Assurance of Salvation

[GraceSeeker]

As far as OSAS vs OSnAS - why not get back behind Wesley to the actual source?

Arminius said words to the effect that "it is not possible that a BELIEVER can lose their salvation -- but it is possible that a person can CHOOSE to CEASE BEING A 'BELIEVER'."

That is the precise answer.

One can choose to believe - and then, it is rare, - but one can choose to disbelieve.

Thank-you so much for that quote. I had not seen it before.

 

[BryanW92]

Arminius said words to the effect that "it is not possible that a BELIEVER can lose their salvation -- but it is possible that a person can CHOOSE to CEASE BEING A 'BELIEVER'."

That is the precise answer.

One can choose to believe - and then, it is rare, - but one can choose to disbelieve.

Thank-you so much for that quote. I had not seen it before.

Interesting quote. Calvinists agree with that too.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Interesting quote. Calvinists agree with that too.

Of course, after all, Arminius was a Calvinist; just never a 5-point tulip version. But then, John Calvin was never actually a 5-point tulip Calvinist either.

 

[BryanW92]

Of course, after all, Arminius was a Calvinist; just never a 5-point tulip version. But then, John Calvin was never actually a 5-point tulip Calvinist either.

Yep. Very few of us are.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Thanks. I do enjoy reading the various replies; I'm still working through some difficult topics. And I appreciate everyone's patience. My mind is like a jigsaw puzzle; not filled in, gaps between areas. Slowly connecting. ...

And though you may not understand exactly why, I pray that you never have all those gaps filled in. May you always be seeking to know more about God than you do today, or even tomorrow.

 

[Anto9us]

I do not consider OSnAS as opposed to OSAS to be the litmus test of Arminian or Wesleyan theology. There are indeed OSAS Arminians and Wesleyans - as I said earlier, the Remonstrants after Arminius's death declared the matter "too close to call", essentially.

The litmus test, imo, is whether any person has the freedom of the will to choose to accept Christ -- as opposed to the Calvinistic idea that God decreed that this person here and that person there would be damned, no matter what, and that the human will was no factor whatsoever in who would be or could be "of the elect".

I used the phrase "freedom of the will" deliberately against Luther's phrase "the bondage of the will." Despite Luther's invaluable contributions, in error to say the will is not free.

It is not just BAPTISTS who are Calvinistic, it is also Presbyterians and Reformed. And not all Baptists are Calvinistic -- in fact, in the early days of Baptists -- there were Particular Baptists and General Baptists.

One of the CF Chaplains, drsteve, did his dissertation on the early Baptists -- and showed that the General Baptists rejected the Calvinistic ideas and YET IT WAS NOT THROUGH Arminianism that they abandoned the Calvinism -- but other sources. I read his doctoral dissertation and felt it was very fair to Arminius and Arminianism.

So since Calvinists are not going to honor the sub-forum's rules here, and are not going to go away - even though they know good and well they are not posting merely "in fellowship" but seem to indeed teach and debate against this specific faith-group (iow, exactly what the statement of purpose says should NOT happen)

- I would say then "go on, people - be as gracious and nice to them as you find yourself able."

Maybe we should start a "Wesleyan SAFE HOUSE

THREAD "

within in a sub-forum which should have been that already for the whole sub-forum

If ya haven't got a safe forum,
a safe house thread will do,
if ya haven't got a safe house thread,
than God bless you.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I do not consider OSnAS as opposed to OSAS to be the litmus test of Arminian or Wesleyan theology. There are indeed OSAS Arminians and Wesleyans - as I said earlier, the Remonstrants after Arminius's death declared the matter "too close to call", essentially.

The litmus test, imo, is whether any person has the freedom of the will to choose to accept Christ -- as opposed to the Calvinistic idea that God decreed that this person here and that person there would be damned, no matter what, and that the human will was no factor whatsoever in who would be or could be "of the elect".

I used the phrase "freedom of the will" deliberately against Luther's phrase "the bondage of the will." Despite Luther's invaluable contributions, in error to say the will is not free.

It is not just BAPTISTS who are Calvinistic, it is also Presbyterians and Reformed. And not all Baptists are Calvinistic -- in fact, in the early days of Baptists -- there were Particular Baptists and General Baptists.

One of the CF Chaplains, drsteve, did his dissertation on the early Baptists -- and showed that the General Baptists rejected the Calvinistic ideas and YET IT WAS NOT THROUGH Arminianism that they abandoned the Calvinism -- but other sources. I read his doctoral dissertation and felt it was very fair to Arminius and Arminianism.

So since Calvinists are not going to honor the sub-forum's rules here, and are not going to go away - even though they know good and well they are not posting merely "in fellowship" but seem to indeed teach and debate against this specific faith-group (iow, exactly what the statement of purpose says should NOT happen)

- I would say then "go on, people - be as gracious and nice to them as you find yourself able."

Maybe we should start a "Wesleyan SAFE HOUSE

THREAD "

within in a sub-forum which should have been that already for the whole sub-forum

If ya haven't got a safe forum,
a safe house thread will do,
if ya haven't got a safe house thread,
than God bless you.

If there are those who wouldn't respect our subforum, I doubt they'd respect a safehouse thread.

Part of it is finger-in-ear ideas that they are the light amongst our darkness, saving our souls and offering us the true will of God; because we're just dumb methodists who know no better.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Maybe we should start a "Wesleyan SAFE HOUSE

THREAD "

within in a sub-forum which should have been that already for the whole sub-forum

If ya haven't got a safe forum,
a safe house thread will do,
if ya haven't got a safe house thread,
than God bless you.

Or you could find a similar "safe" place here....
I understand that it is pretty well policed. Just doesn't get a lot of traffic.

 

[Anto9us]

thx for the link Graceseeker

and you're right Romans - they wouldn't even respect a thread

 

[RomansFiveEight]

thx for the link Graceseeker

and you're right Romans - they wouldn't even respect a thread

We have some responsibility there, too. If we refused to engage, then it wouldn't be worth it to argue. But, if your personality is like mine; then chances are that won't happen. I'll never refuse to answer an honest question or help someone broaden their understandings. So I continue to answer questions opening myself up to the inevitable attacks and 'gotchas' that come afterwards.

 

[circuitrider]

We have some responsibility there, too. If we refused to engage, then it wouldn't be worth it to argue. But, if your personality is like mine; then chances are that won't happen. I'll never refuse to answer an honest question or help someone broaden their understandings. So I continue to answer questions opening myself up to the inevitable attacks and 'gotchas' that come afterwards.

I am glad to answer honest questions. But I do eventually have my limit when someone starts trying to take the role of teaching me "the real faith."

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I am glad to answer honest questions. But I do eventually have my limit when someone starts trying to take the role of teaching me "the real faith."

Yes. I'm learning to embrace those limits.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Yes. I'm learning to embrace those limits.

One of the limits is that there are only 24 hours in a day 168 hours in a week. As pastors we have a lot of latitude regarding how we spend our time. And when someone is asking an honest question of us online, or is dealing with a difficult issue in their life I feel as much of a responsibility to address those questions & issues with people who I have a virtual relationship with as those that I am in local ministry with. But, just like I have to be careful of those who can be timewasters in my personal life, I need to recognize that spending 20 minutes writing a response to someone who just wants to argue keeps me from being there for those who need me in other places.

It isn't that I consider online relationships a time waster (for instance I'm really glad that Mysty came to us with all the questions she did last year, and I'm glad if we were able to help her process some of the stuff she needed to work through), but some of them can be. Part of my own maturity has been learning to tell the difference and become selective about when, where, and with whom I engage.

Jesus put it this way: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs."

 

[MystyRock]

And though you may not understand exactly why, I pray that you never have all those gaps filled in. May you always be seeking to know more about God than you do today, or even tomorrow.

Ok? Can we ever really fill those gaps in this life? I'm beginning to think I'll always have questions. And wear out the ? key on my keyboard.

 

[circuitrider]

Ok? Can we ever really fill those gaps in this life? I'm beginning to think I'll always have questions. And wear out the ? key on my keyboard.

Only God has all the gaps filled in. We as human beings will always understand imperfectly.

That is one of the reasons we shouldn't sweet the small stuff nor should we get bent out of shape when we all don't exactly agree with each other.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Mysty I still have questions; some I'll probably have to wait until I can ask God himself. I think we'll always have parts of our faith we wrestle with, and it's how we grow.

It's like building muscle. The healthy way we build muscle is with the right amount of stress, which tears away tiny, microscopic bits of tissue. The body them comes in with it's amazing ability to heal and repairs those tiny tears, and when it does so, it uses fresh protein and leaves behind a tiny bit more muscle tissue than was original there before we tore it. Over time, our muscles grow and grow because of these millions and millions of tiny tears.

Our faith, when we are genuine and faithful but wrestle in a healthy way, also continues to grow. Like our muscles faith can be seriously injured which can inhibit or even stop growth; but one shouldn't confuse those microscopic growth struggles with a serious disabling injury. Just because we wrestle, does not mean we lack faith. I'd suggest, it's exactly the opposite. I am more concerned for the faith of those who have all the answers, than for those who continue to struggle.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'm beginning to think I'll always have questions. And wear out the ? key on my keyboard.

See, I would consider that a good thing.

 

[BryanW92]

GraceSeeker, Circuitrider, RomansFiveEight:

Was I being out of line when we were comparing Calvinism to Arminianism in this forum? I wasn't trying to convert you or tell you that you were wrong or that Wesleyan theology is wrong at all.

 

[GraceSeeker]

GraceSeeker, Circuitrider, RomansFiveEight:

Was I being out of line when we were comparing Calvinism to Arminianism in this forum? I wasn't trying to convert you or tell you that you were wrong or that Wesleyan theology is wrong at all.

No. You were fine. Just good and, I personally thought, helpful, respectful conversation.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I don't think so Bryan. Maybe others have an alternative opinion but it didn't bother me. There's a world of difference between questions, honest answers, etc and trying to convert people. you also didn't try to answer someone's question about Methodism with a Calvinistic answer.

You and I might have different points of view with it comes to theology and ecclesiology, but I've never felt like you weren't a positive addition around here. Even if you are a misinformed heretic. (Kidding!)

You've also helped me to understand a Calvinists perspective of wesleyanism without making offensive claims like by being a Wesleyan I'm not following the Bible.