The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

But you're wrong and I'm convinced of it.... I guess the OP is right. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Splendid! Amen :godisgood:

 

I just think it's sad that a separation would be the only workable solution.

 

And, you see, with a mindset such as T exhibited in that post, conversation is rendered pointless.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Yes, but if it is other brethren in Christ whose teachings do not strike at the root of Christianity who are being considered wolves, I think this is sad.

 

Look, when I returned to this forum a while back after a lengthy absence, I almost immediately got into it with several of the more "fundamental" posters and also the "calvinistic" ones. However, after much and protracted rancor, I have made peace with some of them, and now I consider EWF and Icon good friends, although we probably disagree as much as ever. If this can happen on a forum, why not in a church?

 

I concur! Now if I could just live up to those standards..... :)

 

That goes both ways... I also notice that the 'losing' party tends to ignore posts all together. (ref to posts #140 and 141)

 

Your post that was referenced was the insult. And the more you post, the more you prove the other side right.

And the post you just made makes you guilty of what you are erroneously charging others with.

Is that substantive enough for you?

It is not possible nor do I care to try to have a reasonable discussion with someone who could post with the arrogance and self-righteousness that you exhibited in that one post which has been referenced here several times.

And in case you need a reminder, here is that post which is the height of self-righteousness, and falsehood: "It is really said that Particular Baptists, in all humility, give all the honor and Glory to God, while the General Baptists, in sinful human pride, try to appropriate some of that honor and glory for themselves."

 

I am not saying that individuals who disagree cannot co-exist peacefully within a local church. It happens all the time. I said before that in my church we have no problem allowing Arminians to join, but they must understand that we reject Arminianism and actively teach against it when the subject is addressed in scripture. We will not tolerate advocacy of a false teaching. Because of that most Arminians that have visited our church decide not to attend or join. No one is trying to bend their arm to make them believe what we believe. I do not think this is unique to our church. Most Baptist churches operate this way. That is why Baptist churches come in every size, stripe, and flavor imaginable. Reformed Baptists, G.A.R.B., Primitive Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Landmark Baptists, I.F.B. Baptists, Free Will Baptists...need I go on? They all exist because of doctrinal disagreements. I may get along fine with the pastor of a G.A.R.B. church, but our doctrinal differences cause us to be separate in worship and ministry. That is a reality that will only be reconciled when Christ returns for His bride.

 

Well, how else should it work? If I and my fellow elders are convinced that a certain teaching is in error, we are not going to allow it to be taught in our church. Period. In fact we will oppose it and eradicate it. People being who they are, they will most likely either not align themselves with us or they will leave. How is that wrong?

 

As I have pointed out, that is not the case everywhere. It is said that Baptists multiply by dividing. I used to think that was funny; I am increasingly thinking it is sad.

 

And his bride is Sybil! :laugh: Sorry could not resist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Clear cut & straight away....I LIKE IT! You want to start a church in NW New Jersey?

 

I guess it is not wrong for you and those who believe as you do.

Now that was not a jab at you.

In the CAC, we would not accept any and every belief. We would not accept those beliefs which deny the faith, but as for everything else, we do as Wesley said: "We think and let think."

 

I think I took great in care in my post to differentiate between error and serious error. Our church considers Arminianism to be serous error because it presents man as cooperating with God in salvation. This is our view. But I am referring here to someone who is teaching this doctrine. If a member of our church is sympathetic to Arminianism, but keeps it to himself, then there is no harm, no foul. As I said previously, we are not called to patrol hearts. We do allow liberty in non-salvific areas. Eschatology is one them. Amil vs. Premil; both views are held among our members and elders. Young earth or old earth; we have members who hold to both of these views. That is fine. But when it comes to the Gospel; well, there can be quarter given.

 

Again, "Thinking" is not "Knowing"