Thoughts on Arminianism (for a change)

[Brother Bob]

If Jesus was talking to the "lost" when He said "I stand at the door and knock and if any man will hear my voice", It doesn't matter whether they were in the church building or out, He was still speaking to the lost, it seems to me.
If all it takes is to get yourself inside of the building and you be a part of the church, we would be overrun. The lost is the lost or the unsaved.

 

[Jarthur001]

If Jesus was talking to the "lost" when He said "I stand at the door and knock and if any man will hear my voice", It doesn't matter whether they were in the church building or out, He was still speaking to the lost, it seems to me.
If all it takes is to get yourself inside of the building and you be a part of the church, we would be overrun. The lost is the lost or the unsaved.

Hello Bob,


Would you not agree that this text in Rev 3 does not show that it is talking to the non-believer, as shown in this post..

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=927929&postcount=85



In Christ..James

 

[Brother Bob]

I agree it was supposed to be believers but must not of really been. I don't know if they had the candle stick removed yet or not but this is what Jesus said about what kind of people they were.

Rev 3:15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

He most deffinantly was speaking to the churches but seem to be guiding his words to those who were in these churches who were spewed out of His mouth. I think we have to be careful who we call a believer or a saved person. We too have those among us who are deceivers who came in to seek out our liberty and take peace from us. I am sure you will agree with that James and it seems Jesus was directing His words to those people. I think it was the Sardis He found a few who had not defiled their garments.

 

[Dustin]

HP: It seems a bit strange for me to be called an Arminian, for I am not of that stripe, but just the same, I am OK if it seems to you that I am. I thank the Lord for those Arminians, even though I disagree with most all of them. I am sure closer to that camp than the Calvinistic one.

With that aside, feel free to continue to point out these ‘errors’ you see in the Arminians. I very seldom read much of the links posted, for this is a discussion group. I like to discuss one on one. If you feel a certain link presents the truth, read it and put it in your own words and present it for discussion. Fair enough? Thanks!

Heavenly Pilgrim,

That is fair enough. It's quite an awful lot of information though. But your request in no burden at all, I will gladly do so. I want to encourage you, if you ever have time, to at least take a short look at the links I posted. They do explain things much more thoroughly than I can right now. This is very encouraging to me, as I don't like to argue heatedly ALL the time.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: We too have those among us who are deceivers who came in to seek out our liberty and take peace from us.

HP: Sounds to me like some of those in Rev. might have taken a few too many ‘liberties.’

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dustin: I don't like to argue heatedly ALL the time.

HP: We should not be heated, but we can and should be passionate for the truth as God has shown us.
I feel you have conducted yourself honorably. Thanks!!

 

[Dustin]

Great line...

BTW.. any Free Presbyterian church that I know of, is a very good church.

I haven't heard of a bad one yet. Wish there were one around my area, I would join. They're very evangelistic and very Calvinist. There's a video of thier early history on sermonaudio.com hosted by Dr. Alan Cairns. Very, very good.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Dustin]

HP: We should not be heated, but we can and should be passionate for the truth as God has shown us.
I feel you have conducted yourself honorably. Thanks!!

Thanks and welcome.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Does that mean that Larry believes God precedes Himself?

This is nonsensical, it seems to me.

If belief is a work of God, and salvation is a work of God, can either in reality precede the other?

Yes, belief precedes salvation. As we Calvinists believe "whoever believes shall be saved."

[quote[Is Larry to say that salvation takes place at the time of belief?[/quote]Yes.

If so, when does one become one of the elect?

According to Scripture, from before the foundation of hte world (Eph 1:4; 2 thess 2:13).

Are the elect saved, and that from eternity, or does God make them one of the elect when they believe?

The elect are saved when they believed. They are not "saved" from eternity, nor do they become elect when they believe. Scripture teaches neither.

Is it not true that the true Calvinist like Larry REALLY believes that our salvation experience is really just when we become cognizant of God’s foreordained plan for our life, and that the point and time we call salvation is really nothing more or less than the point in time WE become cognizant of what God had already done from eternity past?

No, that's not true. Our salvation experience is when we become cognizant that we are hopelessly lost sinners and that Jesus is our only hope, and we commit our lives to him for salvation.

The only thing in this that God did from eternity past is choose us. That means it is not based on what we do.

In reality, according to the Calvinist, man has absolutely NOTHING to do with their salvation. If anything is done, whether or not it is belief, repentance, or anything else, it is really God doing the work, not man in any way shape or form.

Yes, by and large. But faith is the gift of God to us and is something we exercise by his grace.

I would ask you and Larry again, can or does God precede Himself?

I would say again, This is nonsensical, and irrelevant, so far as I can tell.

 

[webdog]

Hello Bob,


Would you not agree that this text in Rev 3 does not show that it is talking to the non-believer, as shown in this post..

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=927929&postcount=85



In Christ..James

James, I'm sure you are familiar with John Macarthur, are you not? Do you consider him to be a "free-willer"?

From his study Bible (page 1997) in regards to Rev. 3:20...

"Rather than allowing for the common interpretation of Christ's knocking on a person's heart, the context demands that Christ was seeking to enter this church that bore His name but lacked a single true beleiver. This poignant letter was His knocking. If one member would recognize his spiritual bankruptcy and respond in saving faith, He would enter the church."

The only thing I don't agree with Macarthur on is his idea that the text in question is speaking to a church that lacks a single believer...but is not speaking of the knock on a person's heart from Christ. I don't see how it can be excluded, given his definition of the church lacking a single believer (I don't agree). As someone pointed out prior, the wheat and tares are together. There aren't two different messages.

 

[Jarthur001]

James, I'm sure you are familiar with John Macarthur, are you not? Do you consider him to be a "free-willer"?

From his study Bible (page 1997) in regards to Rev. 3:20...

"Rather than allowing for the common interpretation of Christ's knocking on a person's heart, the context demands that Christ was seeking to enter this church that bore His name but lacked a single true beleiver. This poignant letter was His knocking. If one member would recognize his spiritual bankruptcy and respond in saving faith, He would enter the church."

The only thing I don't agree with Macarthur on is his idea that the text in question is speaking to a church that lacks a single believer...but is not speaking of the knock on a person's heart from Christ. I don't see how it can be excluded, given his definition of the church lacking a single believer (I don't agree). As someone pointed out prior, the wheat and tares are together. There aren't two different messages.

Yes...been there..done that. Read the pages just ahead of this page on the same thread. Your buddy Bob Ryan said the same thing and I addressed it already.

I guess there is no real answer for this from the other side. Should we move to the next "major" point of freewillism?

In Christ...James

 

[BobRyan]

Johnny Mac is right, the lost INSIDE THE CHURCH, not the entire unconverted world.

It's a specific statement to a specific group of people.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=928072&postcount=93

If you are now willing to admit that these people are lost - alone and without Christ and He is standing the the door of the wicked, of the lost sinner, of the depraved sinner without Christ and knocking then the ACT of knocking on the door of the lost HAS TO BE evangelistic no matter WHERE you find that lost person!

And since we can all see that - we can also all see that the solution for the LOST is THE SAME whether they be IN the church or OUTSIDE.

Nothing "even in Calvinism" argues that the LOST INSIDE a local congregation are LESS depraved or MORE CAPABLE of responding to Christ than the lost unsaved person OUTSIDE the congregation.

Surely can see that.

This means that the work of Christ in Rev 3:20 IS evangelistic by definition - because it goes TO THE LOST and provides a remedy for salvation for RESTORED fellowship!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Great men you quote there Bob. Should we uphold each word they say? If so, I would like to post some other quotes by them to see what you think. Yet I think you fail to see what even this does to your ideas. Lets say John Mac is right. What are we left with but this... you have removed the "Christ's knocking on a person's heart" and it is limited to a church.

You are simply reusing the typical Calvinist "deny-all" approach to the argument. But if you will notice by admitting that these people ARE LOST then it is clear that Christ's WORK IS evangelistic.

Only in Calvinism is God LIMITED to people ALREADY attending church - when confronting the lost. The bible never does such a thing!

But in admitting that it is the LOST state that is "ALONE and WITHOUT Christ" you have admitted to Bible truth devasting to Calvinism.

Recall that the Calvinists here are trying desperately to bend and twist the LOST ALONE and WITHOUT Christ state SEEN in Rev 3:20 into "some kind of Bible description of the SAVED state".

But we see from John MacArthur's statements that there are a few among the Calvinists that will hold with some integrity to the text and admit to a LOST STATE when they find one.

That is pretty amazing all by itself.

But the next logical step is to ADMIT that the work of Christ in Rev 3 IS evangelistic EVEN if you blindly insist that He can only be reaching out to the LOST that are already part of some church congregation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

You are simply reusing the typical Calvinist "deny-all" approach to the argument. But if you will notice by admitting that these people ARE LOST then it is clear that Christ's WORK IS evangelistic.

Only in Calvinism is God LIMITED to people ALREADY attending church - when confronting the lost. The bible never does such a thing!

But in admitting that it is the LOST state that is "ALONE and WITHOUT Christ" you have admitted to Bible truth devasting to Calvinism.

Recall that the Calvinists here are trying desperately to bend and twist the LOST ALONE and WITHOUT Christ state SEEN in Rev 3:20 into "some kind of Bible description of the SAVED state".

But we see from John MacArthur's statements that there are a few among the Calvinists that will hold with some integrity to the text and admit to a LOST STATE when they find one.

That is pretty amazing all by itself.

But the next logical step is to ADMIT that the work of Christ in Rev 3 IS evangelistic EVEN if you blindly insist that He can only be reaching out to the LOST that are already part of some church congregation.

In Christ,

Bob

Thanks Bob for some more of your logic. Any time your would like to support your ideas from the text, feel free to post them.


Text anyone?

 

[BobRyan]

When you merely "ASSUME" that the Bible says "ALONE without CHRIST" is the definition of SAVED -- it is you that has to PROVE your own wild assumption not Arminians.

The Arminian view is that SALVATION is the state described as being IN FELLOWSHIP with Christ - RESTORED union as we see in Gal 2:20 "No Longer I WHO LIVE but CHRIST that LIVES IN ME".

As we see in 2Cor 5 "If anyone is IN CHRIST He is a NEW creation"

As we see in the Gospels "I will NEVER LEAVE you".

As we see in Rev 3:20 "I WILL COME IN and FELLOWSHIP with HIM".

As we saw EVEN in OldRegular's description of salvation SHOWING the UNION with Christ to be central to that concept EVEN for some Calvinists.

As we see John MacArthur also seems to get the picture.

Having all this evidence from the Bible, from reason, from Fellow Calvinists stacked against your "deny-all" position you then ask "text please"????

Please apply some reason to your posting - join the discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

Bob,

You said..

When you merely "ASSUME" that the Bible says "ALONE without CHRIST" is the definition of SAVED -- it is you that has to PROVE your own wild assumption not Arminians.

What is sad, is that you claim this is one of three "major" text that freewillism builds their doctrine on. Yet the very text itself does not support your view. The text clearly is talking about a church. You ASSUME that is is the persons heart.

Lets not forget that freewillism NEEDS this verse to say whay they want it to say. Without it their house falls. This verse MUST be talking of all of mankind, or the passage is no good to the freewillers. This passage has to be talking about mens hearts, or one of the three "Pillars of Arminianism" falls. This is where Arminianism starts, and then looks to see if they can find truth later.

You ASSUME this to be as you wish it were. You want others to "take the next step". The next step is open to human speculation and theology slant. The next step is moving from exegesis into eisegesis. This is no way to build a top doctrine.

You also said..

As we see in 2Cor 5 "If anyone is IN CHRIST He is a NEW creation"

As we see in the Gospels "I will NEVER LEAVE you".

As we see in Rev 3:20 "I WILL COME IN and FELLOWSHIP with HIM".

The person that is in Christ is a believer
The person who Christ will never leave...is the believer.
The person Christ wants to fellowship with is the believer.

As we see John MacArthur also seems to get the picture.

Now can people draw other pictures from this text? Yes many do. John MacArthur is a case in point. But does John MacArthur build his whole theology of salvation from this passage? Would you care for me to post the full view of John MacArthur on salvation? Do you feel John MacArthur is a Calvinist, or a non-Calvinist? Or do you really know what he believes on the doctrines of grace and you are just trying to mislead to support your view? Seeing tibbits and sharing a picture is one thing. John has done nothing wrong here. Building a doctrine on a text that does not support you is yet another thing.

Calvinism can see the truth of the text and admit freely that this is talking about the Church. They also can apply other truths found their. A Calvinist knows that it is the church, but can picture other things as well. But these other things will not build a doctrine. They are just that...pictures.

Having all this evidence from the Bible, from reason, from Fellow Calvinists stacked against your "deny-all" position you then ask "text please"????

Still waiting on your evidence. This should be easy to see, being that this is a main passage for your doctrine. Yet where is it? Sorry Bob, not there.

Please apply some reason to your posting - join the discussion.

I'll try to do better.



In Christ...James