What Dr. James P. Boyce thought about Arminians

It looks as if the SBC of my childhood has come a long, long way, "Baby", since the days of Dr. J. P. Boyce. Of course, anyone who has read the "Abstract of Principles" which all professors of the original SBC theological seminary had to sign would not be surprised. In general, today's leadership of the SBC could not honestly qualify to teach under those old standards of the mid-nineteenth century. Yes, "you've come a long way, Baby."

Unfortunately, most Southern Baptists, being ignorant of the past, think things have always been just as they are today. There are other denominations where they would feel right at home; denominations that have not compromised their historical doctrines.

Arminianism, in any degree, is not merely a different point of view; it is rank heresy, a "damnable heresy." Those who seek to compromise with this heresy in any degree, or have already done so, let him repent, if God perchance may grant him repentance, or "let him be accursed."

I am speaking of anyone who teaches that God loves everyone, and Christ died for the sins of everyone, thus making salvation possible to anyone, even the reprobate.

Speaking the truth (the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) in true love,

connieman

[ June 02, 2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

Dr. Norman Geisler {B.A. & M.A. from Wheaton College; Th.D. from William Tyndale College and Ph.D. from Loyola University in Chicago} The text, Chosen But Free--pg. 98.

Here is what he says about R.C. Sproul's view of God's love.

'What he does not seem to appreciate is that it is also a dreadful error to coerce good. Forced freedom, whether of good or evil, is contrary to the nature of God as love and contrary to the God-given nature of human beings as free. Forced freedom is a contradiction in terms.'

C.S. Lewis in his Screwtape Letters wrote, 'The Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His (God's) scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will . . . would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.'

In The Great Divorce Lewis adds, 'There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'in the end, 'thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.'

Again, Sproul's view of election flies in the face of the perfect nature of God to love all of His created beings who we call--human beings. Loving only the elect points to the fact that God is only capable of loving the minority which is an incorrect instruction as to the perfection of His love. James 1:17 speaks of His Being as having ' . . . no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' The truth is that He loves all human beings and wishes that all people will be saved through finding the perfect truth as found in Him. [I Timothy 2:4 & 6].

 

Dr B...Dr Geisler is another very well educated unbeliever, of which there have always been large numbers in the world (the world of "all men without exception", that is). Witness the platoons of highly educated Roman Catholic scholars spread over 1500+ years.

C.S. Lewis was already suspect, on the bases of a previously revealed unsound grasp of the Gospel, in spite of some very clever writings, and his amazing popularity, even among unbelievers. It is just a shame that the Lord could not have achieved such widespread approbation. If only the Word of God were prized by many as are the works of C.S. Lewis.

Any understanding of the Gospel which makes salvation dependent upon man and his autonomous "response" to God's truth is false, according to the scriptures. Utterly false, no matter the number, or lack, of one's degrees.

"Where is the wisdom of this world?"

connieman

[ June 03, 2002, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

Please explain.

Please explain.

Mike

http://www.keylife.org

 

While I do not agree with connieman's assessment of Geisler's salvation, I do agree that any soteriology that places the ultimate decision in the lap of a lost person is foolishness. God in His sovereignty chose the individual for salvation, but He also chose that the individual would believe in Jesus. Is response necessary? Yes. Is the human response that which determines eternity? NO.

Connieman, one could rightly question your salvation since you do not believe that a person has to place his faith in Christ for salvation.

So the Catholics are faith + works. Primitives are no faith no works.

 

preachtheword...No, I do not believe that a person "has" to place his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. I do believe that a saved person(born of the Spririt) "will" infallibly trust in Christ, by the power and free grace of God.

I believe Romans 5:6-10 teaches that we who have believed were reconciled to God by the death of His Son when we were ungodly, "without strength" (m. helpless), "yet in our sins",and "enemies" of God.

As for "response", notice the word "autonomous", meaning of natural volition, "free-will", and not born again of the Spirit of God. Yes, the born again child of God certainly does respond positively to the effectual call of God to His elect. But, the natural man, NEVER!

BTW, I do not claim the label "calvinist", or Reformed, or Primitive Baptist, only Christian, "how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures." WITHOUT UNREGENERATE HUMAN CONDITION.

fconnieman

[ June 03, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

smokeater...Dr Berrian above, with his quotations of Geisler, and Lewis, has saved me some trouble, althoough I had another quote from Lewis in mind. Read their statements carefully.

True Christians believe that God in Chist has saved all of His elect people from their sins by the shed blood of Jesus, without any condition to be fulfilled by the unregenerate sinner.

Only the "born again" person will respond to the Gospel by true repentance and faith. Sinful, unregenerate man, NEVER! Impossible! We might as well expect the blind man to open his own eyes.

connieman

 

Geisler's quotation once again shows that the Anti Calvinist propaganda writers don't have a clue what they are talking about. I imagine none of them have even read the Canons of Dort, Calvin's Institutes... but instead seek to define us by their own failed understanding.

 

I read them over and over a couple of times hoping to see some clue that he's not a believer and couldn't find any.

Having several of his books, I can't think of anything that would indicate that he's not a believer.

Questioning someone's salvation is a pretty heavy responsibility to bring on yourself, connie. I sure hope for your sake that you can bring more to the table than that.

The only condition to be fulfilled is to say yes.

To be honest, connie, as long as I've been a Christian, I have a working knowledge of the debate but have never gone any deeper because I see it as a peripheral issue between believers and one that divides more than unites.

I've stayed away from the calvinism v arminianism threads simply because there's more heat than light being generated, so please be patient if I don't understand exactly where you're coming from.

If conversion at gunpoint isn't really conversion, then how can someone who comes to Christ out of destiny, rather than conviction, be a sincere convert?

But how can one be "born again" before they respond to the Gospel? Either we're dead and unregenerate or we're made alive through Christ.

Mike

http://www.keylife.org

[ June 03, 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

Primitive Baptists certainly do believe in salvation by grace through faith. The Bible is quite clear faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Paul wrote in his epistle to the Galatians, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Gal. 5:22, 23) Without regeneration, man cannot believe. Jesus taught that a good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, and a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. One would not expect to find a ripe apple growing from a dead tree, neither would one expect to find faith in a man dead in trespasses and sins. Once again, faith is a fruit of the Spirit and can only be exercised in those born of the Spirit. Paul wrote, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8, 9) Paul clearly wrote that faith was not of man. If man could believe according to his own free will, Jesus had no argument when He said, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44) If faith originates within man, there would be no need for the Father to draw him. If a man believes with the heart Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he is born of God, not will be (1 John 5:1).

 

Smoke_Eater,

First off, I would like to make it clear that I believe that everyone who is of faith is saved. People don't have to have all their theological ducks in a row. So even though I think Norm Geisler is wrong, I would not certainly not judge his salvation over this issue.

You are showing by this statement that you have a few misconceptions about what Calvinist believe, which is perfectly understandable given you haven't spent much time on the subject. Unfortunately, Norm Geisler seems to be operating under the same misconception, which is not as understandable for him, since he has written a whole book on the subject.

Calvinists believe that people come to Christ out of destiny, but we also believe that they come out of true and sincere conviction. We believe the two things are not contradictory. No one is forced or coerced. Those who are predestined come voluntarily, willingly, freely.

I have read enough R.C. Sproul to know the ol' Norm is arguing against a position RC doesn't hold, and neither does anyone else I know. It's the perfect example of a strawman argument.

I believe people respond to the gospel because they are born again. It's the making alive by the Spirit that brings us to an understanding and a positive response to spiritual things. Just as a physically dead person won't be walking anywhere, a spiritually dead person won't be following Christ. This regeneration by the Spirit is the initial work in our experience of the salvation process.

Jesus tells us concerning the Spirit's work in rebirth:

The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit. (John 3: something or other)

The Spirit, in His regenerating work, comes "out of the blue" just like the wind does. Like the wind, He does not come in response to anything we do--like responding to the gospel, for instance.

A positive response to the gospel comes as a consequence of being born again. (And may I add that I believe these two things--being born again, and believing--are almost always instantaneous things, but being born again is what causes the faith.)

 

The new birth and faith could occur almost simultaneously because, as the Bible states, "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." (John 3:8) In the case of Cornelius, he was seeking God before he ever heard the Gospel. In the case of Philip and the Eunuch, precisely the same thing.

 

All of the responses to Drs. Geisler & Lewis have neglected to show how God can only love the elect and yet within that Divine nature and Being hate another majority of His created beings. The Divine nature forbids even the thought, yet alone, attributing to Almighty God a nature that loves the minority while out of that same Nature hating the majority. His Being of love and sense of justice makes autocratic election to life and election to damnation impossible.

His free beings when convicted of sins can with the aid of the Spirit turn to the Lord for His most precious gift of everlasting life.

 

Connieman,
This is an official warning to you. Your outrageous claim of Dr. Geisler being an unbeliever, seemingly made solely on the basis of his difference of opinion with you (and me, for that matter) relative to Reformed theology, is beyond the pale here on BB. . While I don't believe Dr. Geisler is a member of this board, you have been warned in the past for making such claims against other members and acting in an unScriptural manner. The next step will involve you being turned over to the administrators for formal discipline. Again, this is your formal WARNING.

 

Dr. Norman L. Geisler is President of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. He is author and co-author of more than sixty books and hundreds of articles and has spoken or debated nationwide and in numerous countries. This information was taken from his book, "Chosen But Free." {Bethany House}

In another book that he co-authored is says of him in "Predestination & Freewill" {InterVarsity Press} that he has served as chairman of the Philosophy of Religion Department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and was a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Apparently, some jumped to the conclusion that he was a Catholic because they saw that he earned his Ph.D. from Loyola University in Chicago.

The contributor/author--Dr. Clark H. Pinnock of "Predestination & Freewill" was once a Calvinist and is now Professor of theology at Mc Master Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario.

If you read closely you will find some error in each of the four contributors.

 

Kiffin,

Men who have earned a Th.D. or Ph.D. have studied the full gamut of Christian theology. You might think they don't know both sides of theology spectrum, but they do. Seminary Boards would not affix their personal names and seal to a persons degree, if they felt that that person did not understand both sides of the issues.

I am concerned in those who have only been brought up in a church where one view is taught as being correct, and have believed their view to be correct. Obviously, there is only one truth.

I remember when I first entered a Bible College and found out that people actually believed in Five Points of Calvinism. I could not believe that people were blaming God for electing people to Heaven and Hell.

It was a learning experience that I now value.

 

Many among us here think that the sinner can, by self-effort, change his own heart, and make himself a friend of God, when he was born an enemy of God.

Yes, and the blind can open his own eyes, and the leper heal himself. The Ethiopian CAN change his skin, and the leopard CAN change his spots.

Jesus said that salvation is impossible with men; only God can accomplish it. Only God can make the leper whole, or make the lame to walk, or the sinner to repent.

"But Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus..." It is not of yourselves, lest any man should boast. "As it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

But, men will believe the truth of the Gospel only as God enables them to believe. The others will be damned.

To the glory of God Alone,
connieman

connieman

[ June 04, 2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: connieman ]