Lets Purge the Heresy

Your sarcasm is no help to anyone.

 

Where did you get the idea that doctrinal uniformity would create a "pure church" or that God would be pleased by doctrinal uniformity?

 

It may not, but the duplicity of most people in praising men like he mentioned and yet calling calvinism heresy is very inconsistent.

I might add Charles Spurgeon to that list.
As well as Jonathan Edwards.....how about a little more modern like D. James Kennedy.

 

The principle

This principle in refering to calvinism and non-calvinism!

In principle: why should both groups fight?

If GOD hasd saved Anyone from eithier group, then they are saved!

If I am a calvinist then by your post, Am I lost?

 

I believe J.D. is a calvinist and just pointing out inconsistency. Basically they say that modern calvinists are heretics but they revere historical calvinists as great men.

 

What exactly does a thread like this accomplish? Who really cares who is or isn't a calvinist. I know I don't.

 

I'm sure its been said, but I know I have not heard someone say that calvinism is heresy. I do not agree with every point of calvinism, but I do not consider it heretical. I have known five-point Armenianists that would not make that claim.

I think we can have a difference of opinion, without resorting to such charges.

I am preaching over Eph 5:29 this week, and it has really made me consider wether our sarcasm, name calling, and everything else ugly we (yes we...I'm among the worst) do here in the name of debate is worthy of our calling.

 

I agree Webdog. This thread is not edifying in the least. This subject has been beat to death, this is just a new angle. I believe in sovereign grace, enjoy all the hymns listed above, and see no point to this thread.

 

i dislike sarcasim, but at times it does prove a point.

 

Yes of course. There can only be two viable standards. Calvin and Arminius. I have not seen one post that reflects Arminius.

 

Here's another. Albert Mohler. Bio from his site: "Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world."

Oh, and I would have to say I've never seen a single Arminian post on this board, either. I would say most of the people who favor election/predestination fall in the category of calvinism, but none of those who disagree with calvinism go anywhere near arminianism. That's why I call them free-willers instead of arminians.

 

I define Arminian as one who believes that they can lose thier salvation. I do not define Arminian as one who believe in free will, because there are alot of people that believe in free-will, but still hold to the doctrine that we can't lose our salvation....And the term free-willers is a better term to call them then A.rminian (implies that they believe in the false doctrine of lose of salvation).

:godisgood:

 

That's a new one to me. Here are the last 3 articles of the Remonstrance, which are generally used to describe Arminianism, just as TULIP is generally used to describe Calvinism. (Taken from Wikipedia):

The 3rd article describes total depravity, and does not reflect the opinions of any non-calvinist on this board as far as I know. Free-willers are welcome to correct me on this.

Article III — 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 and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having 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 xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

I think the intent of the 4th article is to say that even if God grants grace to a totally depraved man, that man can still resist salvation. I don't think it addresses losing salvation.

Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative 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, as 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 vii, and elsewhere in many places.

The 5th article carefully avoids the issue of losing one's salvation and pretty much just says "whatever the Bible says must be true, but we're not going to commit to one answer or another".

Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a 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 x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings 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 Scriptures before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds.