The Arminian View

[DingDing]

Theology online. Unless your able to match name calling with name calling, and can easily misrepresent people , i would stay clear of TOL. I was there for a couple of months, i was called every name in the book, and it went completely unpunished. So when they can't answer your understanding with a better one, they resort to viscous name calling and misrepresentations. I couldn't do that so i left.

I appreciate the standard here in this forum.

I can appreciate that different forums have different standards, and perhaps a different category of people. And I can understand how one can become frustrated. The biggest problem for me is when someone quotes a very small set of verses (like 3 or 4) over and over and over... like a broken record. All the while thinking that the mere quoting of these few verses proves something.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you can't see the difference between TULIP Calvinism views of salvation and the Arminian position, you don't know Classical Reformed Arminianism very well.

Probably don't know a whole lot but the question of whether or not you can lose salvation has never interested me much. I'm not entirely sure if you can lose salvation, but if you can, you would become a child of perdition without any chance of repentance. Like your earthly birth being born again is a one time event.

R C Sproul, a hot Calvinist, condemns Arminians by saying they are 'barely' saved. I've attempted to refute his views in, Sproul damns Arminianism by association with semi-Pelagianism

I'll believe it when I see it, I'm not much into generalities.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hello,

I attended a Nazarene church for a year, and was a member of the Free Methodist church for a number of years. (So I am or was kind of familiar with some of these things.) The "entire sanctification" thing came up in discussion in both churches. I voiced my disagreement in both churches, and in both churches I was told by both pastors that though this doctrine was still "on the books", that it was not really held to by the majority of the church. This is a "remnant", if you will, of "backwoods" theology, as one of them put it. As he said, once enough of the "old wood" in the denomination dies off, this teaching will probably be removed from the books. All that having been said, "entire sanctification" is not a major teaching in either church, in fact, for the most part, it is an embarrassment from days gone by.

But as far as there not being "a dimes worth of difference between Arminion theology and Calvanism", I would say there is at least one big difference - the "once-saved-always-saved" question.

Entire sanctification is based on a simple proposition, if a person can do everything from a motive of pure agape love, such a person would be perfect. Propositionally true but this 'second work of grace' proved to be rather elusive. What Wesly is really describing is Christian maturity. I've always thought perfect was a kind of teleology, an attainment of a certain level or station. In this case a fully mature Christian bearing the fruit of the Spirit. As far as losing salvation you can receive it only once and never lose it more then once. Whether you decide the person going on to perdition was once saved or fell short of saving faith it's all the same thing. For me the Calvinist predestination thing always sounded too much like pagan fate. Sure we are predestined to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, there was never a plan b.

 

[tulipbee]

That was the right post. I didn't ask for a reply

 

[BrianJK]

That was the right post. I didn't ask for a reply

When you venture to label someone misleading, ignorant and failure, and all without any base, I think a reply is in order.
Not only that, I believe it's fair to ask you to back up those labels. Is it not?

 

[tulipbee]

When you venture to label someone misleading, ignorant and failure, and all without any base, I think a reply is in order.
Not only that, I believe it's fair to ask you to back up those labels. Is it not?

Holy spirit flows through me like the wind. You probably misunderstood what we meant.
You claimed calvinism believes something and I said they do not. That means you were wrong about me, first.

 

[OzSpen]

Lot and lots of denying the hearts are rotton to the cores. Just fresh enough to do good

Ever attended a Presbyterian Church (USA) local church to hear a liberal pastor who preaches what you stated here? 'Hearts are rotten to the cores' needs to be explained in biblical language and exposition (e.g. Jer 17:9).

 

[BrianJK]

Holy spirit flows through me like the wind. You probably misunderstood what we meant.
You claimed calvinism believes something and I said they do not. That means you were wrong about me, first.

I see. What claim did I make that was inaccurate? If I misunderstood, what did you mean regarding the misleading, ignorance and "epic failure" you evoked?
Since the Holy Spirit dwells in us all, I'm not sure how that fact furthers the discussion...

 

[tulipbee]

I see. What claim did I make that was inaccurate? If I misunderstood, what did you mean regarding the misleading, ignorance and "epic failure" you evoked?
Since the Holy Spirit dwells in us all, I'm not sure how that fact furthers the discussion...

You're not discussing with me you're arguing with me like we're married in a forceful way. Its called conversation domination. Don't get animated energy or may the force be with you mixed up in the holy spirit dwelling in his people. Bye bye

 

[tulipbee]

Ever attended a Presbyterian Church (USA) local church to hear a liberal pastor who preaches what you stated here? 'Hearts are rotten to the cores' needs to be explained in biblical language and exposition (e.g. Jer 17:9).

U may explain it

 

[BrianJK]

You're not discussing with me you're arguing with me like we're married in a forceful way. Its called conversation domination. Don't get animated energy or may the force be with you mixed up in the holy spirit dwelling in his people. Bye bye

I see. So you are happy to make slanderous accusations without base, and refuse to further discuss them.

Perhaps there is no defense, then.

 

[kangaroodort]

Just reading through this thread it is sad to see Arminianism so badly misrepresented by some. For a great overview of what Arminians really believe and why, you can't do much better that the FACTS of salvation: http://evangelicalarminians.org/the...nian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/

(this is also a great resource to address the OP since it is loaded with Scripture references)

Here is another good and concise resource that can help clear away a lot of misinformation concerning Arminian beliefs:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/survey-are-you-an-arminian-and-dont-even-know-it-2/

 

[kangaroodort]

Here is one more that should be helpful with many quotes from Arminius (esp. see the footnotes)

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...e-so-called-“15-major-tenets-of-arminianism”/

 

[kangaroodort]

Entire sanctification is based on a simple proposition, if a person can do everything from a motive of pure agape love, such a person would be perfect. Propositionally true but this 'second work of grace' proved to be rather elusive. What Wesly is really describing is Christian maturity. I've always thought perfect was a kind of teleology, an attainment of a certain level or station. In this case a fully mature Christian bearing the fruit of the Spirit. As far as losing salvation you can receive it only once and never lose it more then once. Whether you decide the person going on to perdition was once saved or fell short of saving faith it's all the same thing. For me the Calvinist predestination thing always sounded too much like pagan fate. Sure we are predestined to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, there was never a plan b.

First, good corrective on Wesley. He never taught that one could attain some sort of sinless perfection. That is not what entire sanctification meant for him, and it is not what has been taught historically by Wesleyans and those from that tradition.

Second, one could actually make the argument that Christian perfectionism makes more sense in a Calvinist framework: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...lvinist-accounting-of-monergistic-conversion/

 

[ToBeLoved]

Probably don't know a whole lot but the question of whether or not you can lose salvation has never interested me much. I'm not entirely sure if you can lose salvation, but if you can, you would become a child of perdition without any chance of repentance. Like your earthly birth being born again is a one time event.


I'll believe it when I see it, I'm not much into generalities.

We are given righteousness by Christ. His righteousness. The Father is pleased with His Son. So unless someone can prove that our having Christ's righteousness is not good enough, they can't prove salvation is lost.

It is not our righteousness that saves us. It is Christ's justifying us. Giving us His righteousness.

 

[kangaroodort]

We are given righteousness by Christ. His righteousness. The Father is pleased with His Son. So unless someone can prove that our having Christ's righteousness is not good enough, they can't prove salvation is lost.

It is not our righteousness that saves us. It is Christ's justifying us. Giving us His righteousness.

But none of that means salvation cannot be forfeited through unbelief since it is faith that joins us to Christ and unbelief that severs us from Christ and His righteousness, life, etc. (John 15:4-6; Romans 11:19-23; Gal. 5:4). Now you might reject the idea that a true believer can turn from the faith and become an unbeliever, but for those who see that as a real possibility in Scripture (as I do), this particular argument is not at all persuasive. All of the benefits and blessings of salvation are found in Christ alone and we come to share in Christ by faith (Eph. 1:3, 13; 1 John 5:11-12; Col. 3:3, 4; 2 Peter 1:4). Outside of union with Christ there is no salvation or life. So if we can be cut off from Him through unbelief, then we no longer share in those realities. It is just that simple.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I can appreciate that different forums have different standards, and perhaps a different category of people. And I can understand how one can become frustrated. The biggest problem for me is when someone quotes a very small set of verses (like 3 or 4) over and over and over... like a broken record. All the while thinking that the mere quoting of these few verses proves something.

Some people your lucky to get a verse from them. But I agree with your point.

 

[ToBeLoved]

But none of that means salvation cannot be forfeited through unbelief since it is faith that joins us to Christ and unbelief that severs us from Christ and His righteousness, life, etc. (John 15:4, 5; Romans 11:19-23; Gal. 5:4). Now you might reject the idea that a true believer can turn from the faith and become an unbeliever, but for those who see that as a real possibility in Scripture (as I do), this particular argument is not at all persuasive. All of the benefits and blessings of salvation are found in Christ alone and we come to share in Christ by faith (Eph. 1:3, 13; 1 John 5:11, 12; Col. 3:3, 4; 2 Peter 1:4). Outside of union with Christ there is no salvation or life. So if we can be cut off from Him through unbelief, then we no longer share in those realities. It is just that simple.

It is your human understanding and opinion that man, once saved can become not saved by not believing.

that is not God's take on it.

In John 14:4 what it talks about is bearing fruit for the Lord. That is not a loss of salvation.

Romans 11:23 those branches do not believe in Christ. Those are the people who believe in Judaism and still await their Messiah.

Glatians 5:4 are not seeking Jesus Christ and His grace for salvation, but are seeking the Old Covenant law to be good enough. When one seeks to be made righteous through the law, that person turns their back on grace.

We cannot be cut off from God once we are saved.

God's gifts are irrevocable.

 

[kangaroodort]

It is your human understanding and opinion that man, once saved can become not saved by not believing.

that is not God's take on it.

Do you realize how condescending this sounds? How do you know it is not your "human understanding" that causes you to believe in OSAS? I would be happy to believe in OSAS if I could find it in Scripture. Honestly, I would prefer for it to be true (just as I would prefer universalism to be true), but I reject it because the Scriptures seem to plainly teach that true believes can (and do) fall away and abandon the faith.

In John 14:4 what it talks about is bearing fruit for the Lord. That is not a loss of salvation.

I assume you meant to cite John 15:4-6. Yes, it does have to do with bearing fruit, but it is also saying more than that. Jesus is speaking of those who are in union with Him being cut off. Believers bear fruit because the life of Christ flows into them just as the life of a vine flows into the branches. Jesus says that branches that are cut off "wither" and are then burned. If a branch "withers" that means it previously had life in it, but no longer. And Jesus doesn't say "fruit" withers and is burned (destroyed), but "branches" which were believers "in Him" [the Vine].

So the language simply will not fit with your interpretation (human understanding?)

Romans 11:23 those branches do not believe in Christ. Those are the people who believe in Judaism and still await their Messiah.

Look at the passage again. Paul is speaking of the ancient olive tree which represents God's covenant people. Those who are broken off form the olive tree are broken off from God's people. Only God's people are saved. Unbelieving Jews are broken off because of unbelief. Because they reject Christ, they are cut off from God's people. They no longer belong to God. After explaining this, Paul says to the Gentiles "but you stand by faith." But then he immediately warns them that they can be broken off just like the unbelieving Jews if they do not continue in the faith. There is no way around the language. They stand by faith, but can be broken off through unbelief just as the unbelieving Jews were broken off.

Glatians 5:4 are not seeking Jesus Christ and His grace for salvation, but are seeking the Old Covenant law to be good enough. When one seeks to be made righteous through the law, that person turns their back on grace.

But it says more than that. It says they are severed (cut off) from Christ. There is no life outside of union with Christ. There is no salvation outside of His grace.

We cannot be cut off from God once we are saved.

God's gifts are irrevocable.

I need to get going, so I will just quote sometime I wrote on this passage a while back in a post at my site:

Romans 6:23; 11:29

For the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord….For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Many see here a strong assertion of unconditional eternal security based on the fact that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (NAS), and that eternal life is a gift (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8, 9), therefore, they reason, eternal life must be irrevocable. God is always faithful to his promises (both pleasant and terrible, e.g. Joshua 23:15, 16), but his promises are not without conditions. God’s gift of salvation is irrevocable so long as the condition is met. Paul was speaking of Israel’s final restoration in Rom.11:29, but he was giving no assurance to those branches that had been broken off in unbelief (verse 20), and sternly warned that those who were now standing by faith, could yet be broken off through unbelief (verses 20, and 21). God’s divine gift (of life) is always and only for believers! God does not revoke his gift, for it cannot exist outside of Christ. Only believers are “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). If we fail to meet the condition for union with Christ, we can have no claim on the gift (see Jn. 3:16 and 10:27-29 discussed above).

 

[kangaroodort]

Glatians 5:4 are not seeking Jesus Christ and His grace for salvation, but are seeking the Old Covenant law to be good enough. When one seeks to be made righteous through the law, that person turns their back on grace.

BTW, the context makes it clear that Paul is addressing Gentile believers and warning them not to be circumcised in accordance with the Judaizers' claims that they must essentially become "Jewish" in order to be saved (i.e. faith in Christ is not enough- one must also become a circumcised Jew). These are Gentiles who began well in following Christ (verse 7) and had been set free by Him (verse 1) but are now in danger of falling away from Christ (and being severed from Him as a result) by relying on Jewish covenant markers and practices (verses 2-4). So your second sentence is correct, but it is important to realize that Paul is addressing those who have already put faith in Christ and are in danger of falling away and being cut off as a result:

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love." (Gal. 5:1-5:13)