The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

[MorseOp]

I guess it is not wrong for you and those who believe as you do.

Now that was not a jab at you.

In the CAC, we would not accept any and every belief. We would not accept those beliefs which deny the faith, but as for everything else, we do as Wesley said: "We think and let think."

Okay. Well, we just disagree. I am fine with that. I can co-exist with you on the BB because it is not a church. Neither of us is accountable to the other. We can come and go as we wish. I am ashamed that I allowed my temper to get the best of me over the past few days, and I do apologize to those I have offended. I need to realize that the Internet is not the church.

 

[saturneptune]

The two sides need to accept scripture rather than rewrite it. Thus they are convinced, in spite of scripture, they are right.

If a person believes what he or she has discerned from scripture, when a more accurate view is presented, they can adopt it. However, if one is simply regurgitating the shoddy doctrines of the past, then they cannot deviate. So it is a proxy war, engaged in by folks without any ability to discern truth by study. Thus, questions are answered with questions, evasions and ad homenims.

Best post of the thread. As the Lord looks down, He sees Phd vs Phd explaining His innermost thoughts and purposes. No doubt the Lord has learned an enormous amount of doctrine through these threads. I still wonder if He chose to look at the posts or ordained it in eternity past.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think I took great in care in my most to differentiate between error and serious error. Our church considers Arminianism to be serous error because it presents man as cooperating with God in salvation. This is our view. But I am referring to here to someone who is teaching this doctrine. If a member of our church is sympathetic to Arminianism, but keeps it to himself, then there is no harm, no foul. As I said previously, we are not called to patrol hearts. We do allow liberty in non-salvific areas. Eschatology is one them. Amil vs. Premil; both views are held among our members and elders. Young earth or old earth; we have members who hold to both of these views. That is fine. But when it comes to the Gospel; well, there can be quarter given.

This is where you and I differ. I bet there is no one on this forum who is as strongly opposed to all five points of Calvinism as I am -- and yet, I know I can err. Further, I know many Calvinists, and some are my friends. My mom is about as staunch a believer in OSAS as I know; she and I have had passionate discussions on the subject. I would not keep her out of my church -- nor would I keep out EWF, Icon, or you. Although, I doubt any of you would join, I would welcome you and allow you to not only hold your beliefs but also not require that you keep them to yourselves.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Best post of the thread. As the Lord looks down, He sees Phd vs Phd explaining His innermost thoughts and purposes. No doubt the Lord has learned an enormous amount of doctrine through these threads. I still wonder if He chose to look at the posts or ordained it in eternity past.

Excellent! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Okay. Well, we just disagree. I am fine with that. I can co-exist with you on the BB because it is not a church. Neither of us is accountable to the other. We can come and go as we wish. I am ashamed that I allowed my temper to get the best of me over the past few days, and I do apologize to those I have offended. I need to realize that the Internet is not the church.

I have had to do that several times. See how much we have in common?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Best post of the thread. As the Lord looks down, He sees Phd vs Phd explaining His innermost thoughts and purposes. No doubt the Lord has learned an enormous amount of doctrine through these threads. I still wonder if He chose to look at the posts or ordained it in eternity past.

Id say He has an enormous sense of humor & Im positive he laughs at our blunders.

 

[DHK]

I guess it is not wrong for you and those who believe as you do.

Now that was not a jab at you.

In the CAC, we would not accept any and every belief. We would not accept those beliefs which deny the faith, but as for everything else, we do as Wesley said: "We think and let think."

That might be debatable Michael.
Some people might think you deny the faith in some areas.
Give the link to your website and let them see for themselves.
Your view of the atonement is not orthodox.
As far as being Baptist, that is up for grabs as well.
I don't know any modern day Baptist that is called "Archbishop."
Nor do I know of any that has belief in successionism that is very similar to the RCC.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Out of curiosity MorseOp......if someone told you they were a NCT believer, where would that weigh in at your home church?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That might be debatable Michael.
Some people might think you deny the faith in some areas.
Give the link to your website and let them see for themselves.
Your view of the atonement is not orthodox.
As far as being Baptist, that is up for grabs as well.
I don't know any modern day Baptist that is called "Archbishop."
Nor do I know of any that has belief in successionism that is very similar to the RCC.

Well, here we go again.

My view of the atonement is the most orthodox view, as well as the oldest one. The views that came after the first millennium are not "orthodox".

The Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship has bishops.

If you think my views on apostolic succession are very similar to the RCC, you are sadly mistaken.

I know if you had your way you would run me out of the Baptist threads and the Baptist church, but maybe I will accommodate you shortly in both places, voluntarily.

 

[Allan]

This is why I seldom get involved in discussions of Soteriology any more.

Lying is such a terrible sin. Why must you stoop so low? Brother, get up out of the gutter! I have never said or implied in any way that an Arminian is lost. Everyone who believes that Christ died on the cross for their sins, was buried, and rose again for their justification is saved and my brother/sister in Christ. The discussion is not: saved verses lost. The discussion: is saved and how we got that way.

No lie.. it is a direct post to yours.

If you believe they are 2 separate gospels then BIBLICALLY I am lost and you are saved. I am speaking to what scripture states not you think and thus my reason for bringing up scripture.

So, are you saying I believe "another gospel" and preach "another gospel" and am therefore unsaved and condemned?

Nope.. I believe you preach the EXACT same gospel that I preach, Moody preached.. and even John Wesley preached.

I have been preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for 40 years. I have seen the power of God at work in the lives of countless numbers of people. I have seen souls saved, lives changed, homes strengthened, and the hopeless having a new Hope in Christ. And you call that "Unfortunate?" How so?

Unfortunate because you don't understand the gospel message as opposed to (though not expressly separate from) your systematic theology.

While I love Spurgeon, he was wrong in his statement that Calvinism is the gospel. The gospel is the gospel and theology (or systematic theology) is nothing more than man's understanding of God and His work through scripture.
While the gospel is a part of this, the gospel is not any 'ism.

 

[MorseOp]

Although, I doubt any of you would join, I would welcome you and allow you to not only hold your beliefs but also not require that you keep them to yourselves.

Church members are looking for truth and consistency from their pastor/elders. A plurality of doctrine creates confusion. Without indicting you, the only time I have seen a plurality of doctrine tolerated or advocated is in a church that is unorthodox in a number of key areas.

I am under God's command to teach sound doctrine:

2 Timothy 4:1-4 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

1 Timothy 4:6 6 In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.

Understand that my motivation is not to divide for the sake of division. Division happens when the truth is proclaimed:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

 

[MorseOp]

Out of curiosity MorseOp......if someone told you they were a NCT believer, where would that weigh in at your home church?

They would be welcome to join our church but would not be able to advocate NCT.

 

[DHK]

Well, here we go again.

My view of the atonement is the most orthodox view, as well as the oldest one. The views that came after the first millennium are not "orthodox".

Oldest does not always mean orthodox. The RCC supports many of their doctrines with "oldest", as in the Church Fathers views. Many of them held to various heresies.

The Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship has bishops.

We are discussing Baptist doctrine are we not. That is the impression I got.
I am not sure what "Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship" is. If you leave the word "Baptist" out you get Full Gospel Fellowship. Is that similar to Full Gospel Association (FGA), thoroughly Charismatic, and nothing like the Baptist Churches we know of today?

If you think my views on apostolic succession are very similar to the RCC, you are sadly mistaken.

That is why I asked for the link. I am going by memory. If my memory serves me correctly I didn't see much difference, especially when one got to the bottom half of the list--from Peter onward.

I know if you had your way you would run me out of the Baptist threads and the Baptist church, but maybe I will accommodate you shortly in both places, voluntarily.

There are many who take the Baptist name, and it is my opinion that they are not Baptist. But remember that is my opinion. Others may have a much broader opinion than me. I am but one lonely voice. Be thankful for that.

There is another that calls himself a Baptist (you may have noticed). I don't consider him a Baptist either. I don't believe that Baptist doctrine and the Charismatic doctrine can co-exist together. I don't believe in continuing revelation. Is there such a thing as a "Baptist Charismatic church"? I would say only in name, but not in reality. Therefore the person I am referring to is a Charismatic but not a Baptist.

There is another person here that goes to the opposite extreme. If one does not believe in the Calvinistic paradigm, or is not a Calvinist, then he is not saved. That eliminates me. Such an extreme is tolerated, but perhaps it shouldn't be.

Open Theism is not an orthodox doctrine but it is the view of one of the posters here. He is entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong I may believe it is.
It is a place to debate one's views. We aren't going to agree on everything. Some of us have more widely held divergent views than others.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

They would be welcome to join our church but would not be able to advocate NCT.

2nd question, what if you have not formulated a belief in any eschatology....no Covenant no Dispy.....just plain have not made any conclusions? That would be me at this stage of my spiritual walk.

 

[MorseOp]

2nd question, what if you have not formulated a belief in any eschatology....no Covenant no Dispy.....just plain have not made any conclusions? That would be me at this stage of my spiritual walk.

That's fine. All of us are at different stages in our spiritual development. I am amil but hold to it loosely. NCT is a different animal. It has no real historical roots and seems to be a 20th Century concoction. Its view on the Law is problematic in my estimation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's fine. All of us are at different stages in our spiritual development. I am amil but hold to it loosely. NCT is a different animal. It has no real historical roots and seems to be a 20th Century concoction. It's view on the Law is problematic in my estimation.

Yes thank you. I have looked at NCT & came to the same conclusions. Yet they try teaching it out here. You have to join this certain church, get re-baptized & then go through a 18 week indoctrination put on by the pastor. I opted out.

 

[TCassidy]

No lie.. it is a direct post to yours.

That is patently untrue. I have never questioned your, or anyone else's in this thread, salvation. Shame on you!

If you believe they are 2 separate gospels then BIBLICALLY I am lost and you are saved. I am speaking to what scripture states not you think and thus my reason for bringing up scripture.

I did not say I believe there were two separate gospels nor do I believe such. Shame on you again!

Nope.. I believe you preach the EXACT same gospel that I preach, Moody preached.. and even John Wesley preached.

Then why did you lie about what I said and what I believe?

Unfortunate because you don't understand the gospel message as opposed to (though not expressly separate from) your systematic theology.

Now you make another false statement. I understand the gospel message. "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." What part of that do you claim I fail to understand?

While I love Spurgeon, he was wrong in his statement that Calvinism is the gospel. The gospel is the gospel and theology (or systematic theology) is nothing more than man's understanding of God and His work through scripture.

What part of Spurgeon's statement are you disagreeing with?

Do you deny that men are lost, depraved, and at enmity with God?

Do you deny that there is nothing in and of a man that merits salvation?

Do you deny that the atonement is only applied to believers?

Do you deny that no saved person ever resisted grace unto perdition?

Do you deny that a person is saved for all eternity?

While the gospel is a part of this, the gospel is not any 'ism.

I never claimed the gospel is part of any "ism." I stated what the gospel is.

 

[Skandelon]

TCassidy,

In post #92 you defined the gospel as the 5 points of Calvinism, suggesting (along with Aaron) that a non-Calvinistic interpretation of the gospel is not really the gospel. Aaron, in particular, has been more blunt on this accusation than you were, but nevertheless, Allan's response to you is not inappropriate considering your claims.

Also, your post (#92) reveals you have little understanding of our perspective of salvation by Grace through faith. As I explained (and you conveniently ignored) in post #140, we do not believe faith is meritorious, as you fallaciously accused.

 

[12strings]

At 26 pages and counting, I think we can safely re-assign a new top BB Topic:

FORMER #1 Topic: Debating Calvinism vs Arminianism

NEW #1 Topic: Debating why we will keep debating Calvinism vs. Arminianism

:tongue3:

 

[convicted1]

Thanks a ton Willis.....now I gotta clean the coffee off the Computer screen! LOL

I think this thread is much ado about nothing. Now, I am not saying that examining and debating scripture is wrong, on the contrary, it is very good. It is all the vitriol and "my God is bigger than your god", and "I am right, and you are wrong", and "you can not see the truth because of your bias you take when you study", etc. that turns me off.


None of us were saved by our belief systems. When I was a sinner, I couldn't have given you and in depth analysis of what regeneration, sanctification, and justification meant. I knew what salvation meant, and I was devoid of it. I knew Who had it, and I went to Him and pleaded my case as an unworthy sinner, unworthy of His mercy, worthy of eternal punishment, and that without Him, I was going there. Eventhough I had nothing to offer Him in return, He gave me ALL of Him.


Just because I tell people that I had to believe in Him, does not mean I point to myself in the salvation process. It is up to us to believe what He has written about Himself through those who were under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Just because I tell people that I had to pray for my salvation to take place, does not say that I had anything to do with my salvation. God showed me what I really was; a condemned sinner, bound for hell, worthy of going there, and that without His grace, I would be there.

:godisgood: :jesus: :godisgood: :jesus: