Freed From The Arminian Camp

My Story

I was converted in 1990, directly by God, without having met any Christians at the time, or knowing the Gospel. He made me realise all my philosophising etc was wrong, and that I was wrong. He presented me with a choice, to follow him or my own way, but I knew I had no choice, because he had backed me into a corner. In a sense, I was Calvinist before I knew it.

I joined a charismatic Baptist Union church, then moved on to a Pentecostal with my future wife. While there, my world fell apart as i lost my job, girlfriend, and, seemingly, my faith. The church was unable to help me understand it all. In the local bookshop I looked for books on salvation, and found reformed material. As I read, the "light went on". The more I read, the more it matched with what I found in scripture and experience. In time, the Lord opened a way out of the Pentecostals to the Strict Baptist church I am minister of now. there I came into Gospel liberty.
Do I wonder if I am right? Yes. I have looked into Plymouth Brethren and Anglo Catholic doctrines since then, was almost persuaded, but not enough. As I preach the word, I find my convictions more and more confirmed.

 

Saul was headed in one direction with one goal in mind and suddenly he was headed in the another direction with another goal in mind. He was a "chosen vessel" to bear Jesus' name to the Gentiles. (Acts. 9:15).

In Acts 22 and 26, Paul gives his testimony. In both places it is emphasized that he was "chosen" (Acts 22:14; Acts 26:16). In fact Acts 26:16 indicates that God "made" Paul a minister and a witness.

Inductively, I learn that Paul was combatting Jesus by combatting believers; suddenly he's preaching Jesus and being supported by believers. Something wonderful and powerful happened to that intelligent and hard-headed man!!

rufus

 

What a foolish attempt to be divisive! The author knows that Calvinism cannot save, any more than Arminianism saves, so there is no "law by which the Jews are bound" that is similar to the nuances of the two "isms". This is nothing more than deliberate sibling provocation!

 

Hi Tyndale;
a quote from you;
-----------------------------------
Romanbear nice illustration but bad theology... Then why can't I love all Women not only my wife?...
-----------------------------------
Very good one,Tou Chez.
But are you over looking the Commandment of Christ to love your neighbor as your self. I know, you know, I didn't mean to love all women the same way as your wife but, you are to love them just as much. Sorry you still aren't allowed to touch

We are also commanded to Love God with all our Hearts, mind, soul, bodies,and strength. I Love God more than my wife, children, father, or mother, brother, or sisters. I Love God above all else. If I had to choose between any of them and God. God would have my Love and they would loose. My Love for God is Genuine and I give it to Him freely, not because I was elected with out choice. My God in his sovergnty gave me the option of choosing life with him or death in Hell. You might say well that's not much of a choice. It's true. To me, it isn't, but choice never the less. It's hard to believe that some would rather hang on to there sin and die, then repent or turn from it and believe and live.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

All we have to do is get up and open the door.A choice many never make because they fear the choice. I've made my choice and you've made yours even though you won't admit it

Romanbear

 

Romanbear,

I believe to love other women as your wife would ultimately lead to lustful desire in the heart of man. But that is MO.

I also love God more than anything else in my life, this is why I trust HIM alone in HIS Sovereign Will and Purpose to save my family members.

You love God, of this there is no doubt, but you are repelled by the thought that God may not have chosen your loved ones. A pure love on our part would seek to have the mind of Christ which submits itself to God in all matters, especially HIS Righteousnessness and the dispensation of that in Salvation to the Praise of the Glory of HIS Grace.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Hi frogman;
Actually there is no Love where there is no freedom to choose to do it. Love is that which comes from the heart and is directed by the one loving. We can't be made to love, it's something we do by choice, willingly.

Actually I love you your wife and all men and women because they are all my neighbors. But the Love I have for my God is much more than the love I have for everything else. The Love I have for him is above all.
The Love God has for us is not a dictative Love, that we have to take weather we want it or not. We have a choice that He has given us, we can choose life or, death. We must choose who we follow. I've made my choice and I did it willingly. If you Love God I mean Really Love Him. Then you have to Love Him willingly.

We have to choose who we will follow.
Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

I Choose life don't you?

Romanbear

 

It's so good to hear people turn from their false doctrines
Here's mine, it's not too long or dramatic (i'm 18 now, i'm glad I was taught when I was)

As a young child, i was brought up with the notion of 'freewill' the typical Jesus knocking on the door of your heart. It's this poor teaching that so many that I know are blinded by.
When I was about 14, I was formally introduced to reformed theology. I began to read works by John Piper and RC Sproul. After being educated in this, I came to the realization that this is the truth. Before this, I would read much scripture and come across. "No one comes to me, unless the Father draws him" and "whom he wills reveal himself" and I would actually be overcome with dread. I did not like these verses. Of course I did not like these verse, they where man-friendly. But after, I am now reassured of a soveriegn God.

 

It seems many who crossed over to Calvinism came out of legalistic churches (Such as Church of Christ, some charismatics and fundamentalists, which were mentioned.) Just like Calvin and Luther came out of Catholicism. So that is one reason people see accepting this doctrine as coming out of "bondage". But it can lead to another even worse type of bondage, because Calvin and others also taught that you have to preform in order to "persevere to the end", and if you don't, you were not elect. God even gives people a partial faith to fool them, and then takes it away. What difference is this from the "bondage" you all speak of? In fact, it is worse, because Who can really know if they will be saved, since it is God who gives true election, as well as false assurance. You basically have to presume you are saved and bearing enough fruits. (But this is what every legalist does).
All this talk of starting out in "bondage" and reading the scripture one way, and then getting this new knowledge afterward sounds a bit esoteric and almost cult-like. And in a time when Calvinists are doing the most complaining about being misrepresented, they should stop saying a lot of these things that are being said here about non-Calvinists.

I think the problem is, people tried to speculate too much on the exact nature of the "eternal" aspect. This is where all the problems come up. Since we are only in time, we should focus on the timelike element of salvation like the clearer passages on salvation do.

 

That wouldn't happen to be what you are doing now, would it by chance? I often wondered this even before you posted this, because of the way you speak of Arminians, plus it is kind of surprising to see such good methods of argumentation coming from the non-Calvinist side. Like maybe you're trying to "test" fellow Calvinists to make their arguments stronger, or something? I don't seriously suspect that, but it was interesting you would mention that.

This sums up exactly what is going on. This is the type of thing Hank Hanegraaf warns about regarding our apathy and ignorance, and how it makes it easy for cults to capture many of us. So likewise within "orthodoxy" there are various factions and schools of thought, that take advantage of the situation to capture people (charismaticism is another example). All claim that it is some God-led end-time revival of truth, but not necessarily. There is to be wide deception in the end as well, and peopl need to be on guard.

 

Eric, if you are asking am I still a Calvinist pretending to be an Arminian the answer is no. But, like many on this board, I don't really think of my self as an Arminian either, I just see it as an easy label that means, "not a 5 pointer."

I would call myself "bible believer" that is seeking to understand it more everyday. Some days I'm more "Calvinistic" than others, depending on what passages I'm reading that day.

The reason my posts may come across in the manner than do is because I am sympathic to Calvinism, not that I pity them or anything, just that I understand them. I know how they think and where they are coming from because I used to be the one typing the exact same arguments they are, I just never had a "Brother Bill" to contend with when I was a Calvinist

Honestly, I'm not sure how I would have reacted to someone like me when I was a Calvinist. I don't think I would have listened to a "Brother Bill" in those days either. I would have fought him tooth and nail. I hate loosing debates and I would have done anything to win. I still have that fault today, as some of you can attest to I'm sure

So, yes I am seeking to "test" the Calvinists on this board and I believe those who are honestly and objectively willing to deal with my arguments will be tested. I am. When I was a Calvinist, I didn't know how to anwer my "Arminian" arguments; therefore I couldn't rightly call myself a Calvinist anymore. If I can find some satisfactory answers to my scriptural arguments I would reluctantly submit to Calvinism once again. Until that time, I will debate on the "Arminian" side.

 

If your questions are answered satisfactorily, then why reluctantly submit to them?

I'm sure as an Arminian you don't believe you reluctantly submitted to beleive in Christ. Nor when you beleived the truth of the Doctrines of Grace could you have said you reluctantly submitted.

The Bible teaches that God changes the will of man, then is man able to see the truth in the light of the Gospel. There is no reluctance to the regenerated heart. There is no violence done either.

God Bless.
bro. Dallas

 

Eric. I am a Calvinist, and I can categorically say that I am not in bondage because "I must perform". That is Weslyan Arminianism: Be up and be doing, no assurance without works. I am saved by faith in the atoning work of Christ. My performing comes from the love of God shed abroad in my heart, the Holy Spirit resident in me, for it is God that works in me both to do and will of his good pleasure. While fruits do help in gaining assurance that I am a real Christian, and not just an informed reprobate, yet my full assurance rests in Him, in his work on the cross, and as he stands sits on the right hand now.
That is Free Grace salvation as the Reformers declared it.
Others, like Wesley, denominated it antinomianism, but we go on thru good report and evil. Perhaps we could go on with the idea that WA teaches that there is no assurance whatsoever, because you do not know what you will believe tomorrow, and it is only your believing that keeps you saved.
But enough of caricatures. This was supposed to be a Calvinist only testimony thread.

 

Dallas, please understand that I speaking "tougue in cheek" because I've been searching for answers to these questions for a long time and I haven't been able to find any, I doubt I will.

But look back at some of the testimonies on this board many Calvinists testify to coming to these doctrines "reluctantly" or "kicking and screaming" to be more specific. Why? They are difficult to swallow. A truely objective Calvinist admits that. And for me to submit myself to a teaching that paints God into the light of Calvinism once again is going to have to be no less than a work of God and I'm sure I will be reluctant.

But, Dallas, its the scripture that going to convince me of what doctrine I submit to. I cannot submit to an inconsistant doctrine like Calvinism. I'm not saying parts of Arminianism isn't inconsistant too, which is why I don't like the term "Arminian." The fact is I'm not a "5 pointer" primarily because of the "T" in Tulip is not consistant nor is it supported by the scripture. I know many of you disagree but the truth is none of you can answer the questions that I have concerning hardening. Just about the time in the debate that we are getting to the meat of the text the Calvinists bail. (Please don't make me repost the examples, I don't want to offend them any more than I already have. And I will say that Scott has hung with me so far but still hasn't given me any real meat on his view of hardening, to his credit he did say that he was still studing up on the matter. As did you Dallas when you said you were studing up on the Israelites being provoked to envy. I respect that.)

 

Dallas, please understand that I speaking "tougue in cheek" because I've been searching for answers to these questions for a long time and I haven't been able to find any, I doubt I will.

But look back at some of the testimonies on this board many Calvinists testify to coming to these doctrines "reluctantly" or "kicking and screaming" to be more specific. Why? They are difficult to swallow. A truely objective Calvinist admits that. And for me to submit myself to a teaching that paints God into the light of Calvinism once again is going to have to be no less than a work of God and I'm sure I will be reluctant.

But, Dallas, its the scripture that going to convince me of what doctrine I submit to. I cannot submit to an inconsistant doctrine like Calvinism. I'm not saying parts of Arminianism isn't inconsistant too, which is why I don't like the term "Arminian." The fact is I'm not a "5 pointer" primarily because of the "T" in Tulip is not consistant nor is it supported by the scripture. I know many of you disagree but the truth is none of you can answer the questions that I have concerning hardening. Just about the time in the debate that we are getting to the meat of the text the Calvinists bail. (Please don't make me repost the examples, I don't want to offend them any more than I already have. And I will say that Scott has hung with me so far but still hasn't given me any real meat on his view of hardening, to his credit he did say that he was still studing up on the matter. As did you Dallas when you said you were studing up on the Israelites being provoked to envy. I respect that.) </font>[/QUOTE]I take the 'kicking' and 'screaming' as meaning the natural inclination to accept the doctrines taught in "Calvinism" is strong.

I agree and respect you for your words concerning the need of scripture to convince you, but sometimes you sound as one desiring to be accepted, even with doubtful disputations--to paraphrase.

I enjoy your presence here and admit you have raised some issues for my thought, but you have not shaken the foundation of scripture in my view.

I am still studying the issue of being "provoked" unto salvation. As everyone else I am so busy I have not been able to give the attention needed to the topic and I am sure you agree with me that I should not answer in haste nor deal lightly with the topic.

I enjoy discussion of the Scriptures and the doctrine found in them. Sometimes I may seem as a smart alleck (spelling???), I don't mean to be, if I did not enjoy these discussions there is not one here who has twisted my arm to prevent my leaving the board.

I have not had any formal "Bible" education, though I don't consider myself uneducated. I have a long experience in studying the word of God and this experience has episodes in it where men, but never God, discouraged me.

I respect anyone who knows what they believe and is willing to stand on that belief. What I don't respect is someone who will easily fold under every new teaching presented to them simply because the argument is: 1. from scripture, 2. logical, 3. and seems to have no flaws.

Scripture tells us Lucifer is wiser than Daniel. In this capacity he is much more wiser than I am. From what little I have read of Arminianism this system accepted the depravity of man. It is the free-will of man that is more incorrect, then, in my view, because it is a ploy by satan to deceive individuals into thinking they have a choice in the matter. Being born again is provided to show to us we have as much to do with this second birth as we had with our first.

In natural birth, as many, if not all of you know, is something that occurs because of conception. Then it follows the 'born again' is something that occurs because of conception, and thus it cannot be thwarted by the will of man, nor the wiles of the Devil.

Nor is this second birth something upon which we are able to enforce an untimely death. (or abortion).

In the end I agree that simply because a man is strong in what he believes and does not waiver is not enough to prove he is founded upon scripture. Nevertheless, we are not given the spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of God which gives us our liberty. If not for the eternal working of God I see men living a life seeking to please themselves and then perhaps accepting Christ at the end or near the end. I don't see this type of work in Scripture. Though I see men struggling against the sin nature and sometimes fallen prey to it, I do not see them successfully struggling against, nor changing the Will and purpose of God.



Bro. Dallas

 

But there are also four point Arminians who do not take the Wesleyan definition, and lately you have Calvinists in the SBC and elsewhere accusing them of "antinomianism", because not enough people have enough fruits. But it is dangerous to be judging others like that, because once again, it presumes you have anough fruits. As I had mentioned, there are clauses in the original Calvinist conception for false faith given by God, and if they have not really experienced the love of god shed abroad in their hearts, how would they really know they lack it? And if God didn't elect them there was nothing they could do anyway. So I think both sides can be in the same boat if they overemphasize works as proof of salvation.

 

Dallas, I respect you. I disagree with you theologically, but i respect you as a fellow believer. You are a good man who has the ability to be objective with the text and honest with us. How could I not respect that?

We all come across as "smart allecks" at time due to the nature of the board, but I know your heart is good and I trust you feel the same about me.

I look forward to hearing what you discover concerning "envy." And I appreciate you!

I just wanted to point out the difference between you and Rufus:

He wrote:

Rufus, recognizes that certain scriptures lead us to believe that we have a free choice to make but that other verses explain "the real truth" once we become saved.

You think that it's the devil that convinces people its their choice, but its not, its the scripture. Even Calvinists on this board have admitted that fact.

God Bless.

 

Tyndale;
Your right he was a freewiller and no where in scripture is it ever claimed that we lost it as a result of his sin.
Romanbear