Why You Might Find More Charity Among Arminians

[QuestionTime]

I agree with this article 100%!!!

I think all should read the article and deeply consider these words:

Arminian Today: Why You Might Find More Charity Among Arminians

Here's a quote:

Arminianism has always promoted the idea that people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) and because of this, He has given man a limited freedom of the will. This has led Arminians to believe that since God has created humans free creatures who are given free will then we believe that all people should be allowed to freely worship whether they be an Arminian or a Calvinist or a Baptist or a Muslim. We don't believe that this freedom means that all are correct or that all will go to heaven but we do believe that God allows people to be free. This has led to Arminians being champions of freedom of religion. The history of Arminianism shows that we don't burn at the stake those who disagree with us nor do we behead those who disagree with. John Wesley led the fight against slavery as did later Methodists in the United States. They viewed humans as free creatures not bound. Ironically it was Calvinist George Whitefield argued before the state of Georgia officials for slavery being justified. In 1751 Whitefield succeeded in getting slavery legalized in the state of Georgia and though he treated his slaves fairly, he nonetheless never gave them their freedom even when he died.

[QuestionTime]

Here's an article talking about groups of Calvinists who believe that Arminians can't be saved. We know that these kind of attitudes both can - and have in the past - lead to persecution:

Essays on Neo-Gnostic Calvinism by Greg Fields

[phil36]

Originally Posted by QuestionTime

Here's an article talking about groups of Calvinists who believe that Arminians can't be saved. We know that these kind of attitudes both can - and have in the past - lead to persecution:

Essays on Neo-Gnostic Calvinism by Greg Fields

Hi Quest,

I went to read the article you had posted... and here we go a huge flaw in the first line. if this guy cannot get his facts right in the first sentence then I am afraid his hole essay is just wandering slandering.

"exalted system of Pauline Theology commonly called "Calvinism" Its not an exalted Pauline theology.. I take it the author does know what he's writing about quest?? But I am glad you visit a good website.

Anyhow Quest I am glad you have found your 'Quest'

God Bless

Phil

[phil36]

And before anyone starts shouting at me... I know the second article is from a reformed site.... I am just pointing out Quests Motives behind his posts.

Phil

This post gives me occasion for a lot of questions I've had to which I've never received satisfactory answers. I'll start with the most problematic.

Why should we care if we did happen to find more charity among Arminians? Neither you nor the author of the article seems to explore the implications or the purpose of the argument. I could just as easily argue that Calvinists are likely to be more forgiving, as the doctrine of total depravity suggests that faults are persistent constitutional defects, more akin to a sickness than a chosen personal accident.

Even if we accept the argument, though, why bother to make it? To me, the implicit argument is usually that virtue follows truth and vice follows error, so that by measuring the difference in virtue between two groups we can ascertain whose doctrine is more true. However, I've repeatedly heard that we shouldn't investigate man as a measure of truth.

What do we do, for instance, when we find that a non-Christian group is equally or even more charitable? Alternatively, when it appears that core Christian doctrines don't have an effect on the majority of those who espouse them, what do we do with them?

Or is it just the observation that Arminians are better than Calvinists in this way, full stop?

[QuestionTime]

Originally Posted by phil36

Hi Quest,

I went to read the article you had posted... and here we go a huge flaw in the first line. if this guy cannot get his facts right in the first sentence then I am afraid his hole essay is just wandering slandering.

"exalted system of Pauline Theology commonly called "Calvinism" Its not an exalted Pauline theology.. I take it the author does know what he's writing about quest?? But I am glad you visit a good website.

Anyhow Quest I am glad you have found your 'Quest'

God Bless

Phil

The website you are referring to is written by a Calvinist, not by the author of the Arminian Blog. The author of the Arminian Blog just linked to that article by the Calvinist. This is where the author of the Blog linked to that article (Arminian Heresy):

" 6) We reject the notion of an eternal caste system set up by God Himself. This unfortunately has led to many Calvinists having a form of gnostic attitudes. I recently had a friend embrace Calvinism and he told me, "My eyes were opened to the doctrines of grace and I am praying the same thing happens to you." This gnostic like experience has led to persecution of non-Calvinists both in the past physically (such as Arminian churches being burned by Calvinists after the Synod of Dort) and now on blogs. Arminians reject such a caste system and we believe that God's love for all humanity is seen at Calvary. It doesn't matter where the person is from, what the color of their skin is, their creed at birth, their language - Jesus' call is the same to all, "Follow me" (Mark 1:17; Luke 9:23-25). Whoever thirsts can come to Christ (Revelation 22:17) through the gospel (Romans 10:9-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)."

The interesting thing is, that the Calvinist author - of the article you read - was actually defending Arminians in that article, against this new wave of what he termed: "Gnostic Calvinists." Again, these words are not from the author of the Blog. Please read the article again, and you will see.

Quest

[QuestionTime]

Originally Posted by phil36

And before anyone starts shouting at me... I know the second article is from a reformed site.... I am just pointing out Quests Motives behind his posts.

Phil

Well what, I thought we debated Calvinism and Arminianism on this website? I think this is an excellent point that was raised on the Arminian blog and I wanted to present it.

Please explain to me my error. I will correct it. I know that I feel very strongly on this issue.

I guess that I take my debating to the point of expecting to make converts through my logic. It doesn't work with converting people to Christianity, and it probably won't work here either.

Quest

[phil36]

Originally Posted by QuestionTime

The website you are referring to is written by a Calvinist, not by the author of the Arminian Blog. The author of the Arminian Blog just linked to that article by the Calvinist. This is where the author of the Blog linked to that article (Arminian Heresy):

" 6) We reject the notion of an eternal caste system set up by God Himself. This unfortunately has led to many Calvinists having a form of gnostic attitudes. I recently had a friend embrace Calvinism and he told me, "My eyes were opened to the doctrines of grace and I am praying the same thing happens to you." This gnostic like experience has led to persecution of non-Calvinists both in the past physically (such as Arminian churches being burned by Calvinists after the Synod of Dort) and now on blogs. Arminians reject such a caste system and we believe that God's love for all humanity is seen at Calvary. It doesn't matter where the person is from, what the color of their skin is, their creed at birth, their language - Jesus' call is the same to all, "Follow me" (Mark 1:17; Luke 9:23-25). Whoever thirsts can come to Christ (Revelation 22:17) through the gospel (Romans 10:9-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)."

The interesting thing is, that the Calvinist author - of the article you read - was actually defending Arminians in that article, against this new wave of what he termed: "Gnostic Calvinists." Again, these words are not from the author of the Blog. Please read the article again, and you will see.

Quest

I think the website URL gave it away that it was Calvinist (monergism, this is a reformed site, which I have been to time and time again in fact it is a link on my own blog!!!)..

I understand what he was saying I have read it before.. It was not so much the content, it is the why, you linked it so closely with your first post?

I understand what goes on in some Clavinist circles.. and I do not agree with them myself, yet I am fully aware what goes on in Some Arminian circles. this is my whole point. it would be good to see some balanced views.. You seem to go out of your way to show the 'evils of reformed theology' I have noticed this in a lot of your posts.

The problem being and I think you know very well, that most people don't even know what Arminian and reformed theology is. So your post's do not help anyone in any way.


However as a counter balance Karuna wrote an excellent post.. it would be worth reading.

Phil

[greatkraw]

Originally Posted by QuestionTime

I agree with this article 100%!!!

I think all should read the article and deeply consider these words:

Arminian Today: Why You Might Find More Charity Among Arminians

Here's a quote:

Arminianism has always promoted the idea that people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) and because of this, He has given man a limited freedom of the will. This has led Arminians to believe that since God has created humans free creatures who are given free will then we believe that all people should be allowed to freely worship whether they be an Arminian or a Calvinist or a Baptist or a Muslim. We don't believe that this freedom means that all are correct or that all will go to heaven but we do believe that God allows people to be free. This has led to Arminians being champions of freedom of religion. The history of Arminianism shows that we don't burn at the stake those who disagree with us nor do we behead those who disagree with. John Wesley led the fight against slavery as did later Methodists in the United States. They viewed humans as free creatures not bound. Ironically it was Calvinist George Whitefield argued before the state of Georgia officials for slavery being justified. In 1751 Whitefield succeeded in getting slavery legalized in the state of Georgia and though he treated his slaves fairly, he nonetheless never gave them their freedom even when he died.

so you feel the need to defend being an arminian?

how many times did you lose your salvation today?

you better do a good deed quick - you wouldnt wanna be unlucky enough to die while you are unsaved

[phil36]

Originally Posted by QuestionTime

Well what, I thought we debated Calvinism and Arminianism on this website? I think this is an excellent point that was raised on the Arminian blog and I wanted to present it.

Please explain to me my error. I will correct it. I know that I feel very strongly on this issue.

I guess that I take my debating to the point of expecting to make converts through my logic. It doesn't work with converting people to Christianity, and it probably won't work here either.

Quest

Ok, you are not debating Quest, you are trying to prove something, with articles that do not prove anything. Do see the point? maybe not!

Phil

[QuestionTime]

Originally Posted by greatkraw

so you feel the need to defend being an arminian?

how many times did you lose your salvation today?

you better do a good deed quick - you wouldnt wanna be unlucky enough to die while you are unsaved

I'll respond to Karuna later as I'm sleepy now.

But GreatKraw, I know that if I died today I wouldn't enter heaven. The Bible says that people who sin like I do don't get in.

I don't give up though, I'll find Saving Faith yet.

Quest

The amount of ad hominem and guilt by association is sickening.

But I see it all the time. It's an old favorite of Arminians.

Here are some examples of Arminian charity towards Calvinism:

Anthony Sacramone said the God of Calvinism "out Hitler’s Hitler" and is "too repellant to contemplate, never mind adore" in an article for First Things.

A chatter going by the name of Beowulf2k8 says Calvinists are "blasphemers," "Or maybe you're just Jews, even Pharisees. You're not Christians."

The website YOU linked to that argued Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist constantly called Calvinism "heresy," "dangerous heresy," and even "****able heresy" which makes me and all Calvinists ****able heretics.

John Wesley in his sermon "Free Grace" says the Calvinist God is "worse than the devil; as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust" Of course I'm not saying it's all one sided. Both sides get carried away and use rhetoric they shouldn't. But I've been both a Calvinist and an Arminian in my short life and as an Arminian I used and heard my friends use uncharitable caricatures of Calvinism far more than I've heard it used by Calvinists against Arminianism. I have an Arminian friend right now who has called me a monster for being a Calvinist. But I've never called an Arminian a monster and never said they worship a god that out Hitlers Hitler. So in my experience, the Arminians are the meanies. But I'm sure we could all tell our own anectdotes. Who cares?

If that's your idea of how Christians should be charitable, then you can keep your charity just like Obama can keep his change.

And if you want to psychologize how Calvinism can lead to pride or anything else then I could easily play the game with Arminianism (psychology was one of my majors in college so it might be a fun change of pace).

But I'd prefer to just drop the ridiculous ad hominems. I'd prefer to drop the guilt by association fallacies and poisoning the well tactics.

I haven't forgotten about the Spurgeon thing, I'm still going to post on it when I have time. Then if necessary I'll do a post arguing how Arminianism (or even just none-Calvinism) leads to pride and how it has ties to gnosticism and Greek philosophy.

[greatkraw]

Originally Posted by QuestionTime

I'll respond to Karuna later as I'm sleepy now.

But GreatKraw, I know that if I died today I wouldn't enter heaven. The Bible says that people who sin like I do don't get in.

I don't give up though, I'll find Saving Faith yet.

Quest

I will tell you a secret

WE ALL sin like you do

[superdave5221]

Hebrews 4: 14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Hebrews 7: 11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our LORD descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." 18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. 20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.' " 22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

We do not lose our salvation on a daily basis because of sin. Jesus lives forever as our High Priest, and propitiates our sins before the Father. As long as we belong to Jesus Christ, and have faith in His ability to blot out our sins, we can be assured of our salvation.

However, if we turn our backs on Jesus Christ, and deny Him, we can still be lost. Examples of this are Charles Templeton and Judas.

[greatkraw]

Originally Posted by superdave5221

However, if we turn our backs on Jesus Christ, and deny Him, we can still be lost. Examples of this are Charles Templeton and Judas.

so your god is pretty weak and ineffective and can have his plans foiled by a pathetic human

who is charles templeton and what makes you an expert on his salvation?

[Slepsog4]

While an Arminian believes it is possible to lose one's salvation, it is not a casual thing. It is not a yo yo, in and out issue. It is that one can of his free will choose to walk away or intentionally harbor sin impenitently (cf. 1 John 1:5-10) and if he dies in that condition he will be lost eternally.

Faithful is not the same as flawless. But we must walk in the light. Those who turn back and walk in darkness have no reason to be saved ultimately.

[superdave5221]

Originally Posted by greatkraw

so your god is pretty weak and ineffective and can have his plans foiled by a pathetic human

who is charles templeton and what makes you an expert on his salvation?

God's plan is not foiled. His plan was to give us a choice to accept or deny His plan of redemption. Charles Templeton chose to deny it, after a long life of serving the Lord, becoming an agnostic at the end. Now for someone who puts everything in faith, you must know that agnostics lack saving faith. Speaking of pathetic, your "my God is bigger than your God" argument sure fits the bill.

[superdave5221]

You are right in one respect Greatkraw. Noone should ever judge another's salvation. I should have qualified the statement, saying that "if" Mr. Templeton died, still denying Christ, then the possibility certainly exists that he would be lost. However, it is God's discretion as to who He saves, and only He can read a person's heart.

[phil36]

Originally Posted by superdave5221

God's plan is not foiled. His plan was to give us a choice to accept or deny His plan of redemption. Charles Templeton chose to deny it, after a long life of serving the Lord, becoming an agnostic at the end. Now for someone who puts everything in faith, you must know that agnostics lack saving faith. Speaking of pathetic, your "my God is bigger than your God" argument sure fits the bill.

Hi superdave, I don't know who Charles Templeton is. However there are huge amounts of people who believe they are Christian even doing missionary work maybe even preaching who fool themselves into thinking that they are Christians... there are many who have said..I was a Christian but not now! yet the question has to be asked.. where they really born again?

Phil

Questiontime,
I was going to post this in a new thread called “Neo-Gnostic Arminians” but I decided not to because it might look like I was trying to pick a fight with Arminians. But that’s not the purpose of my post here. All I’m trying to do is show how the term “neo-gnostic” can just as easily be applied to some Arminians. The “attitude” of neo-gnosticism has nothing to do with whether you’re a Calvinist or an Arminian, such an attitude can and does arise among all types of Christians because of sin and naivety.

So here is how I’m going to lay this out. I will first list a premise from Greg Fields, author of the article you link to, and then I will present a parallel premise in regards to certain Arminians. So if Greg Fields or anyone else can label some Calvinists as “Neo-Gnostic” then the same label can be applied to some Arminians. Greg Field’s premise will be plain text, my parallel premise will be in italics.

Premise 1: Some Calvinists "assert with bellicose intensity that unequivocally, all Arminians are lost because ‘Arminianism is a false gospel’ and under the anathema of Gal. 1:8-9."

Premise 1b: Some Arminians assert with bellicose intensity that unequivocally, all Calvinists are lost because "Calvinism is ****able heresy" and Calvinists are "not Christian.”

Example: the blogger/chatter Beowulf2k8 says Calvinists are “blasphemers,” “Pharisees,” and “not Christian.” David J. Stewart says, if only indirectly, that Calvinists are ****able heretics. (I realize Stewart rejects the label “Arminian” but that’s really irrelevant since his beliefs are identical to others who self-identify as Arminians. I could reject the label “Calvinist” but that wouldn’t change the fact that my beliefs are the same as those 99% of Calvinists.)

Premise 2: “[The neo-gnostic Calvinists] set the stage for this ‘leap of logic’, by describing the five points of Arminianism and showing how incompatible Arminianism is with the gospel of grace.

Premise 2b: The neo-gnostic Arminians set the stage for this “leap of logic,” by describing the five points of Calvinism and showing how incompatible Calvinism is with the gospel of John 3:16.

Example: In another article by David Stewart called “John Calvin Exposed” he argues that “There is NO way that such men could be saved because they ADDED works to faith” (emphasis original). Stewart believes this works-faith is taught in the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. Thus, all Calvinists who believe in and detach Perseverance of the Saints (i.e. me) are not saved.

Premise 3: The major tenet of gnosticism was the acquisition of knowledge to achieve, N. B., salvation. Similarly they make the precise apprehension of soteriological doctrine the sine qua non of salvation.

Premise 3b: The major tenet of gnosticism was the acquisition of knowledge to achieve, N. B., salvation. Similarly they make the precise apprehension of soteriological doctrine the sine qua non of salvation. If you don't believe that Christ died for everyone or that we have "free will" (in some nebulous sense) then you aren't Christian.

Conclusion: Some Calvinists are neo-gnostics.

Conclusion: Some Arminians are neo-gnostics.


Now, I’d like to comment are two other things in Greg Field’s article. He says that the neo-gnostic teaching that certain beliefs are necessary to salvation is “the most utterly insidious forms of ‘works-righteousness’ that I have ever encountered.”

I’d just like to point out that Arminians are always quick to argue that mere faith or belief is not a work. So even if this Calvinist author thinks it is a works-righteousness, it seems that an Arminian would have to disagree with this statement. These neo-gnostic Calvinists are not teaching a works-righteousness by Arminian standards as far as I can see.

Secondly, his definition of Gnosticism seems overly simplistic. For example, don't all Christians agree that you must know some fundamental propositions in order to be saved? Propositions like "God exists" and "Christ exists" and "Christ died for me"??

I’m not trying to defend these neo-gnostic “Calvinists” (Greg Fields in the article you link to says that these persons aren’t true Calvinists), I just think the argument needs to be made more carefully and I’m afraid that this will lead to mere rhetorical games and scare tactics.

Next thing you know, Arminians are going to be throwing around the term “neo-gnostic” at every Calvinist they meet, just like liberals throw around the term “fascist” at every conservative they meet. The idea will be that Calvinism tends towards neo-gnosticism just like conservativism tends towards fascism. The fact is, as I think I demonstrated here, Arminians (or “non-Calvinists” if you prefer) can be just as neo-gnostic, by Fields’ standards, as Calvinists. Just like liberals can be just as fascist as conservatives (as Goldberg argues in his book “Liberal Fascism”).

In summation, Greg Fields basically argues that some Calvinists are neo-gnostic because they don't think Arminians are saved because they are Arminians. Well some Arminians think Calvinists are not saved because they are Calvinists. So some Arminians are neo-gnostic.

I'll address your other link later.