| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9861
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 18, 2009 - 10:14 pm: |     |
Dennis, my experience with Christians who are not strict Calvinists (and I'm not referring to Adventists who are not true Christians according to the biblical gospel) is that they nevertheless DO see God as being sovereign over salvation. None of those I have heard have intimated that man has any vestige of righteousness left. They would all agree that God saves them as a complete miracle of grace.
Semi-pelagianism is a heresy.
But I'll let Adrian respond--he's better versed in these views than I am!
Colleen |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 1:21 am: | |
Thanks Colleen,
Your response was very concise, and I think, accurate.
Thanks too Dennis,
I believe you understand Adventism very well, far better than I do, and are familiar with its errors. One major problem I see, which Colleen has also explained before, is that SDAs don't believe in the human spirit, so they don't really understand the concept of spiritual death, or what the new birth is all about (i.e. coming into a relationship with God), so that leads to all other kinds of problems.
Back to my original question. You said, "Ultimately Arminianism leads to Universalism." You make this statement with no explanation. My point is, that in the practical real-world situation, Arminians are not Universalists. In fact, classical Arminians believe that true Christians can fall away from the faith and lose salvation, which is in stark contrast to Universalism.
So what I am asking for is, can you please explain why you think that Arminian teaching leads to Universalism?
Thanks,
Adrian |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 9:37 am: | |
Colleen,
In the vast majority of Christian churches today, the idea of human beings possessing a "tiny island of righteousness" is highly regarded and is nothing less than salvation by works (i.e., the popular notion of "cooperative grace"). It all boils down to most Christians not believing in the total depravity of man. Like Adventists, most Christians believe in merely a limited, watered-down depravity. They insist that the Fall was not really that big of a deal after all (i.e., man was somehow left with a "tiny island of righteousness" to enable him to save himself with God's assistance).
Obviously, if man has the final word over his salvation, he becomes the key figure or focal point. Then God, being less than sovereign, becomes completely helpless to save anyone. Decisional regeneration, an innovation of Charles Finney, is commonplace in our current religious culture.
The Bible clearly tells us that not one person is righteous in any way (Romans 3:10). The Fall was great. It was so great that before a person will ever choose Jesus, he must first be born again. As we had nothing to do with our physical birth so we have absolutely nothing to do with our spiritual birth as well. BOTH are done for us. Indeed, salvation is from the Lord alone. To God alone be all the glory!
Adrian,
Thank you for your excellent question. Yes, I heartily agree that Seventh-day Adventists (due to their denial of the dualistic nature of man) do not understand the new birth. In Arminianism, everyone has been given an equal opportunity for salvation. Their claim to a meritorious "tiny island of righteousness" makes it possible for everyone to be saved. On the other hand, the Ariminian view (depending wholly on the fallen will of man) also makes it theoretically possible that not even one person would accept the gospel invitation and Christ would thereby have died in vain.
If Jesus specifically paid the price for every person's sins on planet earth, then the ungodly suffering in hell for their sins would amount to double jeopardy (two penalties or payments for the same sin). Not even our earthly justice systems allow such horrible injustice. The Bible tells us that Jesus came to "save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Romans 9:16 NASB). God is sovereign and decides on whom to have mercy (please reread Romans 9:13-18). After all, He has the right to choose those adopted into His wonderful family. The theology whereby God sovereignly chooses His people provides us with a far greater doxology. It's all about Him!
Dennis Fischer |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 2010
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 10:47 am: | |
Dennis, you appear to be not just a former Adventist, but also a former(or perhaps more accurately "anti")anything-but-Calvinism. Is this how you mean to come across? |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9867
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 4:25 pm: | |
Dennis, again I'll have to defer to Adrian for a more comprehensive analysis, but my understanding of non-Calvinistic, non-pelagian, and non-semi-pelagian views DOES include a belief in election. I know that Pelagius did declare that man is not totally depraved, thus able to choose God. I am not aware of this notion among non-pelagian viewpoints.
True Christians, whether Arminian or not, would not say it was theoretically possible for no one to be saved. They believe God saves as a sovereign act. Neither would they say a person participates in saving himself.
Generalization of non-Calvinistic views are as inaccurate as are generalizations about Calvinism. A great number of people claim loyalty to reformed theology without subscribing to hyper-Calvinism or, in some cases, even the five points of the TULIP.
It is an overstatement to assert that "Arminians" believe mankind has an "island of righteousness". It is also an overstatement to classify "Arminians" with "semi-pelagians". Moreover, it is misrepresenting people who do not subscribe to any "ism" to state that they, therefore, must be "Arminians".
Colleen |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 184
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 5:03 pm: | |
I guess the way to lean is going through the road of "confusion" first.
Some Bible passages say that:
"For God so love the world that He gave His only son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternanl live."
"Sir, what shall I do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus Chist and you will be save."
"Every one who calls in the name of the Lord will be saved."
And so forth, and so forth.
Now, my question is: If we are born with a dead spirit and need to be reborn to be saved, How can a dead spirit respond to Jesus invitation?
Hec |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1687
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 10:11 pm: | |
Colleen,
This may trigger a rhubarb in some religious circles, but it certainly is not "an overstatement" to say that the adherents of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, and Arminianism all believe that man has the final word in his salvation. They all believe that the fallen will of man must approve the gift of salvation. With their "tiny island of righteousness," they feel fully equipped and capable to save themselves with God's help. Oh yes, they are very proud to be able to perform this divine act themselves. This is purely a man-centered soteriology ("cooperative grace" or "partnership salvation"). This is the same view that Adventists, Catholics, Charismatics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, United Churches of Christ, most Baptists, and many others teach. As you can readily see, this involves almost the entire religious landscape of our time. Decisional regeneration is the norm in most churches today.
For example, my former church (an Evangelical Free Church) paid an evangelist more than eight thousand dollars for two separate weekends where he would get everyone emotional and electrified with humor. Then he would dramatically tag people on the rostrum as being "saved." The senior pastor said they hired him because he could never get his congregation to respond to an altar call in such numbers. It was quite a circus. I know some of the people that were tagged as "saved" but they continued living a non-Christian life. Well, I was told those were actually the "carnal Christians" (yet another heresy). I also noticed that the same people often responded to altar calls repeatedly.
Obviously, some people are more vulnerable to the emotionalism of walking the aisles, the soft music, etc. Billy Graham has supposedly reported that less than ten percent of the decisions at his crusades follow through. Having said that, this doesn't mean that all cases are the same. God may very well have planned someone to come to faith at such a meeting. My faith, however, it not centered in the fallen will of man, but in a sovereign God who will take hold of a sinner's heart and adopt him into His wonderful family. This is the type of divine sovereignty that I believe in. Salvation is from the Lord alone!
Dennis Fischer
Ephesians 1:4,5 |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 10:19 pm: | |
Hec,
Thank you for asking a very important question. Truly, the dead cannot bring themselves to life. Jesus clearly taught that man is powerless to come to him without divine aid (John 6:65). Notice the direct result of this message in verse 66: "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." Likewise today, many people become very uptight about the doctrines of grace. The theme song in hell could well be "I did it my way."
Dennis Fischer |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9868
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 11:30 pm: | |
Dennis, you are seriously misrepresenting an enormous segment of Christianity, and it's not only unfair but disingenuous to do so.
I attend an Evangelical Free Church, as you know. Our pastor has never hired an evangelist to bring in decisions. Not only that, but he frequently says from the pulpit that we are unable to respond to the Lord Jesus apart from God reaching us. Furthermore, he says from the pulpit that a decision doesn't save anyone. He flatly opposes decisional regeneration.
Nevertheless, he preaches the gospel at every sermon, and he asks people to place their faith in the Lord Jesus. He is firm that no one can be saved by a decision, but that we must respond to the offer Jesus gives us.
Moreover, you can see the company our pastor keeps by checking out this website: www.TheGospelCoalition.org and seeing him among the 40 founders of this growing coalition of gospel preachers including Alistair Begg, Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, C.J. Mehaney, and D. A. Carson—including several other pastors of Evangelical Free Churches.
To say we are responsible to respond to the call of God on our lives does not make one "an Arminian" or "a semi-Pelagian". True Calvinism calls people to respond to God's call. Such a response does not mean one believes in "decisional regeneration". Paul, Jesus, Peter—the Bible preachers all called on people to believe.
Phil Johnson says on one of his blogs:
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. http://www.spurgeon.org:80/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
Notice that Johnson points out that any one of the preceding five characteristics qualifies a system as "hyper Calvinism".
Moreover, he says this: "History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.
To assert that if one calls people to accept Jesus they are teaching "partnership salvation" is just plain false. NO ONE can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him and gives him the faith to believe (see Ephesians 2:8-9). The gospel does emphasize personal responsibility. One would have to ignore repeated passages in the Bible to suggest otherwise.
It is wrong to divide the body of Christ with arguments about whether or not one needs to BELIEVE. The Holy Spirit can be trusted to bring about true belief and a new birth among those who hear the gospel preached.
Colleen |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 12:56 am: | |
Colleen,
First of all, hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. Since Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Spurgeon taught the doctrines of grace, I am not even close to dividing the Christian faith and I am confident with being in such good company. However, I am not surprised that many still get very uptight whenever the doctrines of grace are even mentioned. Likewise, Jesus certainly didn't win many friends whenever He taught the doctrines of grace (John 6:65,66).
"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works...there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified; unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
"If it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorable has he been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. He has punished Christ, why should He punish twice for one offence? Christ has died for all His people's sins, and if thou art in the covenant, thou are one of Christ's people. Damned thou canst not be. Suffer for thy sins thou canst not.
Until God can be unjust, and demand two payments for one debt, He cannot destroy the soul for whom He died." [Excerpts from Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers]
His grace still amazes me,
Dennis Fischer |
Jrt
Registered user
Username: Jrt
Post Number: 484
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 1:31 am: | |
I thought Jesus and Him crucified was the gospel? This is the first time I've heard that Calvinism IS the gospel. So if I believe in the precepts of Calvinism - I'll be saved? I'm wondering if you are not preaching another gospel, friend.
Hmmm, got me thinking here. I just received last night an email from someone who included an argument that said, the Sabbath, is the gospel.
A missionary came to the church I attend recently. He works in a country where you could be imprisoned for life or killed for trusting in Jesus. I'll never forget something he said from the pulpit. It is time that Christendom stop dividing itself over Calvinism and Arminianism - people need Jesus. And then he said, "I preach Jesus and Jesus alone." Either side may claim they have the "true" gospel - Arminianism or Calvinism - but I preach Jesus and when I lift Him up people are drawn. They are hungry for Jesus. So it is Him I feed them - the Bread of Life."
I am not a theologian and so I will bow in and bow out of this discussion gracefully. I'd rather be where the rubber meets the road - talking to people about Jesus and Him crucified - in the simplest terms.
Keri |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 1:51 am: | |
Well, I wasn't really intending to give a comprehensive analysis, but I could give it a go with some of the main points. Thank you all for your comments.
Thanks Dennis for explaining about the Universalism. I think I get what you mean now, but I will have to get back to that point later.
For a start, I should just like to repeat that the gospel and salvation are primarily rooted in Jesus Christ. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, then to the twelve..."
So the gospel is that Christ died for our sins, he was raised from the dead, and was seen by a large number of reliable eye witnesses, meaning that this is a specific historical event, and not some myth. Peter's message at Pentecost is basically the same, but in more detail (Acts 2).
So whether the five points of Calvinism happen to be true or not, they are not the gospel as Spurgeon claimed. I do not believe we have the mandate to change the gospel to suit ourselves. Incidentally, I do agree with you Dennis, that a great deal of modern gospel preaching and church life is like a "circus". But that is another story...
Labelling Calvinist teachings as "the doctrines of grace" just strikes me as the same sort of tactic as JWs or SDAs use when they call their set of teachings "the truth". Anyone questioning the beliefs can then be accused of being an enemy of God's truth, and thus intimidated into submission. It's really just "begging the question."
Other theological views also believe in grace, they may just not define it in the same way. Walter Martin claimed that when dealing with cults, you have to "scale the language barrier." That is, cults use Biblical terminology but define the terms in a different way. Unfortunately this is not only true of cults, but also of differing theological views within Evangelical circles. Calvinism does define terms like the sovereignty of God, election, predestination and grace in ways which are not shared, or maybe not understood by other camps.
So maybe if we all at least listen to each other a little more carefully, we could all learn something...
Continued below: |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 2:52 am: | |
Right, as to predestination. In my studies I have come across basically three different views of predestination which are taught in the modern church, though I am sure there are many variants within each camp. These are the Calvinist, the Arminian and the corporate view of election.
I shall attempt to describe what these are.
Historically, the Calvinist/Arminian debate goes back to the 17th century. Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch Reformed theologian who began to question the concept of unconditional predestination. After his death, his followers formulated his objections in five points, which came to be known as the Arminian Articles of Remonstrance. These are as follows:
1. God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel).
2. Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
3. Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit.
4. All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.
5. Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.
As this debate arose within the Dutch Reformed Church, Arminianism is basically an offshoot of the Reformed Tradition (rather than, say, Lutheran or Roman Catholic).
So in what could be called "classical Arminianism" a belief in predestination is retained, it is just considered to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel - point 1 (based on Romans 8:29; 1Peter 1:1-2).
Belief in total depravity is also retained, as man can neither respond to the gospel nor do any good without the help of the Holy Spirit - points 3 and 4. Where it differs, is that the Holy Spirit can be resisted, both before and after conversion - points 4 and 5 (cf. Acts 7:51-53; Heb 3:12,10:26-31).
continued below) |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 2:54 am: | |
I missed the previous two posts while I was writing my first response, but the same thoughts arose... |
Doc
Registered user
Username: Doc
Post Number: 393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 3:31 am: | |
The Synod of Dort was convened to resolve the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. It lasted from November 1618 to May 1619.
Five theological points were formulated to answer the Remonstrants:
1. Fallen man is totally unable to save himself (Total Depravity)
2. God’s electing purpose is not conditioned by anything in man (Unconditional Election)
3. Christ’s atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only for the elect (Limited Atonement)
4. The gift of faith, sovereignly given by God's Holy Spirit, cannot be resisted by the elect (Irresistible Grace)
5. Those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith (Perseverance of the saints)
These are the "five points of Calvinism" or TULIP. So predestination according to Calvinism is unconditional, and is rooted in God's eternal decrees rather than in his foreknowledge of any response in the individual.
So the Arminian and Calvinist views relate to the predestination of individuals for salvation.
The other view, the corporate theory, is that the predestination passages (in particular Romans 8:28-39; Romans 11; Ephesians 1) are to be read corporately rather than individually. In other words, they contrast the elect status of Israel under the old covenant with that of the church under the new covenant. The church is elected by God as his people under the New Covenant, and the victory of the church as a whole is guaranteed, but as election is "in Christ" and not individual, the salvation of individuals is not predestined. The predestination of an individual is conditioned on being in Christ. So like in the Arminian view, but not in the same way, predestination is conditional. This view is consistent with, but does not necessarily require Open Theism, which is the view that God does not have a perfect knowledge of the future, but his omniscience means he is perfectly aware of "all possible outcomes".
I am sure I have not covered every point, but those are basically the three theories.
This is a very complicated subject, understanding is often determined by presuppositions rather than rigourous study of the Scriptures, and sincere men of God have come to different conclusions on this matter. I do not think it is necessary or helpful to question anyone's morality or motivation, just because they happen to have a different view.
continued below) |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1690
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 6:59 am: | |
Keri,
Calvinism, known as Augustinianism before that, has a cherished history in the Christian faith. Jesus simply taught the doctrines of grace (the response to the five points of Arminianism) as the ultimate truth about salvation before any labels were even thought of and/or applied. Other views, like Pelagianism, were later strongly condemned by church councils as heresy.
It is somewhat unfair that John Calvin gets ridiculed for teaching "predestination" when Martin Luther wrote more on this topic than Calvin did. To remove these soteriological (salvational) truths from any labels that can prejudice minds, the phrase "doctrines of grace" is an apt, generic, and accurate designation. I truly believe that the doctrines of grace, as taught by Jesus, incapulate the Gospel.
Dennis Fischer |
Richardtinker
Board Administrator
Username: Richardtinker
Post Number: 116
Registered: 4-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 7:33 am: | |
This thread has demonstrated once again why arguments concerning in-house debates (where both sides of the argument are born-again believers) are not helpful, especially for brand new believers who have recently escaped a cult.
Thanks, Doc, for your informative posts.
Knowing Jesus, and being known by him, and being submitted to his word puts us in a place of humility and trust, knowing that he has taken the responsibility to complete what he has begun in us. We no longer need to be defensive with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Richard
(Thread closed) |
|
