|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Oct 25, 2022 7:43:28 GMT -8
Not true. Gotquestions is a Calvinist website. They are 4 point Calvinists according to their stated beliefs at the end of this article here: www.gotquestions.org/Amyraldism.htmlCalvinism in any form is unbiblical because the Bible makes it abundantly clear we do have a free will choice in regards to whether we will accept the love of the truth that we might be saved (See: 2 Thessalonians 2:10). In the Bible: Believers are told to continue in the faith, continue in God’s grace, continue in his goodness (otherwise you will be cut off like the Jews), and to keep themselves in the love of God. So believers are not forced against their will to be mindless slave puppets to do God’s will. Another major problem with Gotquestions is that they double speak when it comes to living holy. They will say that they are to doubt a Christian’s salvation if they are not living holy and yet they will also contradict themselves and say that a backslidden Christian is still saved. www.gotquestions.org/backsliding-Christian.htmlThey basically are saying that the prodigal son was saved while living it up with prostitutes. So if that is the case, then in reality they believe you really don’t have to live holy and you can sin and still be saved. Holy living then is just mirage or an illusion. There are Hyper Grace Christians who openly admit that they can practice excessive amounts of sin their whole life and still be saved by God’s grace by a belief alone in Jesus. While Gotquestions is not Hyper Grace, I would label them as Partial Hyper Grace (or Secret Hyper Grace). The article in Gotquestions is a perfect example of the thinking in most in Christianity today when it comes to sin. While not all who are Partial Hyper Grace believe a backslidden Christian is saved, they will admit that they don’t lose salvation by occasional sin. They will admit that if a Christian who generally lived a holy life looks upon a woman in lust and then gets hit by a bus and dies instantly is saved. They did not need to confess of that sin in order to be forgiven of that sin (even though that runs contrary to 1 John 1:9 and repentance). Reading the Bible and comparing it with popularity Christianity is like comparing the daytime vs. the night. This is why I am non-denominational. But a good majority in Protestantism who teaches Partial Hyper Grace is the second largest branch of Christianity (Numbering close to 1 billion adherents). 1 billion does not sound like the narrow way Jesus talked about. This makes sense because whenever I talk about the words of Jesus on He warned against how sin can destroy our souls (Matthew 5:22) (Matthew 5:28-30) (Matthew 6:15) (Matthew 12:37), they simply do not believe His words. Jesus said if we do not receive His words, those words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2022 8:45:46 GMT -8
Hmmmm.... I'm sort of with Doug on this one with a couple of exceptions. First, GotQuestions is NOT a Calvinist website. It's decidedly Dispensationalist and Arminian. The CEO of GotQuestions, S. Michael Houdmann, has Master's degrees from Calvary Theological Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary. BOTH institutions are explicitly pre-trib, pre-mil and Arminian. The definition of "soteriology" also needs to be clarified because soteriology is not the study of doctrine, the study of doctrine of salvation. The "-ology" should not throw us off. When asking a pastor or elder of a specific congregation, or asking about a seminary's, sect's, or denomination's soteriology the answer is NOT how, how much, or whether they have studied. They are stating their doctrinal position. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation and that doctrine varies from institution to institution. Hence the internet debate and bookstore  . This is important for another reason, one directly related to this thread and every other op in the vast majority of internet discussion board because posters are not studying when they come into these discussions/debates/arguments. They are asserting their already-decided points of view, and most with an intent to persuade everyone else to that point of view, NOT to study and learn. My point about " study" can be seen right here in this thread on the matter of OSAS. First, everyone should give that GotQuestions an attentive read because it does not actually come out in support of OSAS. It simply states the matter of assurance is " the most heart-wrenching fear" for some, and " the Bible speaks clearly about the eternality of our salvation and how we are preserved by the One who bought us with His blood." Monergists and synergists alike agree it is Jesus who preserves the saved. They interpret that statement differently. GotQuestions is a Dispensationalist Premillennial Arminian website but it does try to be balanced. The problem is no one can wholly shed their biases. Not Houdmann, not Sproul, not anyone. The fact of the matter is adherents of OSAS DO NOT find the matter " heart-wrenching." They find OSAS affirming AND wish that all Christians would experience the comfort found in the knowledge of God's sovereignty in the matter. Doug's observation about OSAS is sound but incomplete and anything that is incomplete is likely to also be incorrect. A very, very common lack of context often not considered in these kinds of questions is, " Where do I find this exemplified in scripture?" For example, where is the actual Christian who has actually fallen away reported in scripture? Because if there aren't any actual examples in scripture, we have reason to question our interpretation, no matter what that interpretation may be; the principle being we shouldn't be interpreting scripture in ways the scriptures themselves don't exemplify, or to which they do not provide a precedent. So.... in regards to the doctrine of soteriology, as scripture asserts it, I recommend starting with 1) the basics and that means 2) the explicit statements first. For example, I am often amazed how many Christians do not know the answer to " From what have we been saved?" or " From what are we being saved?" How can we discuss a doctrine of salvation if we do not know the answer to that question? I do not believe we can. Or, how about the question, " Who or what saves?" Put the two together and we have something like, " Who or what saves us from what?" Isn't that rock bottom? Isn't everything else built on that? It is noted this GotQuestions article says nothing about this and completely failed to address this. How can an article titled, " What is soteriology?" NOT address this most basic of matters pertaining to this subject? For my part, I will say it is God who saves, God alone who saves, and it is He alone who saves us from sin and wrath, the wrath being His wrath consequent to the just recompense of sin. This, of course, is going to beget other inquiries, such as, " What is sin?" to which I will answer " Sin is all unrighteousness, anything not done in faith, and any act of lawlessness." These are three of the definitions scripture explicitly provides, and thereby three of the things from which we are being saved by God, and God alone. Soteriology is the doctrine of God, the Creator, saving the sinful creature form the creature's sin and the wrath that follows. Much more can be said about that but that's the essence of soteriology. Happy to provide scriptures for any of that (but I assume this current set of posters knows exactly where I got those statements). Good morning everyone (or whatever time of day you might find yourselves ).
www.gotquestions.org/Amyraldism.htmlI stand partly corrected. GotQuestions is a website that posts a variety of articles on a variety of subject, many of which are different than its own views. That's what the article on Amyraldism is: an article on a topic within Christianity, one that is different than its own views. ANYONE wanting to know about GotQuestions own positions can go to the home page, and then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the link labeled " About," where the mission statement of the blog can be read. There the Statement of Faith can be read, where it will be noted they believe in the Church Age, immersion, pre-millennial rapture, a rapture separate from the resurrection, millennial kingdom, and the rest or sleep of the soul until the resurrection. On the "About" page the forum tells everyone the blog is governed by S. Michal Houdmann, and that link takes us to his biography where we learn he was educated at Calvary University and Calvary Theological Seminary in Kansas. That institution's statement of faith is also Dispensational Premillennialist. Houdmann's bio page also has a link to his blog. One of the articles in that blog states, " we are moderately Calvinistic." and " I consider myself anywhere between a 1 to 4.5 point Calvinist." If he's a 1-pointer, then he's not a Calvinist. It's very clear he believes in OSAS, and it's very clear he believes in salvation by grace alone and faith alone, but it is not clear where he places the sinner's will. In his own testimony he placed the emphasis on his kneeling and receipt, not on God. |
|
|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Oct 25, 2022 18:10:24 GMT -8
I stand partly corrected. GotQuestions is a website that posts a variety of articles on a variety of subject, many of which are different than its own views. That's what the article on Amyraldism is: an article on a topic within Christianity, one that is different than its own views. ANYONE wanting to know about GotQuestions own positions can go to the home page, and then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the link labeled " About," where the mission statement of the blog can be read. There the Statement of Faith can be read, where it will be noted they believe in the Church Age, immersion, pre-millennial rapture, a rapture separate from the resurrection, millennial kingdom, and the rest or sleep of the soul until the resurrection. On the "About" page the forum tells everyone the blog is governed by S. Michal Houdmann, and that link takes us to his biography where we learn he was educated at Calvary University and Calvary Theological Seminary in Kansas. That institution's statement of faith is also Dispensational Premillennialist. Houdmann's bio page also has a link to his blog. One of the articles in that blog states, " we are moderately Calvinistic." and " I consider myself anywhere between a 1 to 4.5 point Calvinist." If he's a 1-pointer, then he's not a Calvinist. It's very clear he believes in OSAS, and it's very clear he believes in salvation by grace alone and faith alone, but it is not clear where he places the sinner's will. In his own testimony he placed the emphasis on his kneeling and receipt, not on God.
“Four-point Calvinism is also, essentially, the position of Got Questions Ministries, as we hold the view that the extent of the atonement was unlimited.”
So they are 4 point Calvinists as a ministry.
You said they are not Calvinist, and yet they are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2022 20:25:57 GMT -8
I stand partly corrected. GotQuestions is a website that posts a variety of articles on a variety of subject, many of which are different than its own views. That's what the article on Amyraldism is: an article on a topic within Christianity, one that is different than its own views. ANYONE wanting to know about GotQuestions own positions can go to the home page, and then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the link labeled " About," where the mission statement of the blog can be read. There the Statement of Faith can be read, where it will be noted they believe in the Church Age, immersion, pre-millennial rapture, a rapture separate from the resurrection, millennial kingdom, and the rest or sleep of the soul until the resurrection. On the "About" page the forum tells everyone the blog is governed by S. Michal Houdmann, and that link takes us to his biography where we learn he was educated at Calvary University and Calvary Theological Seminary in Kansas. That institution's statement of faith is also Dispensational Premillennialist. Houdmann's bio page also has a link to his blog. One of the articles in that blog states, " we are moderately Calvinistic." and " I consider myself anywhere between a 1 to 4.5 point Calvinist." If he's a 1-pointer, then he's not a Calvinist. It's very clear he believes in OSAS, and it's very clear he believes in salvation by grace alone and faith alone, but it is not clear where he places the sinner's will. In his own testimony he placed the emphasis on his kneeling and receipt, not on God.
“Four-point Calvinism is also, essentially, the position of Got Questions Ministries, as we hold the view that the extent of the atonement was unlimited.”
So they are 4 point Calvinists as a ministry. You said they are not Calvinist, and yet they are. I stand corrected and thank you for that information. Do you know which point they do not subscribe to? |
|
|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Oct 25, 2022 20:44:28 GMT -8
Gotquestions state:
“Four-point Calvinism is also, essentially, the position of Got Questions Ministries, as we hold the view that the extent of the atonement was unlimited.”
So they are 4 point Calvinists as a ministry. You said they are not Calvinist, and yet they are. I stand corrected and thank you for that information. Do you know which point they do not subscribe to?
It says that they believe the Atonement was unlimited implying that they do not believe in the Calvinistic point of Limited Atonement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2022 6:02:51 GMT -8
I stand corrected and thank you for that information. Do you know which point they do not subscribe to?
It says that they believe the Atonement was unlimited implying that they do not believe in the Calvinistic point of Limited Atonement.I disagree and would not want to base my view of their position based on implication especially since Calvinists believe the atonement was unlimited in its sufficiency (see link). What else you got showing the point with which they disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Oct 27, 2022 11:25:17 GMT -8
It implies it right in the quote, my friend.
It says that they believe the Atonement was unlimited implying that they do not believe in the Calvinistic point of Limited Atonement. I disagree and would not want to base my view of their position based on implication especially since Calvinists believe the atonement was unlimited in its sufficiency (see link). What else you got showing the point with which they disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Oct 28, 2022 4:23:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Oct 28, 2022 4:26:24 GMT -8
I have never heard of anyone from Dallas Theological Seminary who believes salvation can be lost..(an arminian belief) They are niether arminian or calvin.. Not sure why we try to put people under these ideologies.. I think that is why there is so much confusion. We should just read what they say, not try to put them in a box
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 4:48:05 GMT -8
I disagree and would not want to base my view of their position based on implication especially since Calvinists believe the atonement was unlimited in its sufficiency (see link). What else you got showing the point with which they disagree? I have been talking to non-Cals for more than 40 years. Many of them do not know how to have a reasonable, rational, polite and respectful conversation. I already know about TULIP and I posted an op on that subject, linked you directly to it, and explained how Limited atonement does not dispute the sufficiency of Christ's work for all. Any comment Houdmann (or anyone else) makes about the "L" in TULIP must be correct in order for his view to have veracity. That's not a Cal v non-Cal thing. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Oct 28, 2022 4:53:38 GMT -8
That's still a twisting of Calvinism. Therefore, any argument against that twisted version of Calvinism would be a straw man argument. Since it is a straw man there's no need for me to entertain it, much less try to address it with any substance..... other than to note it for what it is = a completely fallacious straw man and move on. I will, however, make an attempt to correct the straw man so the correct view of Calvinist soteriology can be addressed. ALL have sinned and fal short of God's glory and are in need of salvation from the sin that has made them dead and enslaved and God did NOT make us that way!!! - God is not the author of sin.
- All have sinned.
- All sinned by the agency of their own volition and conduct. God did not make anyone sin.
- All are in need of salvation from the sin they committed, the effects of that sin, and the commensurate wrath due to sin.
- Because of the thoroughly incapacitating effect of sin no sinfully dead and enslaved sinner can come to God unaided by God, in his or her own might.
- Therefore, God and God alone must be the one acting to initiate and cause the conversion of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner to a spiritually alive and righteously enslaved believer.
- God makes His choice based solely on His will and His purpose and not ANYTHING the sinfully enslaved sinner does or has. The only thing the sinner brings to his or her salvation is the sin from which s/he is being saved.
- It is only after the dead slave to sin has been regenerated or born anew from above - brought from death to life - that the now living convert can apply any faith, choice, or conduct to his conversion for the purpose of his or her salvation. Both grace and faith are gifts from God, not conditions the dead slave to sin possesses in any soteriologically meritorious way.
- What God has ordained did not do violence to the human will or the contingency of secondary causes. Human volition, the agency of that volition, and the influence and/or effect of the world's conditions are asserted, not denied, in Calvinism.
- Because many are called but few are chosen most are not saved but it was not God who caused their lack of salvation. EVERYONE once stood in a state of death, slavery, and condemnation they cannot escape in their own might and it is only Gid initiating a response to that condition through His grace, His calling, His choosing, His making Himself known salvifically, His gifting of faith, His doing a bunch of stuff (often unawares to the sinner being saved) that anyone would ever be saved and all of it is done based solely on God's will and purpose.
- Because the conversion event is solely God's doing and God is always and everywhere almighty and never fruitless or incapable of accomplishing His purpose, the convert can have confidence or assurance the work of God will be completed even where the sinner proves weak and incapable. There are many poseurs, people falsely believing they are saved when they are not or those willfully deceptive about their claim of salvation but while it may be impossible for another human to tell the difference God knows who He knows because He's the one who did the converting.
And although the analogy isn't perfect, a fair analogy for understanding the monergistic perspective is this:
Suppose I am walking along a beach, and I happen upon a person who has been submerged under the water too long, lost conscious awareness of their condition, and is on the verge of dying. I did not cause the condition, nor need I do anything about the condition (the paradoxically named "good Samaritan laws" allow me to do nothing without being immoral). I can, however, if I choose to act and make an attempt to revive the person. I yell to the person, "Hey, are you alright? Wake up! Can you hear me? Can you move?" The words come out of my mouth and the sound waves travel through the air and enter the person's auditory receptors known as ears. The brain may even register the sound but because of the loss of consciousness, because of the drowning condition the person is unresponsive. They CANNOT respond even though in their otherwise normal God-given capacities they would ordinarily do so. The drwoning expereicne, the effects of having been submersed in water and drowning has incapacitated the person laying on the beach. I shake the person, continuing to speak to them, to stimulate them any diverse ways to arouse them from their incapacitated condition. If I do not act they will eventually die and if the corpse isn't removed from the beach, there is will lay and eventually rot and decay into nothing. Having the knowledge and power to perform lifesaving measures I do so by my own will and purpose and NOTHING whatsoever to do with the unconscious person lying on the sand. They could be a Nobel Peace Laureate or a mass murderer for all I know (God, of course does know*) but neither has anything to do with my choice to act for the purpose of their resuscitation. I perform the rescue breathing portion of CPR, turning the individual on his or her side so they don't choke on any water being expelled, and the person become revived. I the person that would surely have died as a consequence of their action had I not acted is now restored to life and function and they did nothing to choose or will their own recovery.
Depending on a number of factors, that person may be well enough to continue on in life with very little further assistance, but they are counseled to go to the hospital to get themselves check out, to collaborate with the doctor's recommendations for their continued recovery and they are free to tell me, " Screw off, I'm not getting in any ambulance, I'm not going to get checked out, I'm not going to see any doctor, and I'm not going to do anything anyone asks, I'm going to go back into the water that might kill me," but they have been revived and nothing will change that fact. They may have suffered physical injury in the waves and be aware of it and ignore it or be unaware of it and continue living in ignorance. They may have suffered neurological damage aware or unaware and either seek out or ignore further restoration. They may or may not have suffered trauma on a soulful level aware or unaware and choose to seek help or not. All of this would be irrelevant if they'd never been revived. No amount of knowledge, understanding, will, or action would be remotely possible in the unconscious or barely conscious state, and it is only after having been revived that any of the previously near-death person can do anything. Similarly, I have choices, too. I can do a medical and psychological examination, diagnose the problem and treat any injuries according to my abilities. I can provide encouragement, exhortation, and inspiration to aid the person in their choices and their actions, I can ride with them in the ambulance or give them transportation in my own car. Stay with them throughout the process and give aid as needed and desired and I am free to make my choices and act as I choose regardless of the character of the one now revived and in need of ongoing care. Calvinism does not deny human faculty. It simply teaches the creature has been so compromised by sin that s/he is need of action s/he cannot choose or perform by her/himself, and it is only after s/he has been revived that any of the God-given faculties can have any value. Just as Pelagianism is a perversion of Arminianism, so too is determinism a perversion of Calvinism. God did not cause the drowning individual to drown. The creature did that on his own. God and God alone has complete liberty to let the sinner drown or save the otherwise dying and helpless sinner. While the analogy is not a perfect representation of Calvinism, it is much more accurate than anything the critics have posted. All the straw men are straw men, and as such they do not require any response. They are, ironically, part of the problem to be solved: living falsely versus truthfully. Get Calvinism correct and then criticize the correct version (if possible) but do NOT criticize things Calvinism does not teach and falsely pretend something of truth, reason, and merit has been done. *God does know. He knows none of the drowning victims are Nobel Laureates. He knows, left to their own devices, every single one of the drowning victims is a God-denying, hostile, fuitly-thinking, heart-darkened fool who cannot understand and will never please God or come to God for change. . Let me add to the anaology. Suppose, instead of one person lying on the beach barely conscious and headed for death unless I act to resuscitate the person, now imagine the beach is covered with people in this state. As far as I can see in the surf, up the slop of the beach and down the coast as far as eye can see, there are uncountable numbers of people who are conscious in the sense sound waves travel through their ears into their brain, but they are unable to respond because of the otherwise unconscious state. They are physically alive, but unresponsive to any stimulation I might assert. I clearly would like to save all of them but that is not the way resuscitation of the unresponsive works. I must intervene one person at a time. I must choose which one to save after the first one, call that person, shake that person, breath into that person, and rid them of that which keeps them from returning to fuller consciousness and responsiveness - I must breathe into them and somehow expel the water that will otherwise suffocate them. Going from person to person I choose the next person based solely on my choice, my will, my purpose and not on the attributes of any individual. When God "walked" into Eden after Genesis 3:6-7 he did so with a pair of dead-in-sin people living there. He had made them good, unashamed, and sinless but they were no longer any of those things. They were not-good, ashamed, and sinful, dead in their transgression, and although the text of the Bible does not specify it, they had denied the tree of life from which they had been instructed they could eat. God in His providence then acted to prevent them from eating from that tree. From the divine, eternal perspective of the externally-existing Creator, what God saw was not merely two now-dead people. God understood, as we now do due to His revelation, that it wasn't just Adam and Eve who were dead, but all their progeny would also be dead in sin simply because two corrupted imperfect creatures do not beget perfect progeny. In other words, Adam and Eve did not render only themselves dead in sin and in need of a savior, they rendered all humanity dead in sin. God walked into Eden and saw the entire timeline of human history covered with sin-drowning near-death bodies unaware of their condition, unable to change their plight in their own might, and all of them destined to die already dead in sin unless God acted. Blessedly, God had already acted. Before a single act of disobedience had ever killed anyone Christ was foreknown as the perfect sacrifice who would take away the sins of the world. Both are inherently flawed thinking Take the people on the beach. they can not do anything, they can not sin, they can not reject God, they can not receive God. They can not eat, they can not drink, they can not take a wife or husband, they can not run, or walk. they can not do anything, Like you said they are unconscious. as for the tree of life, it was taken away because if Adam ate from it, he would still be living breathing walking the earth today. The new tree is the cross.. That whoever eats of it (john 6) will never die, but has eternal life. one is physical. the other is spiritual. as for what happens to a spiritual dead person. Your correct. God does act in their life. scripture tells us about How God does this 1. Creation (romans 1) 2. the word (eph 1, Romans 10, John 6..........) 3. The conviction of the spirit (john 16: 8, Titus 1: 9.....) 4. The conviction of the law (gal 3, james 2:9) it is how a person reacts to these things, as to will the be saved or not. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Oct 28, 2022 4:57:27 GMT -8
As for the reference of Eternal Security mentioned in this thread: Well, no offense, but I believe Eternal Security is simply not in the Bible if one reads the Bible and believes it at face value. Jesus warned us about how certain sins can destroy our souls (See: Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 9:62). Even the apostle Paul (talking to believers) warned that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom (Galatians 5:19-21), and this is why we are told to Walk after the Spirit so as not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). This is why Paul basically says we are to sow to the Spirit (i.e. in well doing) in order reap life to life everlasting; For we will reap if we faint not (See: Galatians 6:8-9). In fact, Paul also says that if one does not provide for his own (Especially his own household) they have denied the faith and they are worse than an infidel (i.e. unbeliever) (See: 1 Timothy 5:8). Those who believe in Eternal Security will say that 1 Timothy 5:8 is in reference to only the born again believer. But this interpretation does not work because it is referring to how the saint can be worse than an unbeliever because an unbeliever (a fake unborn believer) cannot be worse than unbeliever because they are already one to begin with. Names can be blotted out of the book of life (Revelation 3:5), and the last chapter in Revelation says: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” (Revelation 22:14-15). so eternal life is not mentioned the promise we will never die is not mentioned the seal of the spirit UNTIL resurrection day is not mentioned? the promise God will never lose 1 is not mentioned? the promise that we can not save ourselves. but 6that God can sve completely is not mentioned? the promise that we can rest from our work is not mentioned? the promise that he who began a good work WILL complete it is not mentioned? And if I may, why did you have to scream your words.. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Oct 28, 2022 4:58:24 GMT -8
a 4 point calvinist is not by defenition a calvinist.
once again, why are you screaming???
|
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Oct 28, 2022 5:01:01 GMT -8
It implies it right in the quote, my friend.
It says that they believe the Atonement was unlimited implying that they do not believe in the Calvinistic point of Limited Atonement. I disagree and would not want to base my view of their position based on implication especially since Calvinists believe the atonement was unlimited in its sufficiency (see link). What else you got showing the point with which they disagree? which would make them not calvinist its like sayin a person who believes in 4 point arminian, but believes in eternal security is arminian. A calvinist does not believe in free will an arminian does not believe salvation is eternal |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 6:05:21 GMT -8
Hmmmm.... I'm sort of with Doug on this one with a couple of exceptions. First, GotQuestions is NOT a Calvinist website. It's decidedly Dispensationalist and Arminian. The CEO of GotQuestions, S. Michael Houdmann, has Master's degrees from Calvary Theological Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary. BOTH institutions are explicitly pre-trib, pre-mil and Arminian. The definition of "soteriology" also needs to be clarified because soteriology is not the study of doctrine, the study of doctrine of salvation. The "-ology" should not throw us off. When asking a pastor or elder of a specific congregation, or asking about a seminary's, sect's, or denomination's soteriology the answer is NOT how, how much, or whether they have studied. They are stating their doctrinal position. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation and that doctrine varies from institution to institution. Hence the internet debate and bookstore . This is important for another reason, one directly related to this thread and every other op in the vast majority of internet discussion board because posters are not studying when they come into these discussions/debates/arguments. They are asserting their already-decided points of view, and most with an intent to persuade everyone else to that point of view, NOT to study and learn. My point about " study" can be seen right here in this thread on the matter of OSAS. First, everyone should give that GotQuestions an attentive read because it does not actually come out in support of OSAS. It simply states the matter of assurance is " the most heart-wrenching fear" for some, and " the Bible speaks clearly about the eternality of our salvation and how we are preserved by the One who bought us with His blood." Monergists and synergists alike agree it is Jesus who preserves the saved. They interpret that statement differently. GotQuestions is a Dispensationalist Premillennial Arminian website but it does try to be balanced. The problem is no one can wholly shed their biases. Not Houdmann, not Sproul, not anyone. The fact of the matter is adherents of OSAS DO NOT find the matter " heart-wrenching." They find OSAS affirming AND wish that all Christians would experience the comfort found in the knowledge of God's sovereignty in the matter. Doug's observation about OSAS is sound but incomplete and anything that is incomplete is likely to also be incorrect. A very, very common lack of context often not considered in these kinds of questions is, " Where do I find this exemplified in scripture?" For example, where is the actual Christian who has actually fallen away reported in scripture? Because if there aren't any actual examples in scripture, we have reason to question our interpretation, no matter what that interpretation may be; the principle being we shouldn't be interpreting scripture in ways the scriptures themselves don't exemplify, or to which they do not provide a precedent. So.... in regards to the doctrine of soteriology, as scripture asserts it, I recommend starting with 1) the basics and that means 2) the explicit statements first. For example, I am often amazed how many Christians do not know the answer to " From what have we been saved?" or " From what are we being saved?" How can we discuss a doctrine of salvation if we do not know the answer to that question? I do not believe we can. Or, how about the question, " Who or what saves?" Put the two together and we have something like, " Who or what saves us from what?" Isn't that rock bottom? Isn't everything else built on that? It is noted this GotQuestions article says nothing about this and completely failed to address this. How can an article titled, " What is soteriology?" NOT address this most basic of matters pertaining to this subject? For my part, I will say it is God who saves, God alone who saves, and it is He alone who saves us from sin and wrath, the wrath being His wrath consequent to the just recompense of sin. This, of course, is going to beget other inquiries, such as, " What is sin?" to which I will answer " Sin is all unrighteousness, anything not done in faith, and any act of lawlessness." These are three of the definitions scripture explicitly provides, and thereby three of the things from which we are being saved by God, and God alone. Soteriology is the doctrine of God, the Creator, saving the sinful creature form the creature's sin and the wrath that follows. Much more can be said about that but that's the essence of soteriology. Happy to provide scriptures for any of that (but I assume this current set of posters knows exactly where I got those statements). Good morning everyone (or whatever time of day you might find yourselves ). Arminian? I have never heard of anyone from Dallas Theological Seminary who believes salvation can be lost..(an arminian belief) They are niether arminian or calvin.. Not sure why we try to put people under these ideologies.. I think that is why there is so much confusion. We should just read what they say, not try to put them in a box Norman Geisler taught at DTS for about ten years and he is Wesleyan Arminian. In the " Four Views on Eternal Security," Geisler authored the chapter on the " moderate Calvinist view," in which he defended the position, " Not all saints will be faithful to the end." Kevin Jackson, not a DTS grad, authored an article HERE, at the Society of Evangelical Arminians, in which he argued an Arminian can logically hold any of three positions, two of which include the loss of forfeit of salvation. Here's what Arminius said, V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies—yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.
Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration. VI. THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION
With regard to the certainty [or assurance] of salvation, my opinion is, that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn him not, he is now in reality assured, that he is a son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ. Such a certainty is wrought in the mind, as well by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly actuating the believer and by the fruits of faith, as from his own conscience, and the testimony of God’s Spirit witnessing together with his conscience. I also believe, that it is possible for such a person, with an assured confidence in the grace of God and his mercy in Christ, to depart out of this life, and to appear before the throne of grace, without any anxious fear or terrific dread: and yet this person should constantly pray, "O lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant!"
But, since "God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things," and since a man judges not his own self—yea, though a man know nothing by himself, yet is he not thereby justified, but he who judgeth him is the Lord, (1 John iii. 19; 1 Cor. iv. 3,) I dare not [on this account] place this assurance [or certainty] on an equality with that by which we know there is a God, and that Christ is the saviour of the world. Yet it will be proper to make the extent of the boundaries of this assurance, a subject of inquiry in our convention.In answer to the questions, "May true believers and elect persons entirely lose faith for a season? May any man who has faith and retains it, arrive at such a moment, as, if he were then to die, he would be damned?" Arminius said, " Since Election to salvation comprehends within its limits not only Faith, but likewise perseverance in Faith; and since St. Augustine says, "God has chosen to salvation those who he sees will afterwards believe by the aid of his preventing or preceding grace, and who will persevere by the aid of his subsequent or following grace; "believers and the elect are not correctly taken for the same persons. Omitting, therefore, all notice of the word "Election," I reply, believers are sometimes so circumstanced, as not to produce, for a season, any effect of true faith, not even the actual apprehension of grace and the promises of God, nor confidence or trust in God and Christ; yet this is the very thing which is necessary to obtain salvation. But the apostle says, concerning faith, in reference to its being a quality and a capability of believing, "some, having cast away a good conscience concerning faith, have made shipwreck." Arminius personally believed the saints would persevere in the faith and should possess an assurance of salvation, but he also believed the matter of a Christian deserting the faith and thereby losing his existence in Christ something that should be debated and resolved. The conclusion of that debate was the Five Articles of Remonstrance, the last of is commonly called, " The Conditional Preservation of the Saints, and articulated to say, " Even if it is true that those who are adept in the habit of faith and holiness can only with difficulty fall back to their former profaneness and dissoluteness of life, yet we believe that it is entirely possible, if not rarely done, that they fall back little by little and until they completely lack their prior faith and charity. And having abandoned the way of righteousness, they revert to their worldly impurity which they had truly left, returning like pigs to wallowing in the mud and dogs to their vomit, and are again entangled in lusts of the flesh which they had formerly, truly fled. And thus totally and at length also they are finally torn from the grace of God unless they seriously repent in time." However, most DTS grads do seem to be either one- or two-point Cals . The subscribe to "T" and/or "P". But as I have said HERE, there isn't any reason we can't all be five-pointers because none of the five are particularly controversial. What they say isn't particularly controversial, imo. HOW we get there may be, but when our thinking and understanding is couched first in God's will and God's actions and not those of humanity then there's not much to debate. |
|
. This is important for another reason, one directly related to this thread and every other op in the vast majority of internet discussion board because posters are not studying when they come into these discussions/debates/arguments. They are asserting their already-decided points of view, and most with an intent to persuade everyone else to that point of view, NOT to study and learn. 
