Replies

Arminians never grasp this one thing: if their views are correct in that God leaves it up to us as to who would be saved, then it would follow that obviously man is not dead in his sin after the Fall.

Good point. This article downplays the issue of predestinaton in the Reformation. However, Rome's rejection of sola fide is intertwined with predestination. These doctrines all interlock and define the differences between the classic Arminians and Calvinists and the church of Rome. Luther was well-known for his predestinarian views which he came by honestly from Augustine. Luther was, after all, an Augustinian monk.

An interesting side note here for the various Wesleyans (Methodists, Nazarenes, etc.) is that despite his rather vehement rejection of Calvinist teaching, Wesley upheld the central tenet of the Reformation: justification by faith. In this sense, orthodox Wesleyans are not Arminian, a distinctive that should be noted. In this sense and on this central issue, Wesley did stand firmly with the great Reformers. I never realized some of these more subtle doctrinal distinctives until some ~~vicious arguments~~ passionate theological discussion threads here at FR.

After all these centuries, it is interesting to see how Calvinism and justification by faith alone is still the central theological dispute among Christian churches.

Some good posts here, winston. Haven't we made a Calvinist out of you yet? Heh-heh.

An interesting side note here for the various Wesleyans (Methodists, Nazarenes, etc.) is that despite his rather vehement rejection of Calvinist teaching, Wesley upheld the central tenet of the Reformation: justification by faith. In this sense, orthodox Wesleyans are not Arminian, a distinctive that should be noted. In this sense and on this central issue, Wesley did stand firmly with the great Reformers. I never realized some of these more subtle doctrinal distinctives until some vicious arguments passionate theological discussion threads here at FR.

After all these centuries, it is interesting to see how Calvinism and justification by faith alone is still the central theological dispute among Christian churches.

You are soooooooo sutble LOL...indeed Wesley did agree with Calvin on may points..justification by faith..total depravity,what he called the "quicking" ( in reformend circles regeneration).he taught Salvation was fully of God,and the infallibility of Scripture..mostly that Salvation was fully of God

I recently quoted Wesley to make a very Calvinist point on a Wesleyan form and I was quickly told that Weslsy was often "Calvinist",and thus I was dismissecd and the thread was pulled LOL

After much study I have come to think the difference between Wesley and Whitefield was not all that great..Wesley with his measure of grace..and quicking.....and Whitefield with election and regeneration.....it was the method of Gods action that differed..

Wesley upheld the central tenet of the Reformation: justification by faith.

Duh. Wesley (and other non-Calvinist evangelicals) never have had any hesitation with 'justification by faith'. Their problem has always been with the Calvinist construct which purports to limit 'justification by faith' to the Calvinists -- and, by the way, to preclude it for the vast majority of mankind.

Just so lurkers here might have one simple explanation of what all this Calvinist recrimination is directed upon, here it is. Evangelical Christians believe that sin afflicts every man, but that God sent His Son, Jesus, as a remedy. Not a remedy for some who belong to some single human organization or to some few selected before the foundation of the world, but to all who will believe on His Son. This is THE central point: Christ died for all.

In doing this, He (God) made sure that He gave each man just a sufficient amount of grace (theologians call it 'pre-venient grace', i.e. 'going-before' grace) so that each man would have no excuse for not accepting His Son.

Thus, no man can blame his eternal fate on his surroundings, his parentage, his 'tough breaks' in life or (unless he is a Calvinist) God.

This doesn't mean that the man who accepts Christ has 'earned' his salvation, for his decision of the will adds no 'weight' to eternal balance scales whatsoever. That was all done by God in the death of His Son.

But it does mean that no man has an excuse. None of this "I must have been one of those damned from the foundation of the world. I just never got a break." That bitter pill of Calvinism is wrong and an invention of a man (a very intelligent and well-meaning 16th century man, but a man nonetheless).

Every man has this choice -- and will be held accountable -- for it. Choose Christ and live or refuse Him and die. Is that an important decision? None bigger.

This is 'justification by faith'. It is the "faith" of the believer that triggers God's provision of His 'justification'. And it is His Will -- He predestined it -- that all who will believe in His Son shall not perish but shall have eternal life.

Now, the Calvinist's little intellectual construct takes that away and says that God decided before the foundation of the world that a certain few would be saved (they call them "the elect") and everyone else was damned ("the reprobates"). No choice, no decision, no faith (except rote 'faith' -- see below). Oh, (they say) it may look like people are being given a choice and it may look like they are deciding for Christ, but that is all play-acting, not reality. In reality it was all decided before the foundation of the world and those seated comfortably in Calvinist churches were the winners of the eternal lottery. What we see is just people going through motions over which they do not have (and have never had) any control at all. It is just actors reading pre-scripted lines which they can't change.

Oh, did you have a baby or young child who died or a retarded son or daughter who died? Too bad, his or her chances were also determined in the eternal lottery and, while it is possible that they were among the small group of winners, the odds are definitely against them. Hell fire awaits.

All of this perversity in the Calvinist construct is 'necessary' (according to its proponents) so as to insure God's 'sovereignty'. See, if He had to wait for puny little men to decide whether to accept Christ or not, He wouldn't be sufficiently 'sovereign' (in the view of the construct's proponents).

Over this nifty little intellectual theory, wars have been fought and churches divided and -- worst of all -- non-believers misled to believe that Christ died for some not all.

Why has it persisted? Because it is, in some ways, a 'comfortable' faith. No wrestling with a sin nature yourself, and no concern with the fate of those unbelievers around you. They either won or lost the eternal lottery before the foundation of the world, so whatever happens, happens. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Oh, and best of all, if you know the secret mysteries of the construct, you are probably a lottery winner. After all God wouldn't waste the knowledge of His secret construct on a 'reprobate' now would He?

It is intellectually satisfying for some. Even reassuring for some. But, the construct is not the Gospel. Here's the Gospel in a few words, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."