Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

[the particular baptist]

As previously explained, the Arminian sees the issue related to God’s choice NOT His ability.

...Because God ofcourse, is at the mercy of the almighty human will. This is what you mean by God’s choice NOT His ability. God will not violate human will, therefore he is at the mercy of it. Thanks for your drawn out explanation why a will worshiper can worship the will of man and yet be saved. You havent convinced me, and i am content to wait for that Day when we shall see.

 

[the particular baptist]

A bunch of folks that share a high view of God's Sovereign Grace are debating about whether or not a certain group (Arminians) with whom that all disagree, are too wrong to be saved.

If they are, so are Russellites, Cambellites, Mormons, and Papists. Throw in some Mohammedans for good measure. Same difference. The is the logical conclusion of your argument. The Mohammedans is a joke, but not really.

 

[msortwell]

...Because God ofcourse, is at the mercy of the almighty human will. This is what you mean by God’s choice NOT His ability. God will not violate human will, therefore he is at the mercy of it. Thanks for your drawn out explanation why a will worshiper can worship the will of man and yet be saved. You havent convinced me, and i am content to wait for that Day when we shall see.

There is more hope for a fool than for a man who is wise in his own conceit.

 

[msortwell]

The Bible offers much that can be helpful in understanding whether someone who professes Christ is likely a true believer or not. However, the Holy Text offers few specific instructions regarding how a true believer can be identified beyond simply accepting the testimony that they trust in Christ as their savior.

1 John 2:5, But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. NKJV

John 13:35, By this all will know that you are My disciples , if you have love for one another." NKJV

Some who claim Christ as Savior may not pass the test of our doctrinal creeds. That should give us cause for concern. However, we ought also be concerned with how we, or others that proclaim to share a faith similar to ours, fare under the test administered per the text quoted above.

 

[twin1954]

Let's take for example the words you use above that are intended to make your point.

Can you know God and not know Him as God?
What does it mean to “know Him as God?” The question, standing alone, means nothing of substance. It must be explained. I suspect that you are referring to some essential attributes of God which must be understood for a person to be saved. Operating on that assumption, let’s look at the essential attributes of the God of the Bible.


In Chapter 6 of his book, “Summary of Christian Doctrine” Louis Berkhof offers the following attributes of God.

• The independence or self-existence of God.
• The immutability of God.
• The infinity of God.
• The simplicity of God. By ascribing simplicity to God we mean that He is not composed of various parts, such as the body and soul in man, and for that very reason is not subject to division.
• The knowledge of (possessed by) God. This is that perfection of God whereby He, in a manner all His own, knows Himself and all things possible and actual.
• The wisdom of God. God's wisdom is an aspect of His knowledge.
• The goodness of God. God is good, that is, perfectly holy.
• The love of God. This is often called the most central attribute of God, but it is doubtful whether it should be regarded as more central than the other perfections of God.
• The righteousness of God. The righteousness of God is that perfection by which He maintains Himself as the Holy One over against every violation of His holiness.
• The veracity of God.
• The sovereignty of God. This may be considered from two different points of view, namely, His sovereign will, and His sovereign power.

Assuming Mr. Berkhof’s list to be a reasonable starting point regarding what God has revealed to us about Himself . . . which of these attributes will a person know if he is a true believer (albeit a recently converted new believer)?

To what extent must these attributes be known?

Is His sovereignty weighed more heavily in this determination than other attributes, and if so, based upon what Scripture?

If they can list them is that enough?

Perhaps they must be able to list some but be able to describe others?

Instead of asking how much theology must a believer know lets look at some Scriptures and see what we can find out concerning your questions.

In Gen. 1:1 God simply declares that He is God. He doesn’t explain what that is nor seeks to describe Himself in any way. He simply says God. Why? I think we can find the answer in Rom. 1.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(Rom 1:18-23)

It would seem that there is an innate knowledge of God as God. How far does that knowledge go? Well it seems that at least all men know His eternal power and Godhead. Does that mean they have an idea of His sovereignty? It sure does. Even a study of the mythical gods, arbitrary as they were, reveals that even those imaginary gods had some semblance of sovereignty. They ruled over men. That is what sovereignty means. So we have established a fact that all men have an innate knowledge of God which includes His sovereign rule. What did they do with that knowledge? They suppressed it and made for themselves imaginary gods like to corruptible man. Just like their father Adam they would not have God rule over them. Nothing has changed since the beginning. Man’s enmity against God isn’t against His attributes but His rule. All men naturally hate authority and especially the authority of God. That is why the unbeliever continually shakes his fist in the face of God and says in his heart that He has no right to tell him what to do. Adam wasn’t deceived. 1Tim. 2:14. He knew what he was doing and he chose to defy the rule of God in favor of the woman. He knew she must die and he wouldn’t have it. That is the sin nature he passed on to us. Men don’t hate God’s power, His wisdom, His love, His graciousness or any other of His attribute save one, they hate His rule. That is why they seek to get around it by imagining a god that doesn’t really rule.

They can call it god and even lord but all the while they rob him in some way of his rule. They can say he is sovereign over everything but turn that sovereignty into servitude. They say that He can rule but that He has chosen not to. That is nothing less than saying that He has made Himself their servant. By claiming that he has sovereignly set aside his sovereignty they rob him of sovereignty. It is true that Christ is the revelation of God in human flesh and the Scriptures do declare that He is a servant but it never says He is man’s servant He is the servant of the Father. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it ever say that God has in the least degree set aside His sovereignty. It isn’t error to rob God it is rebellion and treachery.

Now to be sure most folks haven’t heard of the one true God because He isn’t preached. The false god of natural religion is. Arminianism is nothing but natural religion. It has some true things but it doesn’t have truth. Paul told the Thessalonians that God had chosen them unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. 2Thess. 2:13. Does that mean that they must know and believe all truth? Of course not. But it does mean that they must know some essential truth. That essential truth necessarily includes that God rules because that is the point of rebellion for all men. I will leave off here in order to give you opportunity to consider it without having too much to think on. I believe this is a good starting point. I apologize if it seems preachy but I can’t help it I am a preacher

 

[twin1954]

Oh Yeah, I did wnat to answer the litmus test thing. I am compelled to consider any who profess faith in Christ to be believers up until they show themselves not to be. I in no way set up a litmus test in order to judge any I simply recognize that those who believe in a false god are not saved no matter how much they think they are. That compells me to preach the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ to them all the more.

 

[the particular baptist]

There is more hope for a fool than for a man who is wise in his own conceit.

pot - kettle - black

 

[msortwell]

pot - kettle - black

Just to be clear. In this saying . . . it is recognized that both the pot and the kettle are actually black.

 

[msortwell]

Instead of asking how much theology must a believer know lets look at some Scriptures and see what we can find out concerning your questions.

In Gen. 1:1 God simply declares that He is God. He doesn’t explain what that is nor seeks to describe Himself in any way. He simply says God. Why? I think we can find the answer in Rom. 1.


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(Rom 1:18-23)

I know this may sound strange at first, but hear me out . . . You perspective upon the Arminian issue seems to be too God focused. It seems strange to even write such a thing.

The excerpt of Rom 1 that you provided speaks of God and man. But it is not God focused. It is man focused. It speaks more to the failings of men than it does about God. But I believe it is an excellent place to look for the answer to this debate. The text states,

Rom 1:18-23, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness . . . because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. NKJV

The Arminian problem comes more from an exalted view of man than from a low view of God. The problem is that their high view of man is not only incompatible with the biblical view of man, it hampers their understanding of the salvation process. All of this, if brought to its logical conclusion, reflects a lower view of God. But this is where humans are extremely adept. We can allow inconsistencies in our thinking, if we don't think things through too carefully. It doesn’t take very long on CF to see that this is particularly true of people’s theology! From outside the Arminian camp we can see that their high view of man, and the resulting misunderstanding they have of the salvation process has implications regarding their view of God.

You have drawn some reasonable inferences from the stated beliefs of Arminians to determine their view of God, and to assert what it is that they truly worship. Some of those inferences might be inescapable, IF human beings were locked in to being logical, to determine the implications some of their beliefs have on related matters.

However, humans are NOT so infallibly logical. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say you believe ‘x’ and you believe ‘y’, therefore you must believe ‘z’ - EVEN IF the conclusion that if x is true and y is true z must be true. We must allow for the ability of men to be inconsistent. If they assert they believe x and y, but hold z as untrue, we ought to take them at their word.

And now I believe I have committed sufficient time to the defense of Arminian thought.

 

[the particular baptist]

Just to be clear. In this saying . . . it is recognized that both the pot and the kettle are actually black.

lol, i was aware of that

 

[AndOne]

...Because God ofcourse, is at the mercy of the almighty human will. This is what you mean by God’s choice NOT His ability. God will not violate human will, therefore he is at the mercy of it. Thanks for your drawn out explanation why a will worshiper can worship the will of man and yet be saved. You havent convinced me, and i am content to wait for that Day when we shall see.

Well - as a former arminian - let me say this is an incorrect assesment of them. The Arminian doesn't view God as being at the mercy of human will. They view God as allowing the human will to decide - that is a considerable difference - don't you think?

In other words - they believe the only reason man has the capacity to operate under his own free will in choosing Christ is because God has set it up to be that way as part of his divine plan.

Now we all know that this is not in fact what scripture teaches - but I think it is a better articulation of what arminians actually believe - and it does not limit the sovereignty of God. I'm just glad that the monergistic minded folks who enlightened me to the doctrines of grace didn't come at me calling me a "will-worshipper." I immediately would have thought - "these guys have no idea what it is that I believe so why should I take anything they say seriously..."

 

[AndOne]

I suppose I should clarify - most or at least a lot of arminians believe as pesented in post #171. I guess a quick perusal over the sotierology forums might show otherwise.

 

[the particular baptist]

Well - as a former arminian - let me say this is an incorrect assesment of them. The Arminian doesn't view God as being at the mercy of human will. They view God as allowing the human will to decide - that is a considerable difference - don't you think?

Not at all BB, its one and the same thing. Allowing the clay to decide anything is putting the Potter in subjection to the will of the clay.

 

[the particular baptist]

I'm just glad that the monergistic minded folks who enlightened me to the doctrines of grace didn't come at me calling me a "will-worshipper." I immediately would have thought - "these guys have no idea what it is that I believe so why should I take anything they say seriously..."

BB, i would have thought you would say the Holy Ghost enlightened you to the free sovereign grace of God.

If i am speaking to a free will professing christian, i dont call him a will worshiper to his face. In fact i dont call him anything but his name, and i certainly dont call him brother. I have at times, as the Spirit has led, shared something of God's free grace with co-workers who profess Christ. They buckled and rebelled and showed nothing but contempt at the thought of free grace. An regenerare mind not at emnity with God would have bowed to such revelation.

I read John 18 to my children at bedtime tonight. Advocates of free will remind me of something the jews cried out..."John 18:40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas."

 

[twin1954]

I know this may sound strange at first, but hear me out . . . You perspective upon the Arminian issue seems to be too God focused. It seems strange to even write such a thing.

The excerpt of Rom 1 that you provided speaks of God and man. But it is not God focused. It is man focused. It speaks more to the failings of men than it does about God. But I believe it is an excellent place to look for the answer to this debate. The text states,

Rom 1:18-23, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness . . . because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. NKJV

The Arminian problem comes more from an exalted view of man than from a low view of God. The problem is that their high view of man is not only incompatible with the biblical view of man, it hampers their understanding of the salvation process. All of this, if brought to its logical conclusion, reflects a lower view of God. But this is where humans are extremely adept. We can allow inconsistencies in our thinking, if we don't think things through too carefully. It doesn’t take very long on CF to see that this is particularly true of people’s theology! From outside the Arminian camp we can see that their high view of man, and the resulting misunderstanding they have of the salvation process has implications regarding their view of God.

You have drawn some reasonable inferences from the stated beliefs of Arminians to determine their view of God, and to assert what it is that they truly worship. Some of those inferences might be inescapable, IF human beings were locked in to being logical, to determine the implications some of their beliefs have on related matters.

However, humans are NOT so infallibly logical. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say you believe ‘x’ and you believe ‘y’, therefore you must believe ‘z’ - EVEN IF the conclusion that if x is true and y is true z must be true. We must allow for the ability of men to be inconsistent. If they assert they believe x and y, but hold z as untrue, we ought to take them at their word.

And now I believe I have committed sufficient time to the defense of Arminian thought.

It isn't a matter being logical it is a matter of truth. I recognize that most Arminians can't see the difference but that is not because they are illogical but because they are blind. How many times has an Arminian said to you that they couldn't worship a God like that? They have made an idol out of the love of God and deny that the God of love always does what's best for those He loves. Logically they destroy the love of God but they wouln't admit it. The problem with them isn't their thinking it is their heart. They may try to defend their natural religion with things such as God chooses to give them their choice but it is only a smoke screen to hide their true hatred of God.

I had intended to get a little further into the Scriptures speaking about how often we read of the Lord and what that entails but since you have decided to leave off I will bid you farewell in this discussion.

 

[twin1954]

I have been accused of many things in my life and ministry but I think that that is the first time I have ever been accused of being too God focused.

 

[msortwell]

I have been accused of many things in my life and ministry but I think that that is the first time I have ever been accused of being too God focused.

Yes I knew better than to say such a thing. In context it was awkward. Outside of that context it seems clearly untrue.

 

[Anoetos]

Many of us were, in fact, Arminians when we realized the truth of the doctrines of Grace. Were we unsaved until we did so?

I came to faith in Christ before I accepted the truth of free grace. Was I unsaved when I first believed?

 

[JM]

Lines clearly drawn in the sand...good!

 

[twin1954]

Many of us were, in fact, Arminians when we realized the truth of the doctrines of Grace. Were we unsaved until we did so?

Yes you were. I don't know how to be any more clear. Obviously the one good post that I made has been removed which makes it clear why I say this. If you were saved as an Arminian and then realized the truth of the Doctrines of Grace then wouldn't that make the truth of God just superior knowledge or superior grace? You have gotten something now by grace that is superior to the grace that your Arminian brother has.

I came to faith in Christ before I accepted the truth of free grace. Was I unsaved when I first believed?

When did you first believe? Did you first believe when you heard of a god who wanted to save you but left it up to you or when you believed that God is God indeed?