When Synergists and Catholics sound alike

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Dale-c, Jul 25, 2008.

  1. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wait, I just remembered that Catholics ARE synergists.
     
  3. JDale

    JDale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    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! :D


    JDale
     
  4. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps because I do not believe that Arminians are satanicly decieved nor do I believe that you must be a calvinist to go to heaven.

    Also, I meant no sarcasm by this thread. I am serious that a Catholic is making similar arguments against calvinists that many arminian baptists do.
     
  6. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.)
     
  8. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    My grandfather who was a baptist pastor was once in the hospital recovering from a surgery next to a catholic priest in the same room, also recovering from a surgery.
    My grandpa asked him if the blood of christ was required for salvation and the priest said yes.
    Then he asked if the blood was sufficient for salvation and the priest said no!

    So the catholics have a mix of grace and works which is not the true gospel.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    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.
     
  10. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  11. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. JDale

    JDale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0

    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
     
  13. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not mean any ad hominem about it at all Web but since two people thought there was, the fault must be mine for not being more careful.
    The point was that no one one this board has a consistent term they are willing to apply to themselves.
    If you call someone an arminian, they get upset.
    If you call someone a synergist, they get up set.
    If you call someone a freewiller, some get upset.

    The point stands that synergism is a point shared by many baptists with Catholics.
     
  14. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, they were not meant to insult anyone!.
    They were merely meant to point out a fact.
    Now you can either deal with the fact, deny it if you have sufficient evidence or ignore the thread.
    The fact is, the catholic response in the video is the same type of stuff many baptist non-calvinists have told me in the past.
    That is a fact.
     
  15. JDale

    JDale
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 NO ONE 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
     
    #15 JDale, Jul 25, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2008
  16. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    JDale I have no doubt that you believe in salvation by grace alone.

    I do think though that synergist is the best way to describe your belief.
    a 2 point calvinist is a synergist but a 4 or 5 point calvinist is a monergist.
    If there are three point calvinists, I am not sure who that would be.
     
  17. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #17 webdog, Jul 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2008
  18. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
     
  20. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #20 Marcia, Jul 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...