The Confused Arminian

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You did your job too well.

I know you well enough to spot your satire right off. I ought to recognize it, I've been your target often enough (with good humor, of course).

But obviously some others took you seriously. From now on, you might want me to follow your posts with explanations, such as Folks, this is satire. Or, Folks, SN is being serious, here.

Uh, naw, I've changed my mind. I don't need a full-time job. I'm supposed to be retired.

So your post equates to a reproach??

 

[quantumfaith]

You did your job too well.

I know you well enough to spot your satire right off. I ought to recognize it, I've been your target often enough (with good humor, of course).

But obviously some others took you seriously. From now on, you might want me to follow your posts with explanations, such as Folks, this is satire. Or, Folks, SN is being serious, here.

Uh, naw, I've changed my mind. I don't need a full-time job. I'm supposed to be retired.

I agree, it is often, after time on this board, to determine who is being a provacateur for the sake of satire or even encouraging discussion, and who is being such for scoring "imaginary" points. Perhaps there is a satire or sarcasm emoticon that I am unaware of.

 

[Luke2427]

All the explanations you gave are not a part of the songs. You're rationalizing them.

No song comes with full theological explanations.

The point is that what they DO say is not AT ALL incompatible with Calvinism. It may be that the reason you think what they say is, is that you don't fully understand Calvinism.

There is not a Calvinist in the world who thinks that Christians cannot accurately sing, "Whosoever surely meaneth me."

There is not a Calvinist in the world who thinks that he did not "...decide to follow Jesus."

We sing those songs with as much fervor as you do.

They are accurate. They are TOTALLY consistent with Calvinism.

We understand something that the Arminian DOESN'T understand when he sings that song- that the REASON we have decided is because God has made us willing.

Does this sound like Calvinistic theology?:

I will hasten to Him, hasten so glad and free;
Jesus, greatest, highest, I will come to Thee.
I will hasten, hasten to Him, hasten so glad and free;
Jesus, Jesus, greatest, highest, I will come to Thee.

COMPLETELY.

ITL, Calvinists believe ALL OF THAT.

We simply understand that the fervency with which we hasten to him comes FROM HIM. He has conquered our hearts with his love and we cannot BUT hasten to him gladly and free.

 

[InTheLight]

There is not a Calvinist in the world who thinks that he did not "...decide to follow Jesus."

Ya sure. Calvinists are known for having altar calls and decision theology. Don't think so.

We understand something that the Arminian DOESN'T understand when he sings that song- that the REASON we have decided is because God has made us willing.

No Arminian in the world believes they weren't drawn by God and made willing by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ya sure. Calvinists are known for having altar calls and decision theology. Don't think so.

Yea cause its just soooo contrived......Heaven help us if we began doing that nonsense....but let me ask you to explain how Samuel Rutherford, who basically ran the Presbyterian church in Scotland in his day & was what one considered a High Calvinist, would make this comment:

...."The reprobate has exactly the same warrant to believe in Jesus Christ as do the Elect" ....what do you think?

 

[Bronconagurski]

Would someone (an Arminian) give me a definition of a true Arminian? Can one choose to be saved, and then choose to be lost again according to your will? Or can you just choose to be saved?

 

[quantumfaith]

Would someone (an Arminian) give me a definition of a true Arminian? Can one choose to be saved, and then choose to be lost again according to your will? Or can you just choose to be saved?

Bronco, as I know you are aware, the official Baptist position is one of OSAS, the loss or even the renouncement of salvation is not possible. Perhaps some of the confusion comes in from our Arminian Methodist brothers, who do feel that one is capable of "losing" salvation status. The following is an interesting and informative link, though I know you will find much to disagree with (as do I, not being pejorative).

http://evangelicalarminians.org/fil...o Passages for Perseverance of the Saints.pdf

The Conditional preservation of the saints, or commonly conditional security, is the Arminian belief that believers are kept safe by God in their saving relationship with Him upon the condition of a persevering faith in Christ.[1] Arminians find the Scriptures describing both the initial act of faith in Christ, "whereby the relationship is effected, and the persevering faith in Him whereby the relationship is sustained."[2] The relationship of "the believer to Christ is never a static relationship existing as the irrevocable consequence of a past decision, act, or experience."[3] Rather, it is a living union "proceeding upon a living faith in a living Savior."[4] This living union is captured in this simple command by Christ, "Remain in me, and I in you" (John 15:4).[5]
According to Arminians, biblical saving faith expresses itself in love and obedience to God (Galatians 5:6; Hebrews 5:8-9).[6] In the Arminian Confession of 1621, the Remonstrants (or Arminian leaders) affirmed that true or living faith operates through love,[7] and that God chooses to give salvation and eternal life through His Son, "and to finally glorify all those and only those truly believing in his name, or obeying his gospel, and persevering in faith and obedience until death ... "[8]
Arminians believe that "It is abundantly evident from the Scriptures that the believer is secure."[9] Furthermore, believers have assurance in knowing there is no external power or circumstance that can separate them from the love of God they enjoy in union with Christ.[10] Nevertheless, Arminians see numerous warnings in Scripture directed to genuine believers about the possibility of falling away in unbelief and thereby becoming severed from their saving union with God through Christ.[11] Arminians hold that if a believer becomes an unbeliever (commits apostasy), they necessarily cease to partake of the promises of salvation and eternal life made to believers who continue in faith and remain united to Christ.[12] Therefore, Arminians recognize the importance of warning believers about the danger of apostasy and exhorting them to persevere in faith as a means of building them up in their faith and encouraging them to mature spiritually, which is a sure and biblical way to avoid apostasy

 

[Bronconagurski]

Bronco, as I know you are aware, the official Baptist position is one of OSAS, the loss or even the renouncement of salvation is not possible. Perhaps some of the confusion comes in from our Arminian Methodist brothers, who do feel that one is capable of "losing" salvation status. The following is an interesting and informative link, though I know you will find much to disagree with (as do I, not being pejorative).

http://evangelicalarminians.org/fil...o Passages for Perseverance of the Saints.pdf

The Conditional preservation of the saints, or commonly conditional security, is the Arminian belief that believers are kept safe by God in their saving relationship with Him upon the condition of a persevering faith in Christ.[1] Arminians find the Scriptures describing both the initial act of faith in Christ, "whereby the relationship is effected, and the persevering faith in Him whereby the relationship is sustained."[2] The relationship of "the believer to Christ is never a static relationship existing as the irrevocable consequence of a past decision, act, or experience."[3] Rather, it is a living union "proceeding upon a living faith in a living Savior."[4] This living union is captured in this simple command by Christ, "Remain in me, and I in you" (John 15:4).[5]
According to Arminians, biblical saving faith expresses itself in love and obedience to God (Galatians 5:6; Hebrews 5:8-9).[6] In the Arminian Confession of 1621, the Remonstrants (or Arminian leaders) affirmed that true or living faith operates through love,[7] and that God chooses to give salvation and eternal life through His Son, "and to finally glorify all those and only those truly believing in his name, or obeying his gospel, and persevering in faith and obedience until death ... "[8]
Arminians believe that "It is abundantly evident from the Scriptures that the believer is secure."[9] Furthermore, believers have assurance in knowing there is no external power or circumstance that can separate them from the love of God they enjoy in union with Christ.[10] Nevertheless, Arminians see numerous warnings in Scripture directed to genuine believers about the possibility of falling away in unbelief and thereby becoming severed from their saving union with God through Christ.[11] Arminians hold that if a believer becomes an unbeliever (commits apostasy), they necessarily cease to partake of the promises of salvation and eternal life made to believers who continue in faith and remain united to Christ.[12] Therefore, Arminians recognize the importance of warning believers about the danger of apostasy and exhorting them to persevere in faith as a means of building them up in their faith and encouraging them to mature spiritually, which is a sure and biblical way to avoid apostasy

Thanks for the link and the use of the word pejorative. I have heard it before but never knew the true definition till I just looked it up. Anyway, it seems that in the link provided, the key thought is that the believer needs to keep on believing to be saved. I believe that also, only I call it the perseverance of the saints, and that we are kept by the power of God. Where the link and I differ is that I say the apostate was never saved, while the link says they were at one time, but lost their salvation because they did not continue to believe. So to the link author, salvation is a covenant between God and man. God will keep His part as long as man keeps his part by continuing to believe. Interesting. Regardless, man must continue in the faith, to that I strongly agree.

 

[Skandelon]

The only point I agree with is that I cannot lose my salvation.

To which deserves the reply, why is it you can choose if and when your salvation is effective, but you cannot choose to reverse your salvation? So which is it, can you choose, or not choose? Does the day of the week dictate it? Seems kind of confusing.

Both camps affirm the effectiveness of the work of regeneration, we just disagree as to the order/cause of it, so there is absolutely no inconsistency or confusion on this point, but thank you for asking. BTW, most non-Calvinistic Baptists would not accept the label Arminian.

 

[quantumfaith]

Both camps affirm the effectiveness of the work of regeneration, we just disagree as to the order/cause of it, so there is absolutely no inconsistency or confusion on this point, but thank you for asking. BTW, most non-Calvinistic Baptists would not accept the label Arminian.

I prefer the "deeply offensive" to some, "non-cal" designation, but whatever I am called I rest easy in the old childhood rhyme:

I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

:laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I prefer the "deeply offensive" to some, "non-cal" designation, but whatever I am called I rest easy in the old childhood rhyme:

I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

:laugh:

Thats interesting because most Baptists who's Soteriology is Doctrines of Grace would view being called "Calvinist" as a pejorative . What we "Particular" or "Reformed" or in allot of cases "Old School" Baptists practice is not Calvinism. True Calvinism is what is practiced by most Presbyterians & Dutch Reformed Churches....i.e., Infant Baptism vs Believers Baptism, Sacramental theology/ not ordinances. Our common bond with these folks is Sovereign Grace/ Doctrines of Grace Salvation (Systematic Theology).

 

[quantumfaith]

Thats interesting because most Baptists who's Soteriology is Doctrines of Grace would view being called "Calvinist" as a pejorative . What we "Particular" or "Reformed" or in allot of cases "Old School" Baptists practice is not Calvinism. True Calvinism is what is practiced by most Presbyterians & Dutch Reformed Churches....i.e., Infant Baptism vs Believers Baptism, Sacramental theology/ not ordinances. Our common bond with these folks is Sovereign Grace/ Doctrines of Grace Salvation (Systematic Theology).

EWF, I rarely, actually try very hard not to "call someone" something that they find offensive or inaccurate. If someone asks me to refer to them in a specific manner, I will do so....provided my memory permits such.

 

[Monster]

Thats interesting because most Baptists who's Soteriology is Doctrines of Grace would view being called "Calvinist" as a pejorative . What we "Particular" or "Reformed" or in allot of cases "Old School" Baptists practice is not Calvinism. True Calvinism is what is practiced by most Presbyterians & Dutch Reformed Churches....i.e., Infant Baptism vs Believers Baptism, Sacramental theology/ not ordinances. Our common bond with these folks is Sovereign Grace/ Doctrines of Grace Salvation (Systematic Theology).

Now that is interesting and was more than less the governing experiences and exposures I've had with "real" Calvinism. I always found it to be repugnant.

It also explains quite a lot about what I've seen of Calvinistic "tendencies" here. They do seem like very different creatures. Hmmm...it's sort of like too, to and two in a round-about way. I'm not being facetious here, it really is something interesting to mull over.

Great! Thanks for more good stuff to jam up and hurt my brain :BangHead:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now that is interesting and was more than less the governing experiences and exposures I've had with "real" Calvinism. I always found it to be repugnant.

It also explains quite a lot about what I've seen of Calvinistic "tendencies" here. They do seem like very different creatures. Hmmm...it's sort of like too, to and two in a round-about way. I'm not being facetious here, it really is something interesting to mull over.

Great! Thanks for more good stuff to jam up and hurt my brain :BangHead:

Has this revelation loosed your beliefs conserning "CALVINISTS" to such a degree that you need to bang your head? Then I really would not want to even begin all the varied types of that ilk least you have a stroke or perhaps start hitting yourself with a hammer:laugh:

Since you view Calvinism as a whole to be repugnant....why dont you tell me what is so repugnant about it? I darer sin say that the word "repugnant" has a whole lot of negative connotations:

Definition of REPUGNANT
1
: incompatible, inconsistent
2
archaic : hostile
3
: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Thats interesting because most Baptists who's Soteriology is Doctrines of Grace would view being called "Calvinist" as a pejorative . What we "Particular" or "Reformed" or in allot of cases "Old School" Baptists practice is not Calvinism. True Calvinism is what is practiced by most Presbyterians & Dutch Reformed Churches....i.e., Infant Baptism vs Believers Baptism, Sacramental theology/ not ordinances. Our common bond with these folks is Sovereign Grace/ Doctrines of Grace Salvation (Systematic Theology).

What makes one a Calvinist has nothing to do with infant baptism or sacramental theology since many non-Calvinist bodies practice those things. What makes a Calvinist is belief in TULIP. That's what makes Reformed or Particular Baptists Calvinists.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EWF, I rarely, actually try very hard not to "call someone" something that they find offensive or inaccurate. If someone asks me to refer to them in a specific manner, I will do so....provided my memory permits such.

Dave, 98% of these conversations it appears on this board are related to soteriology. I would much perfer "Doctrines of Grace" believer or Sovereign Grace believer when discussing salvation theology otherwise Im just a reborn Christian who also believes in the importance of believers baptism vs infant baptism.

 

[Tom Butler]

Dave, 98% of these conversations it appears on this board are related to soteriology. I would much perfer "Doctrines of Grace" believer or Sovereign Grace believer when discussing salvation theology otherwise Im just a reborn Christian who also believes in the importance of believers baptism vs infant baptism.

That's why I like the term DoG to describe my soteriology.

Just don't call me a Dirty DoG.

However, I can live with Junkyard DoG.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's why I like the term DoG to describe my soteriology.

Just don't call me a Dirty DoG.

However, I can live with Junkyard DoG.

Any particular breed of DoG?

 

[Monster]

Has this revelation loosed your beliefs conserning "CALVINISTS" to such a degree that you need to bang your head? Then I really would not want to even begin all the varied types of that ilk least you have a stroke or perhaps start hitting yourself with a hammer:laugh:

Since you view Calvinism as a whole to be repugnant....why dont you tell me what is so repugnant about it? I darer sin say that the word "repugnant" has a whole lot of negative connotations:

Definition of REPUGNANT
1
: incompatible, inconsistent
2
archaic : hostile
3
: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice

Nah! Slight miscommunication there. My primary exposure to it was via the Presby's, and that form of "it" was repugnant.

And then I went on to say (or meant to) that I'm finding the form of "it" elucidated here at the BB as interesting, curious, worth exploring or so far, very un-repugnant...time will tell, maybe. That was my intended meaning/s at least, maybe I wasn't as clear as I needed to be, my mistake.

And-and otherwise, yes! Repugnant, it's the perfect descriptor for what I was exposed to in a PCA church for some 6-8 years.

And-and-and as to the hammer, it's a 24oz framer and when I hit something that bleeds, it's really-really efficaciously-expletively-repugnant :thumbs:

 

[Monster]

Has this revelation loosed your beliefs conserning "CALVINISTS" to such a degree that you need to bang your head? Then I really would not want to even begin all the varied types of that ilk least you have a stroke or perhaps start hitting yourself with a hammer:laugh:

Since you view Calvinism as a whole to be repugnant....why dont you tell me what is so repugnant about it? I darer sin say that the word "repugnant" has a whole lot of negative connotations:

Definition of REPUGNANT
1
: incompatible, inconsistent
2
archaic : hostile
3
: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice

I'll be happy to express my doubts, concerns and understandings and even misunderstandings but ONLY IF it's in conversational tone, not the typical over-the-top nuke-em-all arguments that erupt.

Maybe we can teach each other, if not doctrinal truths, understanding, patience and agreeable disagreement. Eh?

I have it on good authority that you're a good guy :love2: