| Author | Message | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 135 Registered: 2-2003 |
Colleen, I will go for trusting God because He is God, because I sure don't understand everything! Does that idea of God not being allowed to do something because it is unfair to Satan come from Adventism? Sounds whacky to me. By the way, I was reading an article on election, predestination and so on which offers an alternative explanation which is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I think it is called the "corporate view" of election. It is long, rather "different" - I'll have to think about it. Interesting though: http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/ten.htm God bless, Adrian | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1020 Registered: 11-2002 |
Doc, I will look at that website yet today. No, I am not a drunk. I like to have fun with the neighborhood and it usually involves rum and assorted other beverages, however I leave the others alone. Doc, a good website for you to look up as you might enjoy it is www.oldlutheran.org (com?). There must be hundreds of Lutheran jokes on there and when I read them I actually sit here and laugh until my sides ache from doubeling over. The Old Lutheran store is a crack-up, too. There's the Pass The Peace Sanatation Kit. It has anti-bacterial wipes in it so when we Lutherans have to shake hands with each other we can wipe off the germs right away. There is the tee-shirt with the words by Martin Luther, "Sin Boldly". It's just a fun organzation. And, yes, Martin Luther did suggest ridding the world of the heritics and of all non-Christians. He seemed to get a bit over zellas in my opinion. But, most the time as I read his writings he s a voice of reason. You all can look up that website. It's a fun one. Click on "humor" and be prepared to laugh right out loud. | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 136 Registered: 2-2003 |
Melissa, I am no great expert on this, but from what I know of Adventism, it does not take the Arminian view that I have learnt. I think Adventism is more like Pelagianism (Calvinists sometimes accuse Arminians of being Pelagian - great how we all "accuse" each other, hey? - but the two seem really quite different to me). Roman Catholicism also ended up "semi-Pelagian." RC soteriology is sort of like this: if you get baptised then you are saved until you commit a "mortal sin." You are then not saved, so you have to confess your sin to a priest, and perform the penance you are given, and then you are saved until you commit a mortal sin again, and then you are not saved, so you go to the priest... This sounds a bit like Adventism with the Investigative Judgement looming over your head and making sure you have no unconfessed sins. Obviously with such a teaching there is no chance of having assurance of salvation. I can understand why someone coming out of a legalistic cult like SDA (or RC, JW, LDS) and discovering grace would be drawn to Calvinism, as it is the other end of the "pendulum swing" as I mentioned in my previous post. As I have never been in any of the above, and have always been in Arminian-type churches (Baptist, AOG - I think these actually vary in England depending on the individual congregations, but that was the case with me), I have never had any problems with assurance of salvation. I simply have it because the Bible tells me I am saved if I am in Christ and led by the Holy Spirit, and I know I am. No problem. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 650 Registered: 3-2004 |
I have never heard of Arminianism, Pelagianism or any of those other isms until I left the SDA church. What is important to me is that now I have no problem with salvation. Like Adrian said above I simply have it because the Bible tells me I am saved if I am in Christ and led by the Holy Spirit and I know I am. Praise God, He is awesome. Diana | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 101 Registered: 10-2000 |
Okay, I've read all of your posts, but these last two are the ones I'm picking out to question. Then I have another question that has not been addressed above. Begin Quote by Adrian and subsequently Diana: "I have never had any problems with assurance of salvation. I simply have it because the Bible tells me I am saved if I am in Christ and led by the Holy Spirit, and I know I am. No problem." Begin subsequent quote by Diana: "Like Adrian said above I simply have it because the Bible tells me I am saved if I am in Christ and led by the Holy Spirit and I know I am." Being in Christ is between God and yourselves, however, how is it that you know you are being "led by the Holy Spirit" at all times? Every day of the week, every hour of that day, every minute of that hour and every second of that minute? Please describe to me what this must feel like. As for myself, I have feelings that are not at all what would be described as righteous anger but out and out anger, or perhaps I have thoughts that we all know God would not think. Infact, even everyday frustrations are not always moments wherein I'm "led by the Holy Spirit" as He would not feel frustration. My frustrations show or are voiced. Can everyone but me have no need to vent these pent up frustrartions? If so, well then, I must be something other than a human being. I know I'm not God but for a certainty am a human being who supposed that she is not to voice this sinful behavior or thoughts, especially on the internet. However, truth is truth and I dare say that there is not a one on this board who doesn't sin. Scripture tells us that. As to Arminianism, I do not even find myself as a good model without being a hypocrit in Church (when I used to go). For an example, the 'better-than-thou-' people really teed me off. They are a sad bunch yet a bunch I would rather not meet as my voice wants to shout "You Hypocrits!" This because they are or think they are so holy that to speak with the likes of me.....well ah, this is politically incorrect in Church. I should know as I was the one ostrastrized. And to this day, I've not heard from anyone from that Church. Yet I was active in 5 different programs. So it wasn't like I was invisible nor unknown. Also in the same Arminiam Church wherein I was baptized, it was very difficult to get a theological discussion after Sundays Service. As a matter of fact, just being new and very zealous and excited at the time, I would be calling them hypocrits in my mind and heart (a correct judgement) while sitting at the luncheon meal when they cast their pearly whites at me in short fashion but would not engage in talk of God. Nomatter what I'd say to begin a discussion about the good Service that day, they would look at me sideways, smile but not show their teeth...you know, that condencending look and begin talking with someone else. Of course this led me to more hypocritical behavior. Like sitting very uncomfortably because that was the way everyone sat. What a joke. I am who God made me and not some clone but I so wanted to be a part of that, that I "compromised" my standards. They are a sad brood but at that time a brood who instigated within me a feeling of "I don't belong" or "What Hypocrits! Who in the H--- do they think they are?!" And much to my own sadness was forced into silence. Just to belong (on the outside, the inside of me was very very lonely for Christians who were zealous for God other than one hour Sunday service and one prayer meeting on Wednesdays) It was our day of worship and I mistakenly took that that meant we rejoiced together and talked of God about many things. But not so my friends, instead, once Church Service was finished, God was forgotten and/or not wanted in our luncheon feast. He was not welcomed sad to say. So, the first question asked was something akin to "what does it feel like to be led by the Holy Spirit at all times? I know of nobody who is continually led by the Holy Spirit. We are sinners who fall. Next question goes to anyone. Have you ever met an atheist that is more Christianlike than one who takes the name Christian? To tell the truth on my experience as a Christian and prior. Prior to realizing why I opened my Bible in 1999, I had a BIG God! Then happened I went to Church and they had this itzy bitzy God who cared how you dressed and such like things like that. Prior to Church attendance, God astounded me in His ways in my life from one day to the next. Then I went to Church and after 3 short weeks found myself asking a woman "what god taught you that?" and to another gentleman "where did you learn that and where in Scripture is it?" He was the Pastor. See, Jesus Christ had found me prior to opening the Bible that day in 1999 and He told me, in Scripture many things and also showed me what He had done in His eternity, also from Scripture. I feared nothing because reading His letter to me telling me how He had chosen me was enough to jump up and down. I don't play Church, nor am I politically correct in the Churches. Especially with the pastors I've heard. Seems I ask too many questions and bring up topics like the end of this age and justice and mercy. Not role playing for crying out loud. So even though I miss Christian fellowship, there is a part of me that is very elated and sad at the same time that the Christians I know who call themselves Christians, won't discuss those two topics. Yet, at the end of this age, which I believe is soon, we will be judged according to our mercy and justice. NOT CHURCHINESS. And Adrian and Diana, please do not take offense at the fact that I chose your quotes. I enjoy you both. And Diana, once again lost your email address. Please ask Colleen to forward to me. Adrian, I respect how you believe but it seems that I fit somewhere in the Churches that have no name. I'm more Calvinist than anything else or else why did Christ die? What was the point of His death if we can earn anything? Isaiah says: "All our righteousness is as dirty menstrual clothes" (Hebrew translation.) As to foreknowledge, it is written in Psalms (138?) that God knew our every thought prior to being born. Also God loved Jacob and hated Esau before those twins were born, nor had they the chance to do right or wrong. Explain these two as I've more to toss your way if you or anyone else has a question about just these two alone. Predistantion, Predetermined or foreknowledge is Biblically correct. Begin in Ephesians, Paul will teach you through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Of course my post is all over the place but there are two questions I've asked and would enjoy recieving feedback. If we could all keep in our mind that God has foreordained the entirety of mans existance and the eternity to come, I believe he can foreordain each individual. If God created the stars, the moon, the sun and every living thing then He has the power to control ones life.. He Is GOD ALMIGHTY. Praise His Name, Give thanks for His Grace and Worship Him and no other. Not even yourselves. With love in Christ Jesus of Nazareth. denise | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 817 Registered: 12-2003 |
Adrian, yes, I believe the idea that God can't be unfair to anyone--even Satan--derives from Ellen's Great Controversy teaching. Today, the idea of God's fairness is a standard ingredient in trying to make the IJ palatable, i.e. "The pre-advent judgment (new name for the IJ) is for the purpose of answering all the questions we and the watching universe may have about God's fairness in his judgment of people. We will be able, eventually, to ask him any question we might have about why so-an-so is (or isn't) in heaven, and He will answer all our questions. God will leave none of our questions unanswered. Satan has accused God of being unfair, and the judgment is to prove to everyone (us and the watching universe) that God was indeed fair. So, you see, the pre-advent judgment isn't so much about US as it is about GOD. We will be able to see and vindicate God's justice and fairness." And on and on with slightly varying emphases. All in all, I'm so grateful, finally, to KNOW that God truly is sovereign, not all the creatures who suppposedly question and try to condemn or vindicate Him! Colleen | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 655 Registered: 3-2004 |
Denise, I do not mind you asking me how I know the Holy Spirit is with me. He has been with me long before I recognized it. When I realized I needed a change of attitude the God sent the Holy Spirit to be my Helper. I will tell you of a recent encounter with God. I have an eating disorder and have certain foods that trigger it. I really like those foods, even knowing that they will trigger my disorder. About two months ago I read something about the Holy Spirit. I cannot remember what it was, but I do remember thinking that God can use him to conquer my eating disorder. So I prayed and asked God to fill me with the Holy Spirit and that the section in my brain that tells me to over eat or eat what I do not need, to give an extra large dose of the Holy Spirit there. I ask the same for the taste buds on my tongue and for my stomach so I will know when I am full and do not need more. I am no longer fighting that feeling of wanting to eat. I am peacful and serene knowing that the Holy Spirit is with me. It does not mean that I do not get angry, hateful, nasty, mean and generally disagreeable, or want to eat inappropriately, but now I do not have to react to all those things. I can look at them and say they are only feelings and not facts and how I react to them or better yet how I act when confronted with these is the Holy Spirit working in me. I do not have to react any more. So I can say I am serene and peaceful because I have God's help 24/7. I am not perfect doing this. I am still human and make mistakes but God can redeem these mistakes (thank you Colleen for this) and I can progress in my Christian walk. I was kind of annoyed at first when you asked this, but now I am glad you did as I can share what God has done for me. When I need help, God's Helper is there to give me the right words to say, the right action to do or tell me to walk away. Some people call it intuition/instinct, but I believe it is the Holy Spirit telling me what to do. God is so awesome in how He works in my life and I am so very thankful. I will ask Colleen to send you my e-mail address. Diana | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 138 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello Denise, Thanks for your response. I agree with many of the things you say, and I am not offended in any way. My reply is quite likely to tread on a few toes too, but here goes. I will return the favour and quote a couple of things I liked: ìThe inside of me was very, very lonely for Christians who were zealous for God other than one hour Sunday service and one prayer meeting on Wednesdays.î ñ I have often felt the same way, though God does seem always to have made sure I had a few close friends who I could have good fellowship with. I was also blessed with being in a church that had a pastor who really was concerned with following God, and not just making money and power-posturing. ìHave you ever met an atheist that is more Christian-like than one who takes the name Christian?î - Short answer, yes. ìI don't play Church, nor am I politically correct in the Churches.î ñ I have this problem too (if you can call it a problem). There are people in the denomination our church is a part of who do not like me because I refuse to play the game. I donít push my denomination because it is full of church politics, strife, conflict, jostling for position (see James 4: 1-10), nepotism (family dynasties rule!), and also because Jesus said you cannot serve two masters (Mat 6: 24), so how can I serve God and a denomination, God and my own desires, God and some theological position, etc.? I donít leave and join another, because whenever I talk to sincere people from other churches, they tend to admit that theirs is like that too, so why bother? Maybe this is just a problem in Hungary (but I doubt it). As an individual congregation, we try to keep out of politics as much as possible, and just preach the gospel in our own environment. We are, of course, accused of being rebellious, unsubmissive, sectarian, etc.. The way I see it is, I have figured there is no way you can please all of the people all of the time, so I may as well stick to trying to please God, and in this I will not let myself be manipulated. Lifeís too short to waste it playing games. (By the way, the church I belong to is Evangelical theologically. If it were cultic in its teaching, then I would leave. Itís that othopraxis as well as orthodoxy thing again.) ìIt seems that I fit somewhere in the Churches that have no name.î ñ I could go along with that, I think I do too, for the reasons above. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, there are theological areas of dispute among Evangelicals, which do tend to have a habit of coming up in discussions. I would far prefer just to be known as a ìdisciple of Jesus,î but I do have opinions on the disputed areas (or many of them), so unfortunately I end up with labels after all. You could say that everyone has distinctive doctrines, itís just that everyone thinks they are Biblical. I am really sorry you have been hurt by ìArminians,î but it seems the behaviour you describe is just human rather than being linked to any particular theology. I have met Calvinists who are arrogant, condescending, have an attitude ìyou are stupid because you donít understand the Bibleî (read ñ like I do), and who criticised us for evangelising, because God is going to save the elect anyway so we donít have to do anything. (OK, not all Calvinists think like that, maybe it was just (some of) the Welsh ñ in this case). It really doesnít bother me any more. I think some people find their security in trying to make as many people as possible believe in exactly the same way they do. My security is in Christ, so if someone insists on interpreting the Bible differently from how I see it, and will not even listen to any alternatives, I donít get stressed about it. I am sorry, I have to go now, but I will get back to you later with some more. God bless you, Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 139 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello again Denise, I think I had better say first that many issues of life are very complex, and although there may be a simple way of explaining them, they get complicated because of all the objections that may be raised. In church yesterday, I sort of summarised what Paul was saying in Romans as something like this: ìThere used to be two ways of living your life, either living a life of sin, or obeying the law of God. Now that Christ has come, there is a new way, to accept Christís sacrifice on your behalf, and to walk in the Spirit. If you do this, then you are released from sin, and also released from the law. If you walk in the Spirit, you will not sin and you will not be legalistic.î That is the totally simplified version, but he takes 16 chapters to say it, because he is aware of all the possible objections and abuses that may arise. Back to soteriology. To start with, I put ìbeing in Christî in first position. I believe I am saved because I trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross to secure my salvation, and this has absolutely nothing to do with my own merit. But there is also a continuing work of the Spirit following initial salvation, and I think there are several aspects of this. One is the area of fruit, i.e. the development of a Christ-like character. Paul says, ìSo I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under law.î (Galatians 5: 16-18). Also in Romans, ìTherefore, brothers, we have an obligation, - but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.î (Rom 8: 12-14). There is a conflict going on here, and to be led by the Spirit means to be aware of this conflict. There are three areas of conflict that the believer is involved in, against his own sinful nature, as above, with the world value system (John 15: 18-19) and with the devil and his demons (Eph 6: 10 ff.). Does it mean I always make the decision to please the Spirit? Unfortunately not. I get irritated with people who call themselves Christians and donít want to do what God says. I get lazy, and want to avoid people all together. I am upset by the state of the church, so I get cynical and sarcastic about it, and this can hurt people. I have been hurt and lied about, and I got bitter about it, and I really had to fight it for ages to get rid of it. I have conflicts over my own motivation. I think I am doing what I am doing to please God, but as ìthe heart of man is desperately wicked,î (Jer 17: 9), I end up wanting people to listen to me because I know I am right. I realise most people have temptations in these or similar areas, but problems arise when they just give in to them, or do not even bother to fight. Of course, another problem is that people donít admit to having sins like these, because they are proud, and donít want people to think badly of them, and that is where your hypocrisy comes from. I believe the Spirit woos, coaxes and invites, and he does this constantly and with great patience and long-suffering, but He does not compel. Not being a Calvinist, I believe that part of the concept of man being made in the image of God is that he has a free will which God will not override ñ not because He is unable to, but because He has made this choice. Satan has no such scruples, he will try to override it at every opportunity (principally by lying ñ John 8: 44), but by Jesusí death on the cross, Satan is defeated, and believers, being in Christ, have the authority to resist him. Diana, thanks for your example of what happened to you. In overcoming your problem, or temptation, you did not just let it overcome you (which would be remaining in sin), nor did you try to deal with it by making an increased effort (legalism) but you asked for and relied on Godís help, which seems to me to be the New Testament way. Another area involved in the work of the Spirit, is to lead the believer into an increasing understanding of Godís truth (John 16: 13). This, like fruit, is not instant, but an ongoing process. I have often struggled with understanding something in the Bible, asked God to help, and found that He has provided an answer. A third work of the Spirit is in the area of personal guidance. I believe I was led to move here to Hungary, for instance, and that God has taken me from step to step to where I am now. Also, when I come across a situation I do not know how to handle, I am frequently given wisdom on how to solve it when I ask God for help. These are just some areas in which I have experienced being led by the Spirit. Perhaps that will do for now, though I know I have not answered all the questions. I am still thinking about the rest. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 821 Registered: 12-2003 |
Adrian, thank you for you thoughtful observations. And Diana, I really appreciated your personal example of relying on the Holy Spirit in the areas of temptation. I find that my experience, Adrian, really does mirror many of the things you describe above. I find myself a bit shy about calling myself either a Calvinist or an Arminian (although because of my past I feel more drawn to the sovereignty of Calvinism!) because neither one really explains the whole of my experience with God. I was reading today (while I waited for an appointment--have you ever wondered why certain professionals ALWAYS make you wait an least an hour or more?!) the chapter on Seventh-day Adventists in the book Confronting the Cults by Gordon R. Lewis (copyright 1966). The author re-examined the question of whether or not Adventism was evangelical and used Walter Martin's research and the denomination's book Questions on Doctrine (then in print) as part of his research. His conclusion was interesting. He remarked that Martin used the argument that "since Adventists are basically Arminian, we may logically deduce that, in a sense, their salvation rests upon legal grounds. But the saving factor in the dilemma is that by life and by world-wide witness, Adventists, like other so-called Arminians, give true evidence that they have experience the 'new birth' which is by grace alone, through faith in our Lord and His sacrifice upon the cross." (quoted from The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism by Walter Martin) Lewis, however, went on to say that while Adventism may be "evangelical" in certain key beliefs, they are not in respect to Ellen, the IJ, and "the necessity of law-keeping as a condition of justification." He further stated that Adventism's differences from the evangelical community cannot be explained away by calling them Arminians. Arminians, Lewis points out, have never come up with anything resembling the sanctuary doctrine or the IJ. Further, Arminians "do not make any such legalistic use of the commandments as a whole or of the fourth commandment in particular." Ultimately, Lewis sums Adventism up as "similar to Romanism." He says the error of Romanism and Adventism is, quite simply, the error Galatianism. He says Christians' concern for Adventists should be whether or not they are "new creatures". His final sentece says this, "If the Adventist persists in defending Mrs. White's infallibility, the investigative judgment and the necessity of Old Testament diet and Sabbath-keeping, he chooses for himself the Galatian heresy and places himself under the curse of the law (Gal. 3;10) and of preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9)." I have several thoughts filtering out as a result of reading this chapter, but one of the prominant ones here is that Adventists, true to form, twisted even the concept of free-will to make it something manipulative and legalistic. I remember free will being the bottom line ground of truth whenever issues of what God would or could not do were discussed. Even Walter Martin bought the Adventists' explanation of how their beliefs fit the construct of Arminianism. Adventists say God is sovereign, but that phrase really means nothing to them--or it makes them very uncomfortable. In practice, God is not sovereign in Adventism; man's free will is sovereign. (He's free to keep the law or not; free to sin or not; free to choose God or not, etc. He's also free to hasten the Lord's coming or not--you get the idea!) Adrian, I hear you (as a self-acknolwedged Arminian!) stating that God is sovereign, and I read you acknowledging His leading and work in your life in a way that confirms your declaration. Your comment last week about perhaps coming from Adventism, some of us find comfort for our own unique reasons in Calvinism, may actually be somewhat true. I certainly (to repeat myself!) find great relief in a sovereign God who knew me and called me from eternity and who knows His plans for me (Jer. 29:11), including the work He prepared in advance for me (Ephe. 2:10). All Biblical truth, I am convinced, is twisted when one embraces a false gospel, an unbiblical prophet, a heretical doctrine, etc. Even the beliefs that sound right when merely stated have subtle sinister meanings in practice. Praise God that He teaches us Himself through the Scriptures when we finally surrender to Him in search of truth. Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1023 Registered: 11-2002 |
I have some questions that sort-of a little bit will fit into this topic. The SDA's I know will say that only the people who have heard the truth will be bound by the truth when Jesus comes back again. By "the truth" they always mean SDA'ism. They do not mean the truth of our risin Christ. By "heard the truth" do they mean fully agreeing with SDA'ism? Do they honestly believe that everyone such as us good people on this forum who either grew up SDA and rejected it or used to be SDA and since have rejected the SDA church, do the SDA's believe all of us are doomed to eternal annialation in the lake of fire? Or would they be diplomatic and maybe believe we have lost eternal life with Jesus but not come right out and say so but rather would say something like, 'Only God holds the judgement', or something like that? Another question, are SDA's generlly more bitter and hard towards those who "know the truth" and have rejected it than regular Christians are? Or, is it just the ones I know? For instance, I know Lutherans who have raised their children Lutheran. These adult children are grown up and maybe attend a Baptist church or a Methodist church, whatever and the old Lutherans rejoyce that their children have found a body of belevers that they like worshipping with. The same can be said about the elderly folks i other denomnations I know. It isn't about denomination with them so much as it is about worshipping with believers. Also, is it just the SDA's I know so well or is it a SDA trait that they tend to be less understanding and less forgiving of human frailities than people who are Christian in other Christian denominations. I'll give you some for-instances; I know a man whose son committed sucide. This happened over 30 years ago. The son had gone all through SDA schools. The parents are very super SDA. The father once told me that it breaks his heart to know that his son is lost and will not have eternal life. I also used to know a SDA man whose daughter was a bit "on the wild side". The SDA man was so devistated that he told me "my daughter is going to hell anyway and I don't think I could bear to be in heaven knowing she is lost" so the father turned into a drug addict himself. He died. The daughter is now Christian, although not SDA. SDA's seem to hold grudges. Is it because of their skewed understanding of forgiveness? Of their skewed understanding of grace? Or, is it my misfortune to just have the really looney SDA's in my association? Did that make any sense at all? | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 140 Registered: 2-2003 |
I find myself getting involved in an argument here which I did not intend. I did not want to hurt anyone, I do not want to confuse people or cause them to have doubts about their salvation, and now I am feeling awkward about it all. I am just presenting what I have thought on this subject, no-one is obliged to accept it. It does appear to me that we are talking at cross purposes here in some ways. I should like to say what I think I have said before, that I am not sure if I am Arminian or not, I just know I am definitely not Calvinist, because I find a lot of inconsistencies in the system. The alternative could be the Arminian view of election, or it may be something else, like the corporate view. I have seen people making some statements that seem strange to me, like the idea that Arminians do not believe in grace, or the question that if Arminianism is true, why did Jesus die. I think this must mean that either I donít understand Arminianism, or you donít. I acknowledge that in my life I rely constantly day to day on the grace of God, I can do nothing without Jesus. I have never thought anything different. While repeating that I do not know if I am Arminian or not, perhaps we could look at the system to find out what they actually believed. Historically, the Arminians, or Remonstrants (objectors) came up with five points in which they questioned the Calvinist view of election, and these were discussed at the Council of Dort in Holland in the early 17th century. I have pasted this from the following website: http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/comparsn.htm 1. Conditional Election. That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundations of the world were laid, determined to save, out of the human race which had fallen into sin, in Christ, for Christís sake and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on the same his Son and shall through the same grace persevere in this same faith and obedience of faith even to the end; and on the other hand to leave under sin and wrath the contumacious and unbelieving and to condemn them as aliens from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36, and other passages of Scripture. 2. Universal Redemption or General Atonement. That, accordingly, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for all, by his death on the cross, reconciliation and remission of sins; yet so that no one is partaker of this remission except the believers (John 3:16; I John 2:2) 3. Free Will, or Human Ability. That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good, nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God. (John 15:5) 4. The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted. That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in thought must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7 and elsewhere passim) 5. Falling From Grace. That those who are grafted into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, are abundantly endowed with power to strive against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to win the victory; always, be it understood, with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ assisting them in all temptations, through his Spirit; stretching out his hand to them and (provided only that they are themselves prepared for the fight, that they entreat his aid and do not fail to help themselves) propping and upholding them so that by no guile or violence of Satan can they be led astray or plucked from Christís hands (John 10:28). But for the question whether they are not able through sloth or negligence to forsake the beginning of their life in Christ, to embrace again this present world, to depart from the holy doctrine once delivered to them, to lose their good conscience and to neglect grace: this must be the subject of more exact inquiry in the Holy Scriptures, before we can teach it with full confidence of our mind. These Articles thus set out and delivered, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the word of God, suitable for edification and, on this subject, sufficient for salvation. So that it is not needful, and tends not to edification, to rise higher or to descend lower. The Calvinists condemned the above as heretical, and kicked the Remonstrants out of the church. They replied with the well-know five points (TULIP). Personally, I find the five points of the Remonstrants to be more Biblical than TULIP and so I lean to Arminianism, as I said, but I still donít like labels, as I also said :-) To be continued... | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 141 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hi Susan, If it's less about denomination and more about worshipping with believers that sounds fine to me. I tried that Lutheran site you suggested, by the way, but it would not let me on. (?) Adrian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 824 Registered: 12-2003 |
Adrian, I am so sorry this discussion has made you feel that you're getting involved in an argument. I personally have not perceived an argument, and I apologize if my working out my thoughts has sounded argumentative. I also do not believe I can label myself. Actually, I've found your posts to be really helpful, and--speaking only for myself--the questions I've had about these two labels have become clearer to me as a result of this disucssion. I think one of the most important insights I've had is that the way I understood Arminiansim was skewed by Adventism. As with almost everything else, Adventism put a false face even on Arminiansim. Thank you for posting the Remonstrants' five points above. I still see God's absolute sovereignty and our free will to be paradoxes--both are true, somehow. Please forgive me for sounding argumentative--I truly did not feel argumentative! I've just been sorting my thoughts "out loud", so to speak! Susan, I think the questions you asked above about Adventism may also be true for other groups which also feel they have "absolute truth" which is different from other Christians' truth. The reason people in other Christian denominations do not feel their loved ones have left the truth when they change churches is that for Christianity in general, the "truth" is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Changing churches, theoretically at least, simply means finding a congregation where one can more comfortably worship. In Adventism (and Cahtolicism, etc.), leaving the church means leaving the unique teaching of that church, and in the members' minds, such leaving means leaving the truth that leads to salvation. Colleen | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 142 Registered: 2-2003 |
Colleen, Thanks for your response. I would just like to say before I go any further that I really appreciate this forum and I think you are doing a great job. You always respond with a great deal of love and God has given you a lot of wisdom, even for dealing with difficult people :-) I do have some more thoughts to share, hopefully just in an informative way, but I will be away now for a couple of days. I don't actually think Adventism is Arminian, at least not as I understand it. It is more Pelagian, with far too much emphasis on human free will and an independent ability to please God. I do not believe in those things. God bless, and keep up the good work, Adrian | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 169 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, When you archive this thread, would you please start with Adrian's thoughts - Oct. 19, 1:39 p.m.? Someone once posted how to print off certain posts without the whole thread but I cannot figure it out. I would like to print Adrian's Remonstrants' points he shared. Adrian, Thanks for the info. | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 233 Registered: 10-2001 |
Dd, You can copy and paste them to word pad and copy them that way. When I did check into the Arminian/Calvanistic views I thought at the time that I was neither, possibly a combination, each have some valid points but both have flaws, at least that is the way I felt at the time I checked them out. I do love to discuss and search and study but when it comes down to it, frankly, I'm sick of denominations, labelings, groups, clubs, I'm just a christian. I think the entire Church should unite and fight the fight instead of segregating. What if the US army split up into groups based on what state they came from? We wouldn't do very well in the war would we? If we just preached "Christ and Him crucified" we'd be outta here by now. Adrian, I didn't think you said anything argumentative. Good discussion | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 47 Registered: 10-2004 |
Adrian, I do see Arminianism as a form of salvation by works. In what you quoted, number 5 says that we are saved by our works. "...are abundantly endowed with power to strive against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to win the victory..." That sort of sounds like the wrong focus to me. And what does "win the victory" mean? "...stretching out his hand to them and (provided ONLY that they are themselves prepared for the fight, that they entreat his aid and do not fail to help themselves) propping and upholding them so that by no guile or violence of Satan can they be led astray or plucked from Christís hands (John 10:28)." So, in order to not be plucked from Christ's hands and be lost and go to hell, WE have to do a bunch of things (works) including "help" ourselves! That is nothing but salvation by works. What a horrible, disgusting distortion of Jesus' wonderful promise: "I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." JESUS is all-powerful and does not need our puny little "HELP" to keep HIS grip on US. "But for the question whether they are not able through sloth or negligence to forsake the beginning of their life in Christ..." In other words, if we aren't WORKING hard enough ("sloth or negligence") to keep our salvation we might lose it and be lost. To say that you have to work to retain salvation is just as much salvation by works as saying that you have to work in order to gain salvation. I hope no one is offended by what I have written. I tend to say things as I see them and not be able to "beat around the bush" when I feel strongly about something. I do have a very strong opinion on this, and that's because I see the doctrine that you can lose your salvation as another form of the false gospel of salvation by works. Or faith plus works; whatever you want to call it. Jeremy | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1025 Registered: 11-2002 |
Doc, You won't get an arguement from me. I have no clue what this discussion is about. I still think Armenians are those people who had to flee from Turkey many yesrs ago and I still think Arian refers to those white power folks, as in The Arian Brotherhood, the white power prison gang. So, some of these topics I just pass right on by. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 829 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dd, the archiving is automatic, so I can't really change where an archive begins. Sabra's suggestion is best; highlight the sections you want to print, then copy them (with your copy/paste commands) into a Word (or other word processor) document. Then you can select just the parts you want, and print the Word document. I still believe (as I have for years) that the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminiansim is not worth dividing the body of Christ. Great men of God fell on both sides of this argument. (Charles and John Wesley, for example, were Arminian.) In spite of their personal flaws, I don't believe we could call John Calvin, Martin Luther, or John or Charles Wesley heretics. There are statements in both ideas in their purest form that I have trouble with, yet the facts remains: God is absolutely sovereign, even over evil and trouble, and we are asked to believe and to choose Christ. While even faith and belief are, I believe, gifts from God, we have volition in surrendering to the truth and love of Jesus. Our salvation is utterly secure when we are in Christ, and our free will does not have the last word in the universe. I can live with the paradox of these two apparently opposed ideas--but I really don't believe they are actually in opposition. This is a faith issue, just like the Trinity is a faith issue. While it is sometimes helpful to study the issues just to understand them or to understand one's own biases or misinformation, I do not believe we should divide over them. We rally around Jesus and His finished work--those realities changed each one of us here from uptight, anxious, angry, or hopless people into sons and daughters of God with completely secure futures and new identities in Christ. Praise God! Colleen |
