The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

[psalms109:31]

That is very horrible tactic to do to a believer, to impress upon your belief system. To make a person feel guilty for trusting in Christ to humbly come before God and repent. Do not feel guilty for doing what God has called you and directed your path to do by His word. Only in a mind of man does it make you better than someone else. We already feel guilty what our sin done to Christ now put salt in the wound to win them to a religion.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I agree. It is really said that Particular Baptists, in all humility, give all the honor and Glory to God, while the General Baptists, in sinful human pride, try to appropriate some of that honor and glory for themselves.

What a ridiculous, untrue, and self-righteous statement.

Reminds me of the Christian who said, "We are not like other Christians; we really outdo everyone in our humility." !!

 

[12strings]

They have been doing it in the Anglican Communion for centuries, along with other "diametrically opposite" doctrines.

And Baptist Churches, too!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And Baptist Churches, too!

True, but not as many diametrically opposite views as the Anglican Communion contains.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by Winman

No man is justified until after he believes, and so no man can be spiritually alive until AFTER he believes.

I have never said that justification precedes faith.

How can a man be spiritually alive when he is still dead in trespasses and sins?

The above three quotations demonstrate your problem! You say: "No man is justified until after he believes."

I agree and say: "I have never said that justification precedes faith."

Your response: "How can a man be spiritually alive when he is still dead in trespasses and sins?"

Doesn't make much sense does it?

 

[OldRegular]

You are mistaken.

John 3:3-8
3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Winman you can disagree with the teaching of Jesus Christ if you choose. In the above passage our Lord tells us that when we are born again or regenerated we don't even understand what is happening. He says nothing about what man must do to be "born again". If you have believed in Jesus Christ you are aware of that are you not?

Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again to see or enter the kingdom of God, but he does not say how a person is born again. There is nothing in these verses that would support my view or your view, they are silent about how a person is born again.

They are not silent! Jesus Christ says: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. He just does not stipulate any action on mans part as a condition for the work of the Holy Spirit. That you will not accept.

 

[MorseOp]

Don't deliberately distort the facts. The mainline Episcopal Church does that; the vast majority of the Anglican Communion does not. Before making ignorant (lack of knowledge) statements, you should do some reading. "Anglican realignment" and "continuing Anglicanism" might be a good place to start.

For centuries, Anglicanism has been able to hold diametrically opposite views within one denomination.

The "vast majority" of Anglican churches are steeped in dead ritualism. It was also the breeding ground of N.T. Wright and his refutation of imputation. At least pick something a bit more relevant to the discussion. Anglican and Episcopalain churches are also hierarchical in nature. There is not much that a local church can do about opposing a false teaching unless the denomination acts. Baptist churches are independent. Usually there is a shared theological position held by the pastor, deacons/elders, and membership. When there is not there are problems.

You can have a Calvinist pastor/elders with some Arminian members and vice versa. As long as the members do not try to push their agenda I suppose you can have a semblance of unity. But once that agenda is pushed, or there is a rift in church leadership, one of the positions will win out. That is not speculation, it is tried and tested fact. And what if you simply cannot abide the teaching from the pulpit? I see it happen all the time. We have had people join our church because they cannot stand the Arminiansim of their previous church. We have had members leave our church because they cannot abide Calvinism. I think that is a good thing, so long as they leave on good terms. I can respect the person who tells me they no longer believe in the doctrines of grace and feel lead to leave for a church they agree with doctrinally. I may disagree with their theological conviction, but I must respect their honor and integrity.

 

[TCassidy]

What a ridiculous, untrue, and self-righteous statement.

Please explain to me what is ridiculous about the Particular Baptists giving all Glory to God. What is untrue about the Particular Baptists giving all Glory to God? And what is self-righteous about Particular Baptists giving all Glory to God?

Reminds me of the Christian who said, "We are not like other Christians; we really outdo everyone in our humility." !!

You seem confused. Who in this thread has made such a statement, or implied such?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

They have been doing it in the Anglican Communion for centuries, along with other "diametrically opposite" doctrines.

Michael.....frankly Ive never seen the inside of an Anglican church but there again never seen one in my state.

Now I have been in a Episcopalian Church.....and as they say in NJ.....foget bout it!

So.... how effective can they be? I dont see any fruit (I see a ton of fruits in the Episapalian Church however).

 

[TCassidy]

The "vast majority" of Anglican churches are steeped in dead ritualism.

I agree, most are as you describe, but there are some Anglican/Episcopalian churches that are strongly evangelical. My brother is a preaching elder in one such church in Tennessee.

Anglican and Episcopalain churches are also hierarchical in nature. There is not much that a local church can do about opposing a false teaching unless the denomination acts.

True again, but in many cases the denomination allows the local congregation to preach and teach what their conscience dictates.

You can have a Calvinist pastor/elders with some Arminian members and vice versa.

I am presently in such a church. The church members, for the most part, are what I would call Arminian (they would object to being called Arminian by saying "But we believe in eternal security) as is most of the pastoral staff.

As long as the members do not try to push their agenda I suppose you can have a semblance of unity. But once that agenda is pushed, or there is a rift in church leadership, one of the positions will win out. That is not speculation, it is tried and tested fact. And what if you simply cannot abide the teaching from the pulpit? I see it happen all the time.

We avoid such division by focusing on Christ instead of focusing on pet doctrines. Works quite well, for us.

We have had people join our church because they cannot stand the Arminiansim of their previous church. We have had members leave our church because they cannot abide Calvinism. I think that is a good thing, so long as they leave on good terms. I can respect the person who tells me they no longer believe in the doctrines of grace and feel lead to leave for a church they agree with doctrinally. I may disagree with their theological conviction, but I must respect their honor and integrity.

Amen. One of the key distinctives of Baptists is Soul Liberty. Unfortunately it is one of the least practiced of the Baptist Distinctives.

 

[Winman]

They are not silent! Jesus Christ says: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. He just does not stipulate any action on mans part as a condition for the work of the Holy Spirit. That you will not accept.

Jesus does not explain here HOW a person is born of the Spirit, but it is clearly taught in John 1:12-13;

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Verse 12 explains exactly how a person is born again, those who receive Jesus and believe on his name, to these persons God gave the power to "become" the sons of God. Nothing could be clearer, believing preceded being made a son of God, faith preceded regeneration.

Verse 13 simply explains that this regeneration or being born again is 100% a work of God, it is not something you can inherit from your parents, and you cannot will yourself born again. Only God has the power to regenerate a man and make him a son of God.

Nevertheless, God only regenerates those persons who receive Jesus and believe on his name.

Faith clearly precedes regeneration.

 

[Blammo]

Case in point:

I agree. It is really said that Particular Baptists, in all humility, give all the honor and Glory to God, while the General Baptists, in sinful human pride, try to appropriate some of that honor and glory for themselves.

 

[OldRegular]

Duplicate post!

 

[OldRegular]

Jesus does not explain here HOW a person is born of the Spirit, but it is clearly taught in John 1:12-13;

Jesus Christ told Nicodemus:Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

If He didn't tell old Nicodemus why should He tell you? It is enough that He said it will happen.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Verse 12 explains exactly how a person is born again, those who receive Jesus and believe on his name, to these persons God gave the power to "become" the sons of God. Nothing could be clearer, believing preceded being made a son of God, faith preceded regeneration.

Verse 13 simply explains that this regeneration or being born again is 100% a work of God, it is not something you can inherit from your parents, and you cannot will yourself born again. Only God has the power to regenerate a man and make him a son of God.

Your understanding of John 1:12, 13 is faulty. You say only God has the power to regenerate a man yet you argue that it is your will that determines whether you will be born again. Furthermore if you read verses 12 and 13 carefully you will see that the new birth occurs before belief. Which were born, winman, means they were already born of God.

 

[Winman]

Jesus Christ told Nicodemus:Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

If He didn't tell old Nicodemus why should He tell you? It is enough that He said it will happen.

Your understanding of John 1:12, 13 is faulty. You say only God has the power to regenerate a man yet you argue that it is your will that determines whether you will be born again. Furthermore if you read verses 12 and 13 carefully you will see that the new birth occurs before belief. Which were born, winman, means they were already born of God.

No Bible scholar would agree with your interpretation (because it is total error). Here is what Albert Barnes said.

Verse 12. To as many as received him. The great mass; the people; the scribes and Pharisees rejected him. A few in his lifetime received him, and many more after his death. To receive him, here, means to believe on him. This is expressed at the end of the verse.

Gave he power. This is more appropriately rendered in the margin by the word right or privilege. Comp. Acts 1:7; 5:4; Romans 9:21; 1 Corinthians 7:37; 8:9; 9:4,5.

Sons of God. Children of God by adoption. See Barnes "Matthew 1:1". Christians are called sons of God--

1st. Because they are adopted by him, 1 John 3:1.

2nd. Because they are like him; they resemble him and have his spirit.

3rd. They are united to the Lord Jesus, the Son of God--are regarded by him as his brethren (Matthew 25:40), and are therefore regarded as the children of the Most High.

On his name. This is another way of saying believeth in him. The name of a person is often put for the person himself, John 2:23 John 2:18; 1 John 5:13. From this verse we learn,

1st. That to be a child of God is a privilege-far more so than to be the child of any man, though in the highest degree rich, or learned, or honoured. Christians are therefore more honoured than any other men.

2nd. God gave them this privilege. It is not by their own works or deserts; it is because God chose to impart this blessing to them, Ephesians 2:8; John 15:16.

3rd. This favour is given only to those who believe on him. All others are the children of the wicked one, and no one who has not confidence in God can be regarded as his child. No parent would acknowledge one for his child, or approve of him, who had no confidence in him, who doubted or denied all he said, and who despised his character. Yet this the sinner constantly does toward God, and he cannot, therefore, be called his son.

{p} "as many as received him" Isaiah 56:4,5; Romans 8:15; 1 John 3:1
{1} "power to become" or, "the right or privilege"

Verse 13. Which were born. This doubtless refers to the new birth, or to the great change in the sinner's mind called regeneration or conversion. It means that they did not become the children of God in virtue of their natural birth, or because they were the children of Jews, or because they were descended from pious parents. The term "to be born" is often used to denote this change. Comp. John 3:3-8 1 John 2:29. It illustrates clearly and beautifully this great change. The natural birth introduces us to life. The new birth is the beginning of spiritual life. Before, the sinner is dead in sins (Ephesians 2:1); now he begins truly to live. And as the natural birth is the beginning of life, so to be born of God is to be introduced to real life, to light, to happiness, and to the favour of God. The term expresses at once the greatness and the nature of the change.

Barnes here correctly says that the privilege or favor of being born again is only given to those who believe on Jesus.

Barnes also correctly points out that a person was formally dead in sins, but now has true life. This is regeneration. No one has their sins forgiven until they first believe.

As I have pointed out many dozens of times, Calvinists understand scripture in the exact reverse of what it truly says.

No one is born again until they first believe on Jesus.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I was just showing this Spurgeon comment to another brother in Christ. I sure it would fly counter to any Non Calvie but I totally agree. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

Regarding Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace:

When you say, "Can God make me become a Christian?" I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, "Will you have it?" but it makes you willing in the day of God's power....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, I do not want to be saved; Christ says you shall be. He makes our will turn round, and then you cry,"'Lord save, or I perish!

 

[TCassidy]

Case in point:

Do you know anything about the history of the Particular Baptists and what their faith cost them?

Why in the world would you demean them and their faith?

 

[Winman]

I was just showing this Spurgeon comment to another brother in Christ. I sure it would fly counter to any Non Calvie but I totally agree. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

Regarding Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace:

When you say, "Can God make me become a Christian?" I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, "Will you have it?" but it makes you willing in the day of God's power....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, I do not want to be saved; Christ says you shall be. He makes our will turn round, and then you cry,"'Lord save, or I perish!

This is complete error by Spurgeon. God does not force or impose himself on anyone. He only gives the power to become a son of God to those who "received" Jesus and believed on his name. He did not impose salvation on those that did not receive Jesus.

Paul said he persuaded men, not coerced them.

Acts 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

The scriptures say Paul beseeched or begged men to be reconciled to God.

2 Cor 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

2 Cor 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

This word "beseech" means to beg someone or to plead with them. It does not mean to force, compel, or impose upon someone.

Calvinists either are ignorant of scripture, or intentionally pervert what it says.

 

[psalms109:31]

John 17:
17 Sanctify them by[Or them to live in accordance with] the truth; your word is truth.

James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

1 Peter 1:
22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart. 23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For,

“All people are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25 but the word of the Lord endures forever.”[Isaiah 40:6-8 (see Septuagint)]

And this is the word that was preached to you.


No preacher in their right mind would give glory to men for our salvation, He gave us a new will by His word the new birth comes from His word it is not already there.

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

If we do not come to Jesus it is not the will of God it is our own will, His will is for us to repent and live those who don't our doing their own will. It was all the work of God by His Holy Spirit in His temple through the words of Jesus that brought me to God before then I was dead headed for hell. I was saved I was not already saved being already saved is ridiculous. Jesus came to save the sinner those who don't see, don't hear, those who don't understand He will accept you just the way you are listen and learn from Him and He will remove the veil that covers your heart. You don't see the wind or the Holy Spirit working in you, but you will see the results.

 

[Skandelon]

No Arminian in the past 40 years has been able to answer that question without, ultimately, saying that they were better than their neighbor.

Then you haven't been reading me or Allan. You should get out more. :love2:

Better = meritorious, more deserving

But we don't believe faith merits (or deserves) salvation. Did the Prodigal son deserve to be restored as an heir, giving the golden ring, and a party simply because he returned home with his tail between his legs in humble surrender? Of course not. That was all of the father's grace. The son, like us, deserve to be sent to hell even if we have the faith the size of a mustard tree, but God in his grace chooses to credit our seed size faith as righteousness and give us something we NEVER could earn. Faith merits nothing. Responding in humble surrender is weakness, not strength. It isn't boast worthy or 'better,' it is giving up, letting go, and admitting complete and utter defeat. You have wrongly concluded that faith is some of work of law by which we earn God's favor, but that could not be further from the truth.