Classical Arminian Cessationism

[ChristIsSovereign]

I find it really odd that I haven't seen anyone who holds to Arminian theology and is a cessationist on the spiritual gifts. I would agree with John MacArthur's views on the gifts but have some issues with his Calvinism. (Not like I think Calvinism is heresy.)

As a former Calvinist, I was a proud cessationist, yet even as I have renounced the Calvinistic soteriology (to a point), I still hold to strong views of cessationism.

I am no Pentecostal, no Charismatic, or any Holy Spirit-gifted-denomination follower.

Am I alone in my views or do other people agree?

 

[tstor]

I find it really odd that I haven't seen anyone who holds to Arminian theology and is a cessationist on the spiritual gifts. I would agree with John MacArthur's views on the gifts but have some issues with his Calvinism. (Not like I think Calvinism is heresy.)

As a former Calvinist, I was a proud cessationist, yet even as I have renounced the Calvinistic soteriology (to a point), I still hold to strong views of cessationism.

I am no Pentecostal, no Charismatic, or any Holy Spirit-gifted-denomination follower.

Am I alone in my views or do other people agree?

I find that most churches in the SBC are Arminian and also believe in the cessation of spiritual gifts.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I find that most churches in the SBC are Arminian and also believe in the cessation of spiritual gifts.

Amen. It seems like if an Arminian takes the stance of cessationism online, Calvinists will come down on him/her like a pack of ravenous wolves. Thanks for confirming my thought. God bless you.

 

[Albion]

It seems to me that there have been quite a few Arminians and cessationists--both--here on CF.

 

[5thKingdom]

I find it really odd that I haven't seen anyone who holds to Arminian theology and is a cessationist on the spiritual gifts. I would agree with John MacArthur's views on the gifts but have some issues with his Calvinism. (Not like I think Calvinism is heresy.)

As a former Calvinist, I was a proud cessationist, yet even as I have renounced the Calvinistic soteriology (to a point), I still hold to strong views of cessationism.

I am no Pentecostal, no Charismatic, or any Holy Spirit-gifted-denomination follower.

Am I alone in my views or do other people agree?

When you identify a false gospel of Arminianism it is not surprising
to see other heresies involved.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

When you identify a false gospel of Arminianism it is not surprising
to see other heresies involved.

I am a Classical Arminian and I do not hold to charismatic mumbo-jumbo. Do you mean semi-Pelagianism, which is the modern Arminianism?

Sure, Arminianism of today is belt-loaded with heresy and unorthodoxy, I will admit. I do not hold to modern Arminanism, which is a man-centered false Gospel.

God bless.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

When you identify a false gospel of Arminianism it is not surprising
to see other heresies involved.

The Bible is my creed and confession. I don't pretend to know anything else.

 

[5thKingdom]

The Bible is my creed and confession. I don't pretend to know anything else.

Of course that is what all "Christians" say.... both the "wheat" and the "tares".
But we can tell the difference by their "fruit".... which does not only mean their actions
but also their doctrines. Heresy is the "fruit" of all "tares"... and some immature "wheat".
But the "wheat" modify their doctrines as they experience sanctification.

I must admit that I am interested in what caused you to reject classic Calvinism
in favor of classic Arminianism? I rarely hear of such a change.


Edit.... I did not notice you said John MacAuthor's version of Calvanism.
I am not familiar with his teachings so that may be a factor.


.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Of course that is what all "Christians" say.... both the "wheat" and the "tares".
But we can tell the difference by their "fruit".... which does not only mean their actions
but also their doctrines. Heresy is the "fruit" of all "tares"... and some immature "wheat".
But the "wheat" modify their doctrines as they experience sanctification.

I must admit that I am interested in what caused you to reject classic Calvinism
in favor of classic Arminianism? I rarely hear of such a change.


.

Reasons: (If you want proof, I'll give Scriptural evidence.)

1. I relied upon man to interpret Scripture for me, therefore I wasn't trusting Jesus. I hardly ever read the Bible as a practicing Calvinist. Jesus changed that.
2. The behavior that a majority of Calvinists espouse, in your view, would produce fruit doctrinally but their behavior would be evidence of bad fruit. (Pride, elitism, coldness, unwillingness to spread the Gospel to every man.)
3. Rejection of the limited atonement which resulted in the whole framework coming apart.
4. As in no. 3, Calvinists on the PuritanBoard desperately tried to twist Scriptures to make it fit their dogma of 'limited atonement.'
5. The Reformers burned an Anabaptist on the stake. The Anabaptist was singing praises to Jesus as he was burned. Who was the "Christian" there?

 

[5thKingdom]

Reasons: (If you want proof, I'll give Scriptural evidence.)

1. I relied upon man to interpret Scripture for me, therefore I wasn't trusting Jesus. I hardly ever read the Bible as a practicing Calvinist. Jesus changed that.
2. The behavior that a majority of Calvinists espouse, in your view, would produce fruit doctrinally but their behavior would be evidence of bad fruit. (Pride, elitism, coldness, unwillingness to spread the Gospel to every man.)
3. Rejection of the limited atonement which resulted in the whole framework coming apart.
4. As in no. 3, Calvinists on the PuritanBoard desperately tried to twist Scriptures to make it fit their dogma of 'limited atonement.'
5. The Reformers burned an Anabaptist on the stake. The Anabaptist was singing praises to Jesus as he was burned. Who was the "Christian" there?

Maybe I am not making myself clear....
When Jesus said the "Kingdom of Heaven" consists of both "wheat and tares"
He did not say that Reformed or Calvinistic churches did not include "tares".
I have much experience with "tares" in Reformed churches.

That accounts for everything except #3.
Which is an essential element in the Gospel of Sovereign Grace.
So much so that; when His disciples realized that Jesus taught election,
MANY of them abandoned Him [Jn 6:65-66]

Personally, I find election to be one of my greatest comforts.

May I ask you a question?
If Jesus paid for all sin then WHAT (exactly) do people go to hell for?
Is it the sins already PAID.... or the singular sin of not "accepting" correctly?
This is a sincere question.


.

.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Maybe I am not making myself clear....
When Jesus said the "Kingdom of Heaven" consists of both "wheat and tares"
He did not say that Reformed or Calvinistic churches did not include "tares".
I have much experience with "tares" in Reformed churches.

That accounts for everything except #3.
Which is an essential element in the Gospel of Sovereign Grace.
So much so that; when His disciples realized that Jesus taught election,
MANY of them abandoned Him [Jn 6:65-66]

Personally, I find election to be one of my greatest comforts.

May I ask you a question?
If Jesus paid for all sin then WHAT (exactly) do people go to hell for?
Is it the sins already PAID.... or the singular sin of not "accepting" correctly?
This is a sincere question.


.

.

About that question, I will say it's a mystery.

Duh, of course election is a comfort. We are all wheat in Christ when we are true. In some way, I believe God has chosen me, but not in an elitist fashion. It's more like a father calling out for his lost son.

You raise a valid question. The mystery is that the Bible is clear on things that support my view and supports yours also. It is quite the mystery.

1. Christ died for the sins of all men.
2. Not all men will go to heaven.
3. God foreordained His people.
4. Christ tells us to choose Him.

Do not try to debate me about how the limited atonement is hiding amongst the verses that say that Christ died for all men, especially for believers. I've had Reformed people give me arguments for it and it makes my spirit recoil in discernment. They sounded awfully defensive. I'm not trying to defend any position. I will trust Scripture. Anyways, it's God's word, after all, right?

I will close the thread if this turns into a debate. Agreeing to disagree on things is the most saintly behavior we can espouse.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Maybe I am not making myself clear....
When Jesus said the "Kingdom of Heaven" consists of both "wheat and tares"
He did not say that Reformed or Calvinistic churches did not include "tares".
I have much experience with "tares" in Reformed churches.

That accounts for everything except #3.
Which is an essential element in the Gospel of Sovereign Grace.
So much so that; when His disciples realized that Jesus taught election,
MANY of them abandoned Him [Jn 6:65-66]

Personally, I find election to be one of my greatest comforts.

May I ask you a question?
If Jesus paid for all sin then WHAT (exactly) do people go to hell for?
Is it the sins already PAID.... or the singular sin of not "accepting" correctly?
This is a sincere question.


.

.

I looked up the quote you referenced in John. You have a valid point and I respect it. It definitely teaches election. We will differ on our interpretation of 'election' but Jesus definitely taught election.

 

[5thKingdom]

About that question, I will say it's a mystery.

Duh, of course election is a comfort. We are all wheat in Christ when we are true. In some way, I believe God has chosen me, but not in an elitist fashion. It's more like a father calling out for his lost son.

You raise a valid question. The mystery is that the Bible is clear on things that support my view and supports yours also. It is quite the mystery.

1. Christ died for the sins of all men.
2. Not all men will go to heaven.
3. God foreordained His people.
4. Christ tells us to choose Him.

Do not try to debate me about how the limited atonement is hiding amongst the verses that say that Christ died for all men, especially for believers. I've had Reformed people give me arguments for it and it makes my spirit recoil in discernment. They sounded awfully defensive. I'm not trying to defend any position. I will trust Scripture. Anyways, it's God's word, after all, right?

I will close the thread if this turns into a debate. Agreeing to disagree on things is the most saintly behavior we can espouse.

I am not familiar with any verses that say Christ died for the sins of all men....
do you have a Scripture for that?

I will admit that the Bible is written in such a way as to allow for heresy.
There are some verses that seem to teach that salvation is the result of
water baptism.... and other verses that contradict that idea... but here
is the KEY.... there is a way to harmonize both ideas.

The ONLY measure of Biblical Truth is complete harmony of all related Scriptures.
Anything less is (at best) only some partial truth.

Just like it is true that God promised to protect the "church"....
but then we must ask which "church" is in view? We know that
the term "church" could mean either (a) both the "wheat and tares"
or (b) only the "wheat".

So we can harmonize the idea that God promised to eternal life to the "church"
(consisting of only wheat) while he also promised eternal Wrath on the "tares"
that were part of the temporal "church", but not part of the eternal "church".

In other words.... the Bible was written as to allow for heresy.... in fact the Gospel
PROMISES the "tares" would bring "leaven". So we must EXPECT false teachings
to harmonize with SOME Scriptures. The only measure of Biblical Truth is to find
harmony with ALL RELATED SCRIPTURES.

I am aware the Bible separates the world into three (3) groups:
(a) the saved "wheat" in the "Kingdom of Heaven"
(b) the unsaved "tares" in the "Kingdom of Heaven"
(c) the unsaved souls OUTSIDE the Kingdom

I am aware of Scriptures that say He died for ALL (of His sheep).
I am not aware of any Scriptures that say He died for the "tares"
or for those OUTSIDE the "Kingdom of Heaven" like Jews, Moslems,
Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Humanists, Pagans, etc,

So.... no debate...
just cite the passage that says Jesus died for the sins of all men?


.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I am not familiar with any verses that say Christ died for the sins of all men....
do you have a Scripture for that?

I will admit that the Bible is written in such a way as to allow for heresy.
There are some verses that seem to teach that salvation is the result of
water baptism.... and other verses that contradict that idea... but here
is the KEY.... there is a way to harmonize both ideas.

The ONLY measure of Biblical Truth is complete harmony of all related Scriptures.
Anything less is (at best) only some partial truth.

Just like it is true that God promised to protect the "church"....
but then we must ask which "church" is in view? We know that
the term "church" could mean either (a) both the "wheat and tares"
or (b) only the "wheat".

So we can harmonize the idea that God promised to eternal life to the "church"
(consisting of only wheat) while he also promised eternal Wrath on the "tares"
that were part of the temporal "church", but not part of the eternal "church".

In other words.... the Bible was written as to allow for heresy.... in fact the Gospel
PROMISES the "tares" would bring "leaven". So we must EXPECT false teachings
to harmonize with SOME Scriptures. The only measure of Biblical Truth is to find
harmony with ALL RELATED SCRIPTURES.

I am aware the Bible separates the world into three (3) groups:
(a) the saved "wheat" in the "Kingdom of Heaven"
(b) the unsaved "tares" in the "Kingdom of Heaven"
(c) the unsaved souls OUTSIDE the Kingdom

I am aware of Scriptures that say He died for ALL (of His sheep).
I am not aware of any Scriptures that say He died for the "tares"
or for those OUTSIDE the "Kingdom of Heaven" like Jews, Moslems,
Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Humanists, Pagans, etc,

So.... no debate...
just cite the passage that says Jesus died for the sins of all men?


.

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." 1 Timothy 4:10

 

[5thKingdom]

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." 1 Timothy 4:10

So the question is the definition of the words "all men".
Does that mean Jew and Gentile?

We KNOW ABSOLUTELY (because of harmony of all related Scripture)
that "all men" does not include those rejecting Christ and the Gospel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence,
shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you,
It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
------------------------------------------------------------------

So we have to decide WHO is included in "all men".

I suggest you are ADDING to the Bible if you interpret "all men"
to include those in Mark 6.... but we have "harmony of Scripture"
if we understand "all men" to represent Gentiles in addition to Jews.

And I would suggest you read the CONTEXT of verses 1-10
which is talking about those in the CHURCHES being the "we"....
both the "wheat and the tares" in the CHURCHES.

The CONTEXT of the chapter (and the letter) does not include pagans
and such.... it is a limited context which includes the church (both Jew and Gentile).

Jim

.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2

I will not reply to this fruitless, uncharitable debate. God bless you.

 

[thesunisout]

I believe in the gifts of the Spirit and my beliefs are closer to calvinism than arninianism i dont think anyone is going to figure it out entirely before we meet the Lord

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I believe in the gifts of the Spirit and my beliefs are closer to calvinism than arninianism i dont think anyone is going to figure it out entirely before we meet the Lord

I agree. We do not know in entirety. Thank you for your charitable response. I feel really bad for the guy who was posting before you, with his cold and unloving demeanor and language.

 

[5thKingdom]

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2

I will not reply to this fruitless, uncharitable debate. God bless you.

I simply suggested the CONTEXT was Jew and Gentile... you cannot dispute that fact.
And I noted the CONTEXT was the church (not the world)... you cannot dispute that fact.
There was no offense meant. Nothing "uncharitable" intended .... just a valid observation.

In fact,
Since the observation allows "harmony of Scripture" where none was seen (by you) before
I would say it was very "charitable" to provide the enlightenment. And that's how it was meant.

Good night
.

 

[5thKingdom]

I agree. We do not know in entirety. Thank you for your charitable response. I feel really bad for the guy who was posting before you, with his cold and unloving demeanor and language.

I apologize if speaking directly somehow "offended" you.
It must be terrible for you to have to feel such "cold and unloving demeanor".
I thought my words were being directed to (a) an adult and (b) someone interested
in finding Biblibcal Truth. My mistake. You just wanted to get some loving feelings.

Good Night