The real soteriological divide...

[Matt Black]

Hmmm...the Synod of Dort disagreed

 

[Pastor David]

Hmmm...the Synod of Dort disagreed

I'm concerned about your misrepresentation of Arminius' position contra his own words, not Dorts' conclusion.

 

[Pastor David]

Interestingly enough, on one of the main divides between Catholic and Protestant theology: the difference between the infusion of the righteousness of Christ (the RCC view) and the imputation of Christ's righteousness (the historic Reformed view), Arminius finds himself agreeing with the Reformers,

"I will only briefly say, "I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law. But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to none except believers, I conclude that, in this sense, it may be well and properly said, to a man who believes, faith is imputed for righteousness through grace, because God hath set forth his Son, Jesus Christ, to be a propitiation, a throne of grace, [or mercy seat] through faith in his blood." ~ Vol. I Works

 

[bound]

I would disagree: I would say that the differences between Arminian and Catholic soteriologies are smaller than those between Arminian and TULIP soteriologies.

I am an unashamed Arminian/Free-Will Baptist... and we claim Salvation by grace through faith not by grace through sacraments. There exists a very wide gulf between Arminian and Catholic soteriologies. Don't confuse yourself here.

We claim Justification through the merits of Christ on the Cross, period. Not by faith and works are we saved. God moves the heart that is willing.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I am an unashamed Arminian/Free-Will Baptist... and we claim Salvation by grace through faith not by grace through sacraments. There exists a very wide gulf between Arminian and Catholic soteriologies. Don't confuse yourself here.

We claim Justification through the merits of Christ on the Cross, period. Not by faith and works are we saved. God moves the heart that is willing.

However, I've read some statements of Wesley indicating he had a high view of the sacraments (baptism and communion) and that these could in fact convey grace and help the believer grow in grace. Of course this does not occur independently of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, but are rather closely connected to Christ's finished work of redemption.

 

[bound]

However, I've read some statements of Wesley indicating he had a high view of the sacraments (baptism and communion) and that these could in fact convey grace and help the believer grow in grace. Of course this does not occur independently of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, but are rather closely connected to Christ's finished work of redemption.

I would love to read anything you could offer up as evidence to this effect...

 

[DHK]

Your point is well taken. However, would you not agree that there is a soteriological gulf between a 5-point TULIP Calvinist and, say, a Wesleyan Arminian or the issue under discussion on this thread?

Well of course. But I find very few people solely in one camp or solely in the other camp if the issues are studied out carefully. There may be a whole lot more in the Calvinist camp. But when you enter the Baptist camp in general, how many that you would classify "Arminian" in general, actually believe that one can lose their salvation. Not many. They put emphasis on free will, but that doesn't make them Arminian, a great mistake by the Calvinists.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I would love to read anything you could offer up as evidence to this effect...

I'm not DT, but as a Baptist just starting on my Spiritual journey and trying to get my theological balance, my family and I started going to a United Methodist Church. I was actually introduced to the UMC when I was dating my wife and there I was introduced to 'liturgy', if you want to call it that, but that's another story.

Anyway, the associate preacher and I had a long discussion regarding theology and he gave me a book called: Sanctity Without Starch by Robert G. Tuttle, JR. The book is considered A Layperson's guide to a Wesleyan Theology of Grace.

This book really aided me in my spiritual journey to Orthodoxy.

Enjoy...

In XC
-

 

[bound]

I'm not DT, but as a Baptist just starting on my Spiritual journey and trying to get my theological balance, my family and I started going to a United Methodist Church. I was actually introduced to the UMC when I was dating my wife and there I was introduced to 'liturgy', if you want to call it that, but that's another story.

My guess is you would have hated the first 300 years of the early Church when they didn't have Roman Basilicas built by the Emperor and only had little household communities. Which was the 'real' ecclesia?

Anyway, the associate preacher and I had a long discussion regarding theology and he gave me a book called: Sanctity Without Starch by Robert G. Tuttle, JR. The book is considered A Layperson's guide to a Wesleyan Theology of Grace.

I'm familiar with Wesley's actually Sermons but not familiar with modern works of Methodist Liturgical Theology. I'm sure I'd be surprised at how far they've moved from their founder.

This book really aided me in my spiritual journey to Orthodoxy.

High Imperial Tradition at it's finest. I guess if you're going to embrace such a thing going East might make sense.

 

[OldRegular]

...is, I submit, not between Catholicism and evangelicalism/Protestantism but within Protestantism itself, between Calvinists and Arminians. Only the Reformed can correctly say that they believe that salvation is sola gratia, by grace alone, with no human co-operation; both Arminians and Catholics on the contrary speak of the need for human co-operation with grace. Arminians and Catholics allow for free will, Calvinists do not. Both Arminians and Catholics allow for the possibility of salvation being subsequently lost, Calvinists believe in 'once saved always saved'. This Arminian free exercise of the human will in maintaining salvation amounts in practice to a 'work', and thus Arminians cannot in reality be said to be sola fide, any more than Catholics can, but rather believe in salvation by faith maintained and outworked by works. The Reformed, however, can be said to believe sola fide. Therefore I would suggest that Catholics and Arminians have far more in common soteriologically than either does with the Calvinists.

Matt

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. The only place I would differ is the use of the term Reformed. As a Baptist who believes in the Doctrines of Grace [the Sovereignty of God in Salvation of His Elect] I just consider myself Biblical.

 

[Matt Black]

Well of course. But I find very few people solely in one camp or solely in the other camp if the issues are studied out carefully. There may be a whole lot more in the Calvinist camp. But when you enter the Baptist camp in general, how many that you would classify "Arminian" in general, actually believe that one can lose their salvation. Not many. They put emphasis on free will, but that doesn't make them Arminian, a great mistake by the Calvinists.

I'm not so sure; I've encountered several Baptists just on these boards who seem to believe that you can imperil your salvation by drinking alcohol or by dancing. That sounds to me pretty much like some form of 'works-based salvation'; if it walks like a duck etc

 

[Matt Black]

I would love to read anything you could offer up as evidence to this effect...

Others have already chipped in, and I'm happy to oblige with a Confession from a mere 17 years after Wesley's death:

Article 16—Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith.
Article 17—Of Baptism

Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.
Article 18—Of the Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.
Article 19—Of Both Kinds

The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord's Supper, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christians alike. (emphasis mine)

The wording is lifted almost verbatim from our (Anglican) 39 Articles of Religion of 1563 (don't forget that Wesley lived and remained until his dying day an Anglican).

 

[bound]

I'm not so sure; I've encountered several Baptists just on these boards who seem to believe that you can imperil your salvation by drinking alcohol or by dancing. That sounds to me pretty much like some form of 'works-based salvation'; if it walks like a duck etc

Define what you mean by a "Works-based Salvation"...

My guess you'll find 'no' Baptist outlining a 'means to Salvation' outside of grace through faith. That doesn't mean that one's fruit might suggest one is unregenerate. Big difference. We are 'called to holiness' not to 'be saved' but to 'manifest our faith in our lives and as a witness to the world'.

 

[Matt Black]

I've already given an example of a 'works-based salvation' above; I suppose I would define it as any soteriology which suggests (in addition to faith) that good works (or abstaining from certain sins) are necessary in order to maintain one's salvation.

 

[bound]

I've already given an example of a 'works-based salvation' above; I suppose I would define it as any soteriology which suggests (in addition to faith) that good works (or abstaining from certain sins) are necessary in order to maintain one's salvation.

You will know them by their fruit... it did not say it will be established by their fruit. critical soteriological difference.

Salvation is the font in which good works flow. They do not establish the font, itself.

If we don't find good works flowing from one whom professes Faith in Christ... there is room for concern wouldn't you agree? Are we to put to death the Old Man or what?

 

[Matt Black]

But what if the Old Man is not enetirely put to death (that's true of all of us if we're honest - we all sin daily)? How much of the Old Man has to be alive before we can say that a Christian isn't saved?

 

[bound]

But what if the Old Man is not enetirely put to death (that's true of all of us if we're honest - we all sin daily)? How much of the Old Man has to be alive before we can say that a Christian isn't saved?

I believe we are asked 'to fight the good fight' I'm not sure if we've ever been told we had to 'win'. Salvation is not established nor maintained by our success. We have our victory in Christ don't we?

 

[Matt Black]

But is 'fighting' not a 'work'? Putting it another way, if we're not fighting, then are we saved?

 

[bound]

But is 'fighting' not a 'work'? Putting it another way, if we're not fighting, then are we saved?

I think that would be questionable but we can't determine that of others. We can't see into their hearts. Remember, St. Paul said that 'there Saviour can make them stand'.

Think of it this way. Statistically, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox all have abortions on mean with the secular population. Evangelicals don't even though many Evangelicals believe in Salvation without Works. This is because 'real' Faith changes lives, not a personal determination to be saved. Now, I'm not beating up on Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox but I am pointing out an important distinction. Even though many if not all Believers hold to Salvation without Works, Good Works manifest none-the-less. It's not about our Theology, it's about God's Grace working in us, not me... Christ in me.

 

[DHK]

I'm not so sure; I've encountered several Baptists just on these boards who seem to believe that you can imperil your salvation by drinking alcohol or by dancing. That sounds to me pretty much like some form of 'works-based salvation'; if it walks like a duck etc

That is news to me. You misunderstand some of the debates. There have been plenty of debates on whether one can drink wine (or any other alcoholic beverage).
It always boils down to soul liberty; never salvation.
Some believe it is right; some wrong.
There is no one here (Baptist) that I know of that takes the position "If you drink an alcoholic beverage you will lose your salvation." That is absurd to even infer such a position. No baptist believes that, that I know of.