Security of the Believer Beliefs

HP: Augustine’s writings were the very impetus for the theology promoted by Calvin. Does that seem in way odd or in error to you?

My contention is not to place all in an Arminian camp or a Calvinistic camp. My contention is with those that hold to the very bedrock of Calvinism yet try and distance themselves from the logical consequences of their core beliefs, that say in essence, "sure I believe in the fundamentals of Calvinistic thought such as the literal payment theory and the notion that man is passive in accomplishing salvation, yet I detest the thought of being termed Calvinistic." If one walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck, I would think one is a duck…….logically speaking that is.

I personally believe you are in error in your representation of #7. If that was the true beliefs of Augustine or Luther all I could say is that they were as inconsistent as they were contradictory, more so than I ever dreamed. How could man resist something that was ‘unconditionally’ elected?? If man is elected unconditionally, are you to tell me that the will of man can thwart the unconditional election of God, as if though God does not really know who of His elect will eventually persevere, or that some that He chose via election are able of their own will to escape that which He foreknows to be 'of the elect?' All I can say is nonsense.

 

HP: Re- read it very carefully.

Here they categorically deny that one can lose their salvation. They are less that forthright IMO as to their real intents in the matter. They must have had politician write this for them. They avoid the real question and insert a new one in it’s place that they feel more comfortable in answering. Again, they do not address the issue of losing ones salvation, unless by their statement one would emphatically understand them to say, “Absolutely not! OSAS!” Instead of answering directly, they change the topic from salvation to 'losing faith' (whatever that means to them) for their own purposes. I find that to be less than a direct way to approach the question.

Do not worry my friend. They believe in OSAS all the way, the standard Calvinistic notion. They have said nothing of substance to the contrary.

Ask them this. What does it mean to 'lose faith,' and if one does do is it possible for such a one to to lose their salvation and become eternally lost?

I want to hear their response if you get one back. I will admit, to even go as far as they did in the statement you quoted, surprises me as well.

 

HP: Sorry. Just the same, it would appear to me that either he did not really know what he believes, or he is being coy about his true beliefs.

If they would have said, those that believe in Christ alone AND DO NOT FORSAKE THAT BELIEF, 'those' Christ will never forsake, it would be much easier to pinpoint their true intents. I feel that they, in the quote you posted, again are vague at best as to what they believe.

It reminds me of the statement of faith on Charles Stanley’s website. It is vague and does not give the reader an accurate portrayal of his true beliefs. It is obviously designed to market his writings etc. to a large audience. It gives the appearance of the big tent approach. I know better from listening to him.

 

Drfuss, do you see any connection between ones views on the atonement and the matter of whether or not man has to participate in achieving salvation, and whether or not one is properly and fairly denoted as being Calvinistic and holding like positions as are commonly understood concerning TULIP?

 

HP: May I take that as a compliment? :laugh:

 

drfuss

Hi drfuss,

I've been away for a while. I was speaking of the comfort of knowing that even when our faith falters, His faith has, doesn't, and never will.

I don't doubt that people embrace Christ as their Savior are saved, whether or not they agree with what Scripture says about eternal security.

 

I've read a fair bit of Augustine, and I have noted his inconsistant views in certain areas. One must have to take into consideration that Augustine spent most of his later life writing against the Pelagian heresy, so it may be that the issue of perseverance wasn't dealt with as much as it could have been. In other words, perseverence wasn't THE issue of his day.

That, and he was technically a Roman Catholic. Basically, he's like everyone else, his theology wasn't 100% correct. But his high views on grace and election definatly set the ground work for the Reformation about 1300 years later. God does raise up His people for His purposes, it's no different in Augustine's case. Augustines writings against the Pelagians and his stuff on grace and election are still worth reading today and they still argue very effectively.

Augustine wasn't a Calvinist per say, but I would assume that he was closer to that position than any of his time.

Augustine on Predestination: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.html

Augustine on the gift of Perseverance: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.iii.ii.html

They're both long reads, but worth taking a look at.

If you want to see exactly how "Calvinist" you are look for yourself at this historic church document which argues from Scripture.

The Canons of Dordt: http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

That's a lot of reading, but that's ok, reading is good for you.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

HP: What was that Pelagian heresy Dustin? Possibly you just wrote that wrong. Would you have been more accurate if you would have said, “the notions held by Pelagius that ‘Augustine’ and a few of his faithful cohorts on a 'particular' Council called heresy?”

It is my conviction that there is going to be a lot on men and women that God is going to have stand over in a separate line come judgment day, and allow them the time to make amends for the false and hurtful accusations made against His servants, before they stand before Him in judgment, just as Job’s false accusers were told to apologize to Job. “Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

 

No, it was pretty accurate the first time I wrote it.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will,[1] Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality.

That's the heresy.

Here's Augustine writing against this damnable theological slop: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.i.html


By the way, is it a crime to be intolerant nowadays? Is it a crime to tell someone they're wrong about something? Augustine called it heresy because it WAS heresy. Was Luther supposed to just accept Roman Catholic indulgences and veneration of Mary and the saints and denial of sola fide for the sake of man-made tradition? Was Athenasius supposed to just tolerate the Arians when they said Jesus wasn't God Himself, but just a created being? No, they denouced it, rebuked it, spent most of thier lives writing and preaching against it, called it what it was...heresy. I don't know where you get the notion that we are supposed to turn every which way to avoid calling it what it really is. Pelagianism, Arianism, and the like go against what the Bible teaches, therefore it is a false teaching. It's heresy.

I have no obligtion to say "I'm sorry" to someone if they believe a lie, and get angry when I call them out on it. I feel sorry that people believe such doctrines, but I'm not called to condone them either. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Just that simple.

Love someone today, tell them they're wrong. One day, they might thank you for it.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Actually, I think that's accurate spot for them on your list. But I don't see a real difference in the 5 point view and the Lutheran view except that it apporaches perseverance from different points to the same end.

Lutheran: All those who persevere are truly saved.

5 point Calvinist: All those who are truly saved will persevere.

Either way, perseverence marks the elect. Calvinism says the elect will be granted perseverance, Lutheranism says perseverance is only given to the elect.

Same end, different angle.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

HP: I say that that is pure slander, inaccurate, and not according to truth. It doesn’t take a lot of logic, reason, or accurate evidence to regurgitate another’s ideas as you have done. It would be like finding someone who has slandered you and repeating it again to the whole world via the Internet, just as you have became party to in your unfounded slander of Pelagius.

If I happened to coin such slander by the name Dustinism, as a name to associate that slander with, and it became common enough over the years for newcomers to happen upon the name ‘Dustinism’ to wonder what it consists of, only to hear Wickapedia regurgitate the original slander once again in order to explain what this name came to mean, how would this be an attempt to fairly portray your honest feeling or ideas?

HP: Now you present Pelagius’s primary detractor being the sole authority as to Pelagius’s views. That would be like allowing one to repeat over and over the original slander said about your views by one absolutely engulfed in heathen philosophy that has misrepresented and failed to properly assess your viewpoint. Not only that, but Augustine wielding power over the Church of his day not only could slander him, but order that the very words that Pelagius had spoken and written, that could be in a fair court the very means of his vindication, as happened I believe on at least two occasions, order to be burnt, reduced to ashes, annihilated so that the truth could never see the light of day to set the record straight in a day that Augustine and his cohorts would not rule with an iron fist over the Church.

“Theological slop?” Those words will not go forgotten. You will have your day in a fair and just court room to face the accused and God Himself. Scripture tells us that for every idle word spoken we shall indeed give an account.

HP: No it is not a crime if you have evidence from the horses mouth, but even then pray that your understanding is not tainted by your own inability to judge the situation justly. You will still give an account as will every one of us. I for one will try my best to err on the side of caution if and when I by some wild chance start using words like ‘heresy’ and ‘damnable theological slop.’

HP: I challenge you to prove your accusation, not using Wickapedia or Augustines unjust accusations, but by the words of Pelagius himself. I am listening.

 

HP: What conditions election in #2, or what makes it denoted as believing in ‘conditional election?'

If you have already told us, could you just point me to the post? Thanks!

 

HP: Are you saying that man’s will is the deciding factor in whether or not one is saved in belief #2?