "justice". But since you answered, I must submit that you make some gross errors in differentiating at least how an Arminian would view "fairness". I assure you, whatever you think is "fair" is certainly not the same view an Arminian would take. For instance:

If God was fair He would either condemn all or save all

If God were "fair" he would save absolutely no one, but rather condemn all only. "Fairness" would not be achieved by saving everyone. It is not "fair" for Christ to pay the penalty for someone else's sin.

If God desires all men to be saved then it is only fair that He act consistent with His desire.

This has nothing to do with "fairness" at all. It might follow with some likeliness or merely consistency with his own nature, but we know it does not. And again, Arminians do not delude themselves with thinking that God is "fair".

The Arminian will point to John 3:16 and happily proclaim, "For God so loved the world!" How more fair can God be?

No, they don't. You cannot quote any respectable Arminian who would say that.
They may point to it to demonstrate that God LOVES all mankind, in an actually meaningful since, or to point out that the Atonement was General....but "fairness" has nothing to do with John 3:16, and Arminians know that.
In order for your above statement to make any sense, it would have to be assumed that:
1.) To "love" someone is to always be "fair" to them, and that is certainly not true. God loves, and he isn't fair, thus, the logic doesn't follow.

This is how Arminians can say the tribal person who has never heard the gospel will still go to heaven.

Arminians don't say that, or believe that. I would very much like for you to quote something like the Remonstrants or any confessional Arminian credo which states this. Or, even some professed Arminian on B.B. who believes this, because they don't believe that at all.

edited to add: Ironically, some hyper-Calvinists DO (in fact) teach precisely that very thing.

This is why the extreme logical conclusion of Arminianism is either Open Theism or Universalism.

You've skipped a few steps to jump all the way to this conclusion. But, I wonder how well you've really thought this out since it should logically
be either ONE of them or BOTH....but not "EITHER". That is non-sequitor. I think if you would spell out the logic of that, you would not have said that, because "Either" is not a deductively possible option given what you've just said.

Romans 10:9, 10 has an asterisk in the Arminian's Bible.

I've never heard of this thing you call the "Arminian's Bible"....I do note that my wife's old "New Geneva" does indeed have an asterisk* or side-note at precisely that passage too. Why not? it's an important passage.

 

[Inspector Javert]

And of course...my sister who, through no fault of her own, because she was both nmentally and physically handicapped...what is Gods pronouncement on her since He is under no obligation to save her?

I tell you in all deference friend that I could hate...HATE God for His way. HOWEVER I do not..I will not be robbed of my humanity. I still will operate as a superior being by enriching my mind and my soul. God can put me in hell but he cannot take my heart & soul & humanity...that is what I myself to offer.

Fortunately, you do not have to believe the pablum contained in the quite fallible 1689 confession on that issue. I certainly do not, and quite a few Bible-Believers don't. That is an issue you can make up your own mind on with sincere prayerful study.

Others will say (with warrant) that your sister is quite safe in the arms of Christ. That is my view, but you should prayerfully consider the Scriptures and the wisdom of many wise counselors on that issue prior to accepting the 1689's vicious pronouncement on that issue.

The 1689's position amounts to saying (with regards to your sister specifically)...."dunno, you'll have to hopefully wait and see whether she was randomly selected or not." "Best -a- luck to ya' ".
Personally, I believe that is one of the most impoverished answers available to that question because it is not Scriptural, but rather it is instead enslaved to false Theological pre-suppositions. Many people painfully struggle with the answer to that question. I had for years. I pray you will find the answer and that it will be the Scriptural answer and that it will bring you peace. :flower:

 

[Herald]

Fortunately, you do not have to believe the pablum contained in the quite fallible 1689 confession on that issue. I certainly do not, and quite a few Bible-Believers don't. That is an issue you can make up your own mind on with sincere prayerful study.

Others will say (with warrant) that your sister is quite safe in the arms of Christ. That is my view, but you should prayerfully consider the Scriptures and the wisdom of many wise counselors on that issue prior to accepting the 1689's vicious pronouncement on that issue.

The 1689's position amounts to saying (with regards to your sister specifically)...."dunno, you'll have to hopefully wait and see whether she was randomly selected or not." "Best -a- luck to ya' ".
Personally, I believe that is one of the most impoverished answers available to that question because it is not Scriptural, but rather it is instead enslaved to false Theological pre-suppositions. Many people painfully struggle with the answer to that question. I had for years. I pray you will find the answer and that it will be the Scriptural answer and that it will bring you peace. :flower:

First, there is no slam dunk verse, passage, or chapter in Scripture that speaks to the condition of those who are not able to receive the Gospel by ordinary means. We owe those saints who have lost children in infancy, or who have loved ones who are cognitively impaired, more than just a few verses that still cast doubt. I have provide pastoral counsel to those in that situation. Have you? They have told me how the verses commonly used to "guarantee" them that their child or loved one is with Christ still leave them with doubts. If you are a minister of the Gospel, what do you do then? Castigate them for their lack of faith? No. You appeal to the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. You appeal to His mercy.

Where do we go for answers on this issue? If we appeal to anything - anything - outside of Scripture we appeal to human reason and understanding. Tell me. How well has such reason and understanding served mankind?

Dr. Sam Waldron writes in his Reformed Baptist Manifesto:

The fact is that the Bible is silent on this issue. It would have been much better, therefore, for the Confession simply to say nothing at this point. For that, I am convinced, is precisely what the Bible says.

Yet this an issue which many have faced in the death of their own or others' infants. If the Bible says nothing about this issue directly, there are general, biblical perspectives which must govern our thinking on the condition of infants dying in infancy. Three great truths do provide us with knowledge to guide and comfort us in the matter.

Dr. Waldron uses Scripture in appealing to the character of God; his mercy, goodness, justice, righteousness, power, and sovereignty. Instead of misapplying what David said in 2 Samuel 12:23, a verse that has all to do with going to the grave and not heaven, we offer the grieving Christian more comfort by pointing them to God's character. In the absence of definitive scripture, what else are we to do?

The Confession addresses the issue in order to provide a measure of hope. It does no better or no worse in that regard since Scripture is silent on the issue.

We need to be honest with people and provide them true comfort and hope, not hijacked Bible passages.

 

[DrJamesAch]

We need to be honest with people and provide them true comfort and hope, not hijacked Bible passages.

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
l l l l l

Example of "hijacked" Bible passages. If this verse applied to infants then it didn't apply to Nicodemus. Since these verses do not mention infants whatsoever (and there are much better verses that direct imputation and infants/children) then the theology has to be read-in to these verses to give it a meaning that Jesus did not give it. Hence, perfect example of hijacked verses.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Fortunately, you do not have to believe the pablum contained in the quite fallible 1689 confession on that issue. I certainly do not, and quite a few Bible-Believers don't. That is an issue you can make up your own mind on with sincere prayerful study.

Others will say (with warrant) that your sister is quite safe in the arms of Christ. That is my view, but you should prayerfully consider the Scriptures and the wisdom of many wise counselors on that issue prior to accepting the 1689's vicious pronouncement on that issue.

The 1689's position amounts to saying (with regards to your sister specifically)...."dunno, you'll have to hopefully wait and see whether she was randomly selected or not." "Best -a- luck to ya' ".
Personally, I believe that is one of the most impoverished answers available to that question because it is not Scriptural, but rather it is instead enslaved to false Theological pre-suppositions. Many people painfully struggle with the answer to that question. I had for years. I pray you will find the answer and that it will be the Scriptural answer and that it will bring you peace. :flower:

Brother, I am already at peace with this. I already know that God is not in the least encumbered by human characteristics....He is a Sovereign Lord that I am to be obedient to. If I did not do that, I would be inclined to be a raucous sinner & a suicide static. How I find myself some days able to cope, I don't truly know. But there again, real holiness never does feel like holiness; it just feels like you're dying. It feels like you're loosing it. And yet, you are loosing it from the center, from a place where all things are One, where you can joyously, graciously let go of it. You know God's doing it when you can smile, when you can trust the letting go.

 

[Inspector Javert]

First, there is no slam dunk verse, passage, or chapter in Scripture that speaks to the condition of those who are not able to receive the Gospel by ordinary means.

True. This is why I simply advised E.W.F. that there are more answers than are provided by your precious creed, (which I don't care a fig for) and that he should prayerfully consider and study the issue while seeking wise counsel.

We owe those saints who have lost children in infancy, or who have loved ones who are cognitively impaired, more than just a few verses that still cast doubt. I have provide pastoral counsel to those in that situation. Have you?

Yes, I have, but I am not so very impressed with myself on that account either. But was my counsel "good" counsel? I would imagine that it was probably "good", but then you would also probably maintain that it was ultimately mistaken. But, then, I would argue that yours would have been "good" but ultimately wrong also. Most of the best answers to difficult questions of that sort have (in my experience) not come from self-important "pastoral counselors" at all.

They have told me how the verses commonly used to "guarantee" them that their child or loved one is with Christ still leave them with doubts. If you are a minister of the Gospel, what do you do then? Castigate them for their lack of faith? No. You appeal to the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. You appeal to His mercy.

You do....and I used to, but I no longer appeal to that myself.

Where do we go for answers on this issue? If we appeal to anything - anything - outside of Scripture we appeal to human reason and understanding. Tell me. How well has such reason and understanding served mankind?

Well, it got us to the moon and cured polio, but it also enabled us to destroy the entire planet with the push of a mere button...so, it's at least effective. "Reason"...is a gift from God bestowed upon mankind that is not to be scoffed at. I do not think that you glean meaningful knowledge from ill-reasoned books written by idiots, but rather intelligently written books written by men possessed of a high level of intelligence, knowledge and a capacity for reason. That is a gift of God, and "every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the father of lights."

Dr. Waldron uses Scripture in appealing to the character of God; his mercy, goodness, justice, righteousness, power, and sovereignty. Instead of misapplying what David said in 2 Samuel 12:23, a verse that has all to do with going to the grave and not heaven, we offer the grieving Christian more comfort by pointing them to God's character. In the absence of definitive scripture, what else are we to do?

I don't castigate 2 Samuel 12:23 as so very useless as it appears that you do. I find it more valuable than all that! But Waldron is right to appeal to God's character in his answer. That is what I also would appeal to. I appeal to God's character as well.

The Confession addresses the issue in order to provide a measure of hope. It does no better or no worse in that regard since Scripture is silent on the issue.

I do not think that it is silent, personally. I believe one can glean from Scripture an absolute and final answer to that question...but I do not believe that if one assumes "Original Guilt" that that is possible. But, I do not believe the Scriptures teach "Original Guilt" either, (as you obviously do) so, your counsel would differ from mine in that regard.

We need to be honest with people and provide them true comfort and hope, not hijacked Bible passages.

Of course...but I wouldn't knowingly "hi-jack" a passage of Scripture, nor, I think, would you.

I simply submitted that E.W.F. might prayerfully consider the most Scripturally sound answer that is available, while dropping in the line that there are more answers to that than are to be found in the writings of some fallible men of the 17th Century.

 

[psalms109:31]

Our God is not named Moloch. What we have left to do is enter His rest not our rest but His rest. Infants and mental incapable have not even began to work to enter the rest. So they are already in His rest.

There is no need to go outside the scripture to insure your emotional stability. There is not another Gospel. Listen and learn from Jesus and you will find rest for your soul. If you can't even begin to work listen and learn you are in His rest. If you are capable and you never hear or listen learn you are responsible for your actions.

Romans 16:
25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from[Or that is] faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Infants and mentally incapable have an excuse you do not.

 

[Herald]

And of course...my sister who, through no fault of her own, because she was both nmentally and physically handicapped...what is Gods pronouncement on her since He is under no obligation to save her?

I tell you in all deference friend that I could hate...HATE God for His way. HOWEVER I do not..I will not be robbed of my humanity. I still will operate as a superior being by enriching my mind and my soul. God can put me in hell but he cannot take my heart & soul & humanity...that is what I myself to offer.

I suspected my previous answer was not going to be well received. That is okay. I can appreciate how personal this issue is to you.

I cannot answer for your sister just as I cannot answer for the tribal person on some remote island who has never heard of Jesus. All I can do - all any of us can do - is appeal to God's mercy. We have to be careful of impugning God's motives. We do not know the beginning from the end.

I was in a discussion with someone once about Hitler. They proposed the idea that God should have killed Hitler as an infant instead of allowing him to grow to adulthood and commit the horrible crimes he was guilty of. I suppose, with hindsight, one could make that argument. But then we are put in a real conundrum. We have no idea what the life story is going to be of a newborn baby. If we knew a baby was going to grow up into a Hitler, I would guess that could change our view on what happens to infants who die in infancy. Of course, thankfully, we do not possess such knowledge. That is why I appeal to God's mercy and trust that He will do right. Is that a cop out? No. A cop out would be avoiding the truth in favor of pragmatism. On this subject no one knows the mind of God. We do know God is a God of mercy. We do know He is capable of calling from the womb (Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:44).