The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

[Skandelon]

I looked at the corporate view but believed it to be contrary to scripture. I still believe that. I am wholly, totally, and irrevocably convinced that the doctrines of grace are an accurate representation of scripture. If I did not I would not hold to them. It is what it is.

But you're wrong and I'm convinced of it.... I guess the OP is right. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And to that I still rejoice that my name is written down in heaven. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.

Splendid! Amen :godisgood:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Maybe if we tone it down a tad we can view it differently. When it comes to the Calvinist vs. Arminian topic, do not most who participate in this discussions (on the BB) have a firm opinion? Therefore, if you believe your position is right does it not logically follow that you believe the other position is wrong? That is what drove my sidebar conversation with Michael. Because the two positions are so polarizing it seems to make sense that an amicable separation among Baptists is preferable. Look at the SBC. Some of the rhetoric is so uncharitable that it would make a person think the two sides are deadly enemies. Those churches that have separated for the sake of the Gospel have been able to function better as a church.

Just my two cents.

I just think it's sad that a separation would be the only workable solution.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

With holloween coming up, you need to take up a second job of making scarecrows/strawmen....you sure built a dandy here.

And, you see, with a mindset such as T exhibited in that post, conversation is rendered pointless.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The original baptists were the Apostles..they were calvinistic and augustianian before Calvin and before Augustine.

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, thank you for clarifying.

Obviously we hold to a different standard. We consider any teaching that is contrary to scripture to be a false teaching. The elders have the responsibility of protecting the flock from error. We cannot patrol a person's heart, but if a false teaching is being promulgated in the church it will be stopped by taking the appropriate measures (depending on the circumstance and the nature of the false teaching). What qualifies as a false teaching? Things like denial of the Trinity, denial of original sin, denial of the virgin birth, denial of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, advocating universal atonement, and the Arminian or semi-Pelagian gospel et. al.

Some false teachings strike at the core of Christianity, while others do not. The former errors must be addressed with prejudice. That is partly done through the preaching of the Word of God. The best defense against false hood is to proclaim the truth. Not as often is the need for direct confrontation with the individual. Praise God that I can count on one hand (and still have fingers left over) the number of times the elders have had to do that.

All this stems from a love for God, His Word, and His sheep. Sheep have to be lead by shepherds who have their best interest at heart. If not, the wolves are ready and willing to pounce at the slightest pretext.

Yes, but if it is other brethren in Christ whose teachings do not strike at the root of Christianity who are being considered wolves, I think this is sad.

 

[TCassidy]

You can always tell when the Arminians are losing the argument. They resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and posting nothing more substantive than laughing smiley faces.

 

[TCassidy]

And to that I still rejoice that my name is written down in heaven. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.

Amen! Well said. When we focus on the glory of Christ our Savior, the peripheral issues fade to inconsequence.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Continuing...

While the BB is not a church, we do have members who choose not to dialog with each other because they cannot get along. I am the first to admit that I had to place some members on ignore simply because the level of rancor was becoming unloving and dishonoring to God. Some of those same members have also placed me on ignore. Now, if that happens on an Internet message board, what is it like in our churches? Passions run high and it is difficult to disengage. I started this thread to find the reasons why we disagree, not to exasperate the situation. We cannot even do that without a free-for-all! That is a sad commentary, and I take my share of the responsibility for adding to it.

Look, when I returned to this forum a while back after a lengthy absence, I almost immediately got into it with several of the more "fundamental" posters and also the "calvinistic" ones. However, after much and protracted rancor, I have made peace with some of them, and now I consider EWF and Icon good friends, although we probably disagree as much as ever. If this can happen on a forum, why not in a church?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Good post 12strings! Very well stated! :thumbs:

I concur! Now if I could just live up to those standards.....

 

[Skandelon]

You can always tell when the Arminians are losing the argument. They resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and posting nothing more substantive than laughing smiley faces.

That goes both ways... I also notice that the 'losing' party tends to ignore posts all together. (ref to posts #140 and 141)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You can always tell when the Arminians are losing the argument. They resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and posting nothing more substantive than laughing smiley faces.

Your post that was referenced was the insult. And the more you post, the more you prove the other side right.

And the post you just made makes you guilty of what you are erroneously charging others with.

Is that substantive enough for you?

It is not possible nor do I care to try to have a reasonable discussion with someone who could post with the arrogance and self-righteousness that you exhibited in that one post which has been referenced here several times.

And in case you need a reminder, here is that post which is the height of self-righteousness, and falsehood: "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."

 

[MorseOp]

Look, when I returned to this forum a while back after a lengthy absence, I almost immediately got into it with several of the more "fundamental" posters and also the "calvinistic" ones. However, after much and protracted rancor, I have made peace with some of them, and now I consider EWF and Icon good friends, although we probably disagree as much as ever. If this can happen on a forum, why not in a church?

I am not saying that individuals who disagree cannot co-exist peacefully within a local church. It happens all the time. I said before that in my church we have no problem allowing Arminians to join, but they must understand that we reject Arminianism and actively teach against it when the subject is addressed in scripture. We will not tolerate advocacy of a false teaching. Because of that most Arminians that have visited our church decide not to attend or join. No one is trying to bend their arm to make them believe what we believe. I do not think this is unique to our church. Most Baptist churches operate this way. That is why Baptist churches come in every size, stripe, and flavor imaginable. Reformed Baptists, G.A.R.B., Primitive Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Landmark Baptists, I.F.B. Baptists, Free Will Baptists...need I go on? They all exist because of doctrinal disagreements. I may get along fine with the pastor of a G.A.R.B. church, but our doctrinal differences cause us to be separate in worship and ministry. That is a reality that will only be reconciled when Christ returns for His bride.

 

[MorseOp]

I just think it's sad that a separation would be the only workable solution.

Well, how else should it work? If I and my fellow elders are convinced that a certain teaching is in error, we are not going to allow it to be taught in our church. Period. In fact we will oppose it and eradicate it. People being who they are, they will most likely either not align themselves with us or they will leave. How is that wrong?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I am not saying that individuals who disagree cannot co-exist peacefully within a local church. It happens all the time. I said before that in my church we have no problem allowing Arminians to join, but they must understand that we reject Arminianism and actively teach against it when the subject is addressed in scripture. We will not tolerate advocacy of a false teaching. Because of that most Arminians that have visited our church decide not to attend or join. No one is trying to bend their arm to make them believe what we believe. I do not think this is unique to our church. Most Baptist churches operate this way. That is why Baptist churches come in every size, stripe, and flavor imaginable. Reformed Baptists, G.A.R.B., Primitive Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Landmark Baptists, I.F.B. Baptists, Free Will Baptists...need I go on? They all exist because of doctrinal disagreements. I may get along fine with the pastor of a G.A.R.B. church, but our doctrinal differences cause us to be separate in worship and ministry. That is a reality that will only be reconciled when Christ returns for His bride.

As I have pointed out, that is not the case everywhere. It is said that Baptists multiply by dividing. I used to think that was funny; I am increasingly thinking it is sad.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And his bride is Sybil! :laugh: Sorry could not resist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, how else should it work? If I and my fellow elders are convinced that a certain teaching is in error, we are not going to allow it to be taught in our church. Period. In fact we will oppose it and eradicate it. People being who they are, they will most likely either not align themselves with us or they will leave. How is that wrong?

Clear cut & straight away....I LIKE IT! You want to start a church in NW New Jersey?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, how else should it work? If I and my fellow elders are convinced that a certain teaching is in error, we are not going to allow it to be taught in our church. Period. In fact we will oppose it and eradicate it. People being who they are, they will most likely either not align themselves with us or they will leave. How is that wrong?

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."

 

[MorseOp]

Yes, but if it is other brethren in Christ whose teachings do not strike at the root of Christianity who are being considered wolves, I think this is sad.

I think I took great in care in my post 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 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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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."

Again, "Thinking" is not "Knowing"