When Synergists and Catholics sound alike

Dale-c:

From the tone of these two posts, it appears obvious that this thread was begun (1) to insult Arminians just for fun, OR (2) to attempt to theologically link Arminians with Papism -- OR perhaps both.

While I appreciate your kindness and warm remarks, may I suggest if you really want to make a good impression, that you (1) just come right out and tell everyone you think Arminians are satanicly deceived and are going to hell, and (2) that you leave sarcasm to the experts.

Now have a blessed day!


JDale

 

So are you saying Catholics are going to hell? To compare an Armenianist to Catholics, you're saying is an insult to Armenanist? Maybe the Catholics are insulted since Joseph Amans was a poor student of John Calvin who is a Catholic priest seperatist from France.

 

Yes, a very large majority (if not the vast majority) are going to hell.
Not because they are Catholic but because their understanding of salvation is different than that of the bible.

They believe in a works based salvation but scripture denies such. It is sad but true.

 

I think you are saying this based on what you have been taught rather than know. Catholics do not have a works based faith. You have to keep in mind the laity for the most part don't even know their own faith. But research it and you find that they believe in grace. Grace results in faith and faith results in works. That is what the Catholics actually teach. As do the Orthodox (I believe but could be wrong about them ask Angus Dei.)

 

James White is solid.I watched several of these exchanges.

Even though many Evangelical synergists may be real Christians;they share a commonality with Roman Catholics in this regard.The very foundation of the Reformation would not have been carried-out by today's average synergistc Evangelical.

My next paragaph has nothing to do with synergism. But I will relate an account I had with a Roman Catholic recently.


I met a young Frenchman two days ago on the subway. He was a staunch Roman Catholic. He was trying to convince me that we were brothers of the same faith ( and I believe that there are exceptions within the R.C. fold a few are legit Christians living amongst an anti-biblical system).He emphasized that he relied on the grace and mercy of God for his salvation.But I said: "Do you depend on Christ alone for redemption;or Christ plus a number of other things?"He had to admit that it was Christ plus. Of course if that is the case -- then you have effectually taken away the sufficency of Christ's cross-work.

 

First of all the priest seems confused. Maybe definitions were mixed up in the conversation. Next there can be no faith without works.

Whats the point of faith if it doesn't result in works. And when you say works what do you mean. Service to other people?

 

What an absurd, underhanded ad hominem.

I'm sure if we wanted to start flinging mud, there are a number of things calvinists/determinists share with false religions, too. You need a new hobby, Dale.

 

Rip:

I know we've differed on these issues before, so I don't wish to belabor our differences. I'll just respond briefly...

To be fair, I don't think one can conclude that the Reformation would not have ever taken place in it had to be initiated "by today's synergistic Evangelical." That's speculative at best. Knowing the Reformation Arminian view -- and many of it's adherents -- I could make a solid case that your surmise is faulty.

Also, though I know you said your last paragraph did not relate to "synergists," it seems to me that the parallel you draw between so-called Catholic "synergism" ("Christ plus") and the supposed Protestant form of it attributed to Arminians, is also incorrect. Catholics are not generally "synergistic" so much as they are SACREMENTALIST. Big difference. There is also a strong case to be made that Reformation Arminianism -- when properly understood -- is not "synergistic" as you describe it.

The YouTube videos cited at the top of this thread are NOT representative of the views they claim to represent. They were cited for one purpose -- to insult "Some of the things said by the catholic seem quite a bit similar to what many synergist/aminians/freewillers/whatever they call themselves say."


JDale

 

Dale-c:


You have repeatedly said in this thread that you meant no insult to anyone -- and I believe you. Your dismissive reference to "synergist/aminians/freewillers/whatever they call themselves" came across to me [and apparently others] as contempt borne of conceit. I readily admit, however, that we can often overreact to a statement, just as we can unintentionally overstate a case. Please forgive my misjudgment of your initial post.

That said, I will agree with you on this much -- most in the SBC don't know what to call their position doctrinally. The Calvinists in the SBC are never at a lost for words as to how they see themselves and their theology, but the core and majority that has made up the Conservative Resurgence since 1979 have no comfortable term to describe themselves.

For instance, they don't like "Modified Calvinist," because, though they do agree with 2 pts of TULIP (T & P), they don't agree with the others, and they REALLY don't like the idea of Limited Atonement.

On the other hand, they run from the term "Arminian" because it has been so demonized by Calvinists, including many past SBCers and beyond. They see only one point of "Arminians," and that is (usually a misundertanding of) the "Falling from grace" part -- and they like their perseverance/Once Saved, Always Saved.

The going title right now is "non-Calvinists," though that DOES NOT describe what anyone actually believes, only what they do not.
Maybe these folks will clear up their confusion when the John 3:16 conference rolls around. In the meantime, I don't think it's all that difficult to figure out...

I will say that there are a few on this board who know proper terminology and what it represents. I am a "Reformation Arminian," largely in the mold of the earliest English General Baptists, particularly with regard to soteriology. I would also contend that most of the core/majority SBCers hold to a similar doctrinal position as RA's, with the notable exception on the issue of the Possibility of Final Apostasy vs. Perseverance/unconditional security. That they accept the Calvinist tenant of unconditional perseverance would make them, technically, "Modified Arminians." However, even Jacobus Arminius was apparently unconvinced on the matter of final perseverance vs. possibility of apostasy. Whether the majority of SBCer's will ever admit to or accept such terminology is questionable.

I've thrown around a lot of terms that may need to be unpacked to have a useful discussion. I can only assure my Calvinist Baptist Brethren that NNE among Reformation Arminians OR "Modified Arminians" believe that Salvation is in ANYTHING other than by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone.

Blessings,

JDale

 

I believe salvation is both monergistic and synergistic, as I believe that is what the Bible teaches. It's not "either / or". Salvation starts and ends with God alone (monergism) and also requires faith from us (synergism) as a condition necessary. If faith were not a condition of salvation, it would be purely monergistic, but it is not. I know you will come back with "even faith is a gift from God", but that is where we disagree in regards to "saving faith" being a gift given to the elect.

 

This is part of the problem right here: the Calvinists on this Board (and elsewhere) are the ones defining the issue. It's all in their terms and based on their understanding and views.

Well, I don't go by what the Calvinists say and their terms and their definitions. I go by the bible and refuse to be labeled. I think that though we understand what the gospel is and how to tell someone how he or she can be saved, we cannot totally understand the mystery of how God saves someone. This, along with the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ, go to the nature and mind of God which we cannot totally grasp or know.

I also continue my complaint here that Calvinists try to dominate every discussion and start threads in order to run down or attack those who don't agree with them. It's boring and repetitive. So you Calvinists out there -- think about this: you are setting a less than desirable example. It makes me not want to agree with you! In fact, many times when I was on the BB previously, I almost left due to this problem.

Once again, I call on the Mods to have the forum for Calvinism/non-Calvinism debate so all this can go there. Okay, I feel better now, sort of.