Are there any free will baptists here?

I'll try again --

(1) Pardon my MISSTATEMENT...How's that?

(2) I think I conceded the point that Arminius never took a particular position on the possibility of apostasy vs. perseverance of the saints. Most of his followers held his same cautious perspective of this issue. Some of his followers, however, did indeed quickly adopt this position -- as is evidenced by the first Baptists holding to the possibility of apostasy in Helwys declaration of 1611 -- after they'd been in Holland...

(3) I in fact DO think that those who hold to OSAS are inconsistent in believing that prior to salvation one may choose to follow Christ, but after salvation, "regeneration" has rendered their will no longer able to choose. And, I wouldn't say that regenration can be "undone," but that it might have been "in vain" is something Scripture could support. Still and yet, this is an issue that won't be solved here, and I respect those who hold different views...

JDale

 

Arminians who believe in OSAS often appeal to the word "preservation" rather than "perseverance." They don't say that their will is unable to choose after regeneration, they just say that their choice doesn't matter. Compare it to a man who chooses to step off a roof. He is still free to choose a reversal of his original choice. He can choose to step back to where he was. His choice won't matter, though. He's still going to remain off the roof because something (in this case, gravity) has him and won't let him go, no matter how many choices he makes to go back to the roof.

One might suggest that God himself was inconsistent to set up a system like OSAS where one may choose to reject the gift before regeneration, but that that option is unavailable afterwards. One might suggest that, but I doubt that anyone really would. God is God and he can set things up in any way that is consistent with his holiness. The OSAS people believe that he set it up this way. Although I disagree, I see no logical problems with it.

 

If I understand correctly, what you're calling a "reformed Armenian" is really a four point Calvinist. Is that correct? I too have never heard of this term.

 

A "Reformed Arminian" only agrees with Calvinists on the concept of Total Depravity. Other than that, they differ with each of the other points of the TULIP.

RA's believe in :

• Conditional Election (based of foreseen faith) vs. unconditional election of calvinism
• General Atonement vs. limited atonement of Calvinism
• Resistible Grace vs. irresistible grace of Calvinism
• Possibility of Apostasy vs. perseverance of the saints of Calvinism

The main point of divergence between RA's and Wesleyan-Arminians seems to be the last point -- WA's generally come closer to believing one can "lose" salvation through unforgiveness or "continuing sin," and also tended to believe in "repeated regeneration," while RA's believe rejecting faith is the only way one can forfeit salvation -- and if ones DOES forfeit salvation, it is final -- this is "apostasy."

JDale

 

"The Five Points of Arminianism" (to which the "Five points of Calvinism were a response) originated at the Synod of Dort, in the Netherlands in 1616-1618. The site: http://www.the-highway.com/dordt.html There, the Five Points (of Arminiansism) are described thus:

The Synod of Dort was held in order to settle a serious controversy in the Dutch churches. Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), a theological professor at Leiden University, differed from the Reformed faith on a number of important points. After Arminius's death, forty-three of his ministerial followers drafted and presented their views to the States General of the Netherlands on five of these points in the Remonstrance of 1610. In this document and even more explicitly in later writings, the Arminians, who came to be called "Remonstrants," taught:


1.
Election based on foreseen faith

2.
the universal merits of Christ

3.
the free will of man due to only partial depravity

4.
the resistability of grace, and

5.
the possibility of a lapse from grace.​

(I have deleted words from the quote that could be seen as judgmental one way or the other.)

I would imagine that this is what people mean by "Classical Arminianism".

 

Number 3 is absolutely inaccurate. Read the articles of "The Remonstrance" for yourself -- without the Calvinist colored glasses on:



Article 1
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2
That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Article 4
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can nei­ther think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inas­much as it is written con­cerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and else­where in many places.

Article 5
That those who are in­corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well un­derstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was deliv­ered them, of losing a good conscience, of be­coming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, be­fore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.


JDale

 

Yes, these five articles are what I am familar with concerning Classical Arminianism and from everything which I have read concerning John Wesley, he was very much a Classical Arminian.

Great topic everyone!

 

Because, in reality there is no difference in forfeiture, apostacy or falling from grace via sin resulting in the withdrawal of "eternal life".

Why? Because by definition they all overturn the very nature of "eternal life".

It is "Eternal" in duration from the moment it is given, if it can cease by any means or by any agency acting upon it then so can God who is eternal and omnipotent by His very nature, the All-Powerful Giver of "Eternal" life gives us this life because He Himself is eternal.

"They shall never perish".

Why?

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.​

HankD

 

Great OSAS answer HD, but you ignore the very fact that "Eternal life" is a GIFT from God given to those who BELIEVE. To cease trusting in Christ is to then forfeit that gift of eternal life that is of Him and is only found IN HIM.

"Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, [even] eternal life" (I John 2:24-25).

JDale

 

"They shall never perish".

What you have quoted is not a condition for the children of God, but a certainty, go to the next verse:

25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.​

I am sorry that you don't know if you will ultimately be saved. You can know...

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
​

HankD

 

Wasn't OSAS already debated on another thread sometime back?

 

I humbly apologise for not having gone back to the original (or at least an English translation of it). I assure you that I wrote as I did because I was unsuccessful in my internet search for the original (my fault, I expect - I'm sure it is there somewhere), and not as a result of any "coloured glasses" Sorry.

 

HD:

Your condescension is not appreciated. I can read -- and I understand 1 John 5:13 in the same way you do. I have complete assurance of my salvation in Christ. On the same token, I do not boast in the misapplication of certain scriptures to obligate God to "save" me even if I turn away from him and "make shipwreck" of my faith.

"But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (I Corinthians 9:27).

"Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" (Romans 11:19-22).

JDale

 

No problem David. Thank you for your kindness.

JDale

 

"and I understand 1 John 5:13 in the same way you do".
I don't think so JD.

I don't see how you can have it both ways JD, either you have complete and absolute assurance or you don't.

I am not boasting in any misapplication of Scripture but I boast only of the cross and the blood shed upon that cross as my absolutue assurance of my salvation.

Your Romans 11 citation is speaking of the temporary setting aside of nation of Israel and the ascendancy of the gentile nations and their standing before God.

John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

This verse includes you and me. If not then we are greater than the Father.

Your salvation is assured JD. There is nothing you can do to undo it.

If we walk unworthy He has another promise

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten".

If we are not chastened then...

NIV 12:8
If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.

HankD

 

I'm sorry we disagree on this issue HD. I assure you that I DO have absolute and complete assurance in my salvation RIGHT NOW.

I have, in fact, BEEN "convicted" of my sins even since I believed, and I have been "chastened" by the Father for my sinful acts -- as I'm sure you have as a child of God, HD. Whatever gave you the idea, HD, that one could persist in sin and unbelief -- even after "salvation" and despite the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the chastening of the Father?

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.[It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:26-31 KJV).

HD, I appreciate your stedfast dedication to the sovereignty, mercy and grace of God -- whether or not you believe I share your dedication to those concepts.

I simply don't share your view that man can cease to trust Christ -- "turn away," "make shipwreck of faith" "sin willfully [Greek = present continual tense]," trod "underfoot the the Son of God," count "the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified [past tense] an holy thing," and "do despite to the Spirit of grace," and yet be "completely assured" of salvation and an eternal home in heaven.

If you DO believe that, HD, more power to ya -- but I'd suggest you don't actually TRY to prove your theory by putting it into practice.

JDale

 

Dear JD, this IMO is not what JD or HD have to prove about theological theories but the concepts presented in the Word of God.

Obviously we do share the same saving faith in Christ.

To put it in words which you have used: I simply don't share your view that a born-again child of God can ever cease in believing/trusting in Christ. Fall into temptation and sin, yes. And those who do are miserable until fellowship is restored.

Again JD, the Book of Hebrews from whence you quote was written to the Hebrew nation (hence the name of the Book) probably before their final desolation of the razing of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem.

This book addresses both kinds of Hebrews: believers in Christ and the New Covenant and those who stubbornly clung to Moses and the Old Covenant and refused “the knowledge of the truth”. These are those who have “trod underfoot the Son of God” and can only expect judgment because there is NOW no more sacrifice for sin for them since Christ has suffered once for all and done away with the mosaic system of animal sacrifice (for sins of ignorance).


When a wandering sheep leaves the fold he remains a sheep.
If he is a pig dressed up like a sheep or a goat who looks and sounds like a sheep or a wolf in sheep’s clothing then that is what he is in spite of what he appears or to be or sounds like.

In addition there is a parable we both know about the one sheep that leaves the fold and the reaction of the Shepherd.

Personally I don’t believe that you or I can cease from trusting Christ, not because of our own strength of character but His power to keep us because of His strength which is infinite.

And His promise “they shall never perish”.

1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.​

Should I commit sin (continuous – present participle or infinitive sin) then I may very well be taken home (sleep). Christ threatens those in the Church of Thyatira with this kind of chastening who are committing sin. Paul addresses the Church at Corinth with the fact that many had fallen asleep because of their carnality and forthcoming sin.

If an individual who claims to be a child of God continually sins without any evidence of chastening then that person is (in all probability) in a state of being of sin (past participle) – unregenerate, tares not wheat, goats not sheep, - pretenders, antichrists, etc.


I understand your point of view and I respect it.


God bless you brother.



HankD

 

HankD writes:
"If an individual who claims to be a child of God continually sins without any evidence of chastening then that person is (in all probability) in a state of being of sin (past participle) – unregenerate, tares not wheat, goats not sheep, - pretenders, antichrists, etc."

drfuss: The above is an example of why I think the practical difference (not theological) between Reformed Arminian and OSAS is only a play on words.

Consider the following example:

Suppose a person claims to trust Christ as savior and serves Him for two years. Then he claims to stop trusting Christ and converts to Islam or Mormonism.

The RA say he was a Christian because he trusted Christ and then forfeited his salvation by stopping trusting in Christ. He will not be saved because he must be trusting Christ when he dies to go to heaven.

OSAS says he never really was a true Christian in the first place, he just though he was. Had he been a true Christian, he would not have stopped trusting Christ. He will not be saved because he must be trusting Christ when he dies to go to heaven.

The important thing in both beliefs is that he must be trusting Christ when he dies to go to heaven. The practical difference is only what we call him before he stopped trusting or claiming to trust in Christ.

Granted the theology is different, but the practical application is the same. All we have to realize is that, from a practical aspect, the other belief just says the same thing differently, i.e. "only a play on words".

 

DrFuss:

You are correct insofar as the practical application of the RA and OSAS positions. Theologically, they would approach the individual and the truth or reality of his faith differently -- but the practical outcome would be the same.

JDale

 

dear drfuss,
Please note that I said "in all probability" leaving a small door (into what I'm not sure).

However you also said that OSAS would claim "Had he been a true Christian, he would not have stopped trusting Christ".

When in reality I (as a OSAS person) would say he never really trusted Christ in the first place. He may have had a kind of confidence in Christ and even had some evidence to support his confidence, but it was not saving faith. There is indeed Scriptural support for this notion:

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

HankD​