What is the Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism?
- Thread starter BABerean2
- Start date
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
.
Upvote
0
- Apr 18, 2019
- 206
- 67
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'm currently studying the Free Grace vs. Lordship Salvation, this due to me going off on a tangent on another study of Calvin vs. Arminius. I have collected a number of books debating these topics and I'm reading them as I have time.
I haven't read What is the Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism?, nor did I watch the imbedded video.
However, total coincidence, I have started reading a book titled A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance edited by Fred Chay 2017 Grace Theology Press
This is one of those books that I think everyone should read regardless of your position on the subject. 600 pages, highly documented and footnoted which basically makes Grudem look silly. I know that will offend some but there it is. The book doesn't just take Grudem to task, it also gives MacArthur and others the same treatment.
One of the chapters is written by Ken Wilson, a medical Dr., who went back to school and received a PhD at University of Oxford, his studies on ECFs. He wrote the book in the OP What is the Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism?
True confession: I really don't care what anyone thinks of me or what anyone thinks I personally believe because no one knows me or what I believe. But the main thing as far as faith is concerned, is an individual trusting in the shed blood of Christ for their salvation?
OK I'm going from memory here so I might leave out something or whatever. But that probably doesn't matter because I seriously doubt that anyone is likely to read the book (the one edited by Chay) to correct me. What Wilson is saying is that from the time of his conversion to Christianity to 414 AD Augustine was basically what we might call premil. After 414 he changed his mind, mainly due to the issue of infant baptism, and at that point applied his extensive pre-conversion knowledge of Manichaenism, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism to the Scriptures to arrive at his newly found belief of the validity of infant baptism. Wilson cites numerous and varied sources including scholars that love Augustine who admit that this is exactly what happened. So in a nutshell, Wilsons thesis is that Augustine used an unbiblical exegesis, influenced by Gnosticism, to refine his theology in total. That has carried on today to many fine theologians even to this day who accept his teachings without carefully applying what the Bible actually teaches on these matters.
I'm not defending or promoting any theological stance here simply stating what Wilson is saying. Of course there is a lot of detail which I'm leaving out but Wilson is, if nothing else, a careful writer who documents everything and has the academic chops to warrant a little more than just a casual "toss aside".
I haven't read What is the Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism?, nor did I watch the imbedded video.
However, total coincidence, I have started reading a book titled A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance edited by Fred Chay 2017 Grace Theology Press
This is one of those books that I think everyone should read regardless of your position on the subject. 600 pages, highly documented and footnoted which basically makes Grudem look silly. I know that will offend some but there it is. The book doesn't just take Grudem to task, it also gives MacArthur and others the same treatment.
One of the chapters is written by Ken Wilson, a medical Dr., who went back to school and received a PhD at University of Oxford, his studies on ECFs. He wrote the book in the OP What is the Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism?
True confession: I really don't care what anyone thinks of me or what anyone thinks I personally believe because no one knows me or what I believe. But the main thing as far as faith is concerned, is an individual trusting in the shed blood of Christ for their salvation?
OK I'm going from memory here so I might leave out something or whatever. But that probably doesn't matter because I seriously doubt that anyone is likely to read the book (the one edited by Chay) to correct me. What Wilson is saying is that from the time of his conversion to Christianity to 414 AD Augustine was basically what we might call premil. After 414 he changed his mind, mainly due to the issue of infant baptism, and at that point applied his extensive pre-conversion knowledge of Manichaenism, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism to the Scriptures to arrive at his newly found belief of the validity of infant baptism. Wilson cites numerous and varied sources including scholars that love Augustine who admit that this is exactly what happened. So in a nutshell, Wilsons thesis is that Augustine used an unbiblical exegesis, influenced by Gnosticism, to refine his theology in total. That has carried on today to many fine theologians even to this day who accept his teachings without carefully applying what the Bible actually teaches on these matters.
I'm not defending or promoting any theological stance here simply stating what Wilson is saying. Of course there is a lot of detail which I'm leaving out but Wilson is, if nothing else, a careful writer who documents everything and has the academic chops to warrant a little more than just a casual "toss aside".
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
It seems we have few "Free Grace theology" adherents here at CF, there are some. However, every thread about "you can lose your salvation" seems to be in response to Free Grace theology. And the Reformed (so called "Lordship Salvation") get caught in the middle arguing with both sides that being in opposition to Free Grace theology and the "bad news" theology that we lose our salvation everyday with every thought. Quite the extremes there. John MacArthur does teach Reformed soteriology and he did come out with a comparison of "Free Grace theology" vs "Lordship Salvation." Of course MacArthur says there is no other salvation than that in the Lord and we call Him LORD for a reason:
The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matthew 7:13-23).
Present-day evangelicalism, by and large, ignores these warnings. The prevailing view of what constitutes saving faith continues to grow broader and more shallow, while the portrayal of Christ in preaching and witnessing becomes fuzzy. Anyone who claims to be a Christian can find evangelicals willing to accept a profession of faith, whether or not the person's behavior shows any evidence of commitment to Christ. In this way, faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him.
This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.
The Distinctives of Lordship Salvation
There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.
What, then, are the distinctives of lordship salvation? What does Scripture teach that is embraced by those who affirm lordship salvation but rejected by proponents of "easy-believism"? The following are nine distinctives of a biblical understanding of salvation and the gospel.
First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Peter 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.
Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Ephesians 2:1-5, 8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Philippians 1:6; cf. Hebrews 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing.
Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.
Fourth, Scripture teaches that real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Corinthians 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Galatians 2:20). The nature of the Christian is new and different (Romans 6:6). The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:9-10). Those with genuine faith follow Christ (John 10:27), love their brothers (1 John 3:14), obey God's commandments (1 John 2:3; John 15:14), do the will of God (Matthew 12:50), abide in God's Word (John 8:31), keep God's Word (John 17:6), do good works (Ephesians 2:10), and continue in the faith (Colossians 1:21-23; Hebrews 3:14). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that although some spiritual fruit is inevitable, that fruit might not be visible to others and Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness.
Fifth, Scripture teaches that God's gift of eternal life includes all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3; Romans 8:32), not just a ticket to heaven. In contrast, according to easy-believism, only the judicial aspects of salvation (e.g., justification, adoption, and positional sanctification) are guaranteed for believers in this life; practical sanctification and growth in grace require a post-conversion act of dedication.
Sixth, Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Romans 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Surrender to Jesus' lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ's supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction.
Seventh, Scripture teaches that those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Peter 1:8-9; Romans 8:28-30; 1 Corinthians 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality.
Eighth, Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one's faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one's faith.
Ninth, Scripture teaches that genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Corinthians 1:8). Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that a true believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing.
Most Christians recognize that these nine distinctives are not new or radical ideas. The preponderance of Bible-believing Christians over the centuries have held these to be basic tenets of orthodoxy. In fact, no major orthodox movement in the history of Christianity has ever taught that sinners can spurn the lordship of Christ yet lay claim to Him as Savior.
This issue is not a trivial one. In fact, how could any issue be more important? The gospel that is presented to unbelievers has eternal ramifications. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not merely a matter for theologians to discuss and debate and speculate about. This is an issue that every single pastor and lay person must understand in order that the gospel may be rightly proclaimed to all the nations.---John MacArthur
An Introduction to Lordship Salvation
Present-day evangelicalism, by and large, ignores these warnings. The prevailing view of what constitutes saving faith continues to grow broader and more shallow, while the portrayal of Christ in preaching and witnessing becomes fuzzy. Anyone who claims to be a Christian can find evangelicals willing to accept a profession of faith, whether or not the person's behavior shows any evidence of commitment to Christ. In this way, faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him.
This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.
The Distinctives of Lordship Salvation
There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.
What, then, are the distinctives of lordship salvation? What does Scripture teach that is embraced by those who affirm lordship salvation but rejected by proponents of "easy-believism"? The following are nine distinctives of a biblical understanding of salvation and the gospel.
First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Peter 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.
Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Ephesians 2:1-5, 8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Philippians 1:6; cf. Hebrews 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing.
Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.
Fourth, Scripture teaches that real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Corinthians 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Galatians 2:20). The nature of the Christian is new and different (Romans 6:6). The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:9-10). Those with genuine faith follow Christ (John 10:27), love their brothers (1 John 3:14), obey God's commandments (1 John 2:3; John 15:14), do the will of God (Matthew 12:50), abide in God's Word (John 8:31), keep God's Word (John 17:6), do good works (Ephesians 2:10), and continue in the faith (Colossians 1:21-23; Hebrews 3:14). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that although some spiritual fruit is inevitable, that fruit might not be visible to others and Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness.
Fifth, Scripture teaches that God's gift of eternal life includes all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3; Romans 8:32), not just a ticket to heaven. In contrast, according to easy-believism, only the judicial aspects of salvation (e.g., justification, adoption, and positional sanctification) are guaranteed for believers in this life; practical sanctification and growth in grace require a post-conversion act of dedication.
Sixth, Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Romans 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Surrender to Jesus' lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ's supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction.
Seventh, Scripture teaches that those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Peter 1:8-9; Romans 8:28-30; 1 Corinthians 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality.
Eighth, Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one's faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one's faith.
Ninth, Scripture teaches that genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Corinthians 1:8). Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that a true believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing.
Most Christians recognize that these nine distinctives are not new or radical ideas. The preponderance of Bible-believing Christians over the centuries have held these to be basic tenets of orthodoxy. In fact, no major orthodox movement in the history of Christianity has ever taught that sinners can spurn the lordship of Christ yet lay claim to Him as Savior.
This issue is not a trivial one. In fact, how could any issue be more important? The gospel that is presented to unbelievers has eternal ramifications. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not merely a matter for theologians to discuss and debate and speculate about. This is an issue that every single pastor and lay person must understand in order that the gospel may be rightly proclaimed to all the nations.---John MacArthur
An Introduction to Lordship Salvation
Upvote
0
One of the biggest problems is the continuing battle between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
Many today have continued the reasoning of the Judaisers, who could not let go of the Sinai Covenant.
Paul compelled the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage", in Galatians 4:24-31. Many try to ignore this passage, or redefine Paul's words, because they cannot accept the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant.
In Galatians 3:16-29, Paul said the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.
In Matthew chapter 5 Christ reveals the fact that the New Covenant is a higher standard, not for our salvation, but for our conduct.
Several times in the passage Christ quotes from the Old Covenant and then says, "But I say...".
Reformed Covenant Theology often proclaims the eternal nature of the Sinai Covenant.
Based on the passages mentioned above, and Colossians 2:16-17, nobody alive today has ever broken the 4th commandment, which was the "sign" of the Sinai Covenant.
Christ is our Sabbath rest every day of the week, for those in the New Covenant.
The New Covenant: Bob George
.
Upvote
0
- Apr 18, 2019
- 206
- 67
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Thanks but I was addressing the OP and the question of Augustinian-Calvinism. I'm not trying to market myself as some kind of authority or highly trained theologian. But I do a lot of reading and have at my fingertips 100s of theology books and many commentaries and history books. Most are penned by Covenant theologians. I will admit that I'm not the spiritual example to follow and that there are holes in my knowledge.
So it wasn't my intention to discuss Free Grace Theology but rather to say that I have read the writings of the author mentioned in the OP. I want to say this as clearly as possible, I'm very much surprised and impressed by the high quality and attention to detail exhibited in several of the books I have read by Free Grace Theologians, especially the one I mentioned: A Defense of Free Grace Theology. I would say this as an individual that generally enjoys MacArthur and have a few of his books.
I will say this as a matter of opinion without trying to influence anyone but I have long held that a skilled Calvinist and/or a skilled Arminian, either one, can make the opposing side look ill informed in a debate. I have come to the point in my life where I can have my mind changed but I take sola scriptura to mean just that, the Bible alone. The minute someone tries to convince me based on the teaching of ______, I head for the hills.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Would you provide the teachings Augustine provided as a bishop which were Gnostic?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ICONO'CLAST
Well-Known Member
The teaching comes from God.
God has an eternal purpose that He has made known to the Church eph3:9-11
Millions have confessed and believe these truths.
Others resist and say anything to oppose it.
God has an eternal purpose that He has made known to the Church eph3:9-11
Millions have confessed and believe these truths.
Others resist and say anything to oppose it.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Not the libertarian free will taught in some churches today.
Of course Augustine spoke out against Pelagianism. The Bible is clear we are dead in our trespasses and sin until God makes us alive in Christ. Augustine was not the first church father to speak on original sin.
Irenaeus in the 2nd century opined on our condemnation in Adam.
Upvote
0
IRCohoon
Member
- Oct 23, 2019
- 5
- 1
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Irenaeus, "Men are possessed with free will and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. It is not true therefore, thatsome are by nature good, and others are bad" [Against Hereses, Book IV Chapter XXXVII]. Now, run that by me one more time what you said. Men have free will. God is mutable also.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Who spoke of “free will?” I was speaking of original sin.
Irenaeus states we are “begotten in the same captivity.”
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.23 (St. Irenaeus)
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
God is immutable. We have free will according to the master we serve. We are either in bondage to sin and death or in bondage to Christ.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Not evident in the text. He clearly said we are begotten in the same captivity. He also used language in that chapter putting Adam as the federal head of mankind. Paul makes this very simple comparison in Romans 5. Romans 5 makes it clear we share the same condemnation of Adam.
Romans 5: NASB
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Apr 18, 2019
- 206
- 67
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Millions have confessed and believed the "truth" as expounded by Rome. So number of "truth seekers" is not in my opinion the deciding factor. The truth is found in the Scriptures not the writings or teachings of the church or the theologians, nice as they might be. By this I don't mean that there is an absence of truth in those writings but rather they are not the bedrock of truth.
It is true that the Bible tells us that we are dead in our trespasses and sins. It is also true that the Bible teaches that life eternal is available to all that believe on the name of Jesus. It is also true that Jehovah causes the rains to fall on the righteous and unrighteous.
The Calvinists using the sledgehammer approach wants to use the concept of election to mean that certain men are set aside special for salvation. While initial salvation is a free gift, continued salvation is maintained by works. The Arminian wants to say that salvation can be awarded based on faith alone but then can be lost due to bad behavior. The truth of the matter is that both sides agree that salvation can be lost, in either system in a strictly technical sense, there is no assurance of salvation.
The end result is that the reformed will inform anyone who will listen to them that those outside of their little club of elect individuals are dammed to hell and that the Arminian free willers are not properly motivated to service. The Arminian expresses that the reformed exhibit an arrogance that comes with their self proclaimed privilege. So it goes back and forth (400 hundred years now) with no progress ever being made. The Arminian unwittingly scores a point in this game when they are accused by Calvinists of not being motivated to service because it appears to me that the "free grace theology" position (distinct from both reformed and free will) teaches that election is for service and not salvation. But that is a topic for another day.
My only point being is that there are errors on both sides and both sides resort to name calling at some point in the discussion. But back to the OP question it is very easy for a fair minded individual to see that Augustine infused some of his pre-conversion knowledge of Gnosticism into his post conversion theology. I think a really good idea for a study would be to compare and contrast what the Reformed call "general grace" with what the Arminian calls "prevenient grace". I know that John MacArthur, who I generally agree with, in his systematic theology and taking the reformed position goes to great lengths to stress that they are not the same but at the same time he places that response in his systematic by way of opinion in footnotes and not supported by any Scripture.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
