Posted on 01/12/2005 2:05:23 PM PST by xzins
What "spirit" is it that is evident? That of opposition?
Ich bein eine Calvinist!
This also is false. The Synod of Dordt adopted an INFRAlapsarian position.
Although it was Arminius who had called for an open forum, there were 130 Calvinists present and 13 Remonstrants who were prisoners of the state and were given no vote.
Again, false. They were not prisoners of the state. They were not given a "vote" because they were not delegates.
Here Wesley says Arminian(s) (and he himself) believes in conditional predestination to which the logical question is "Conditional on what?". The answer is conditional on the will of man. So, he believes that Salvation is conditional on the will of man. Therefore he must deny the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 10:27/29 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." For Wesley must deny that the Fathers (Gods) power here.
Wesley explained that Calvinists hold that God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity to save the elect and no others. Christ died for these and none else. Arminians, on the other hand, hold that God has decreed, from all eternity, "He that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned." In order to make this possible, "Christ died for all."
Again, this error proceeds from the first. Since according to Wesley, salvation is conditional on man's actions, he proports therefore that Christ therefore must have died for all. Thus he again would deny Christ's definition of sheep. John 10:3,4 "To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. "When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.". And John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."
Christ layed His life down for His sheep and the definition of sheep is that they will hear Him and follow Him only. Wesley, logically must argue that Christ's definition of sheep is incorrect because of his definition of 'all' includes those who can't listen or follow him (unbelieving mankind).
It is nice to feel that Christ died for everybody, but it does not run true to the rest of scripture. For those who Christ died for, He also gives Eternal life. Thus giving a loophole for unbelievers to say, Christ died for 'ALL' therefore I don't have to worry about Eternal life. And that would be no small loophole.
Wesley said the last two points are the natural consequence of the third. Calvinists hold that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it than to resist the stroke of lightning. But if predestination is conditional, then grace is not irresistible.
Conversely: If predestination is not conditional (and it isn't - Salvation is a free gift), then grace Is irresistible (it is!). God's power to raise the dead, regenerate the mind and woo the believer is greater than we can comprehend. The Armenian must deny that God was doing anything in the believers life before he comes to salvation, since that would be unfair of God to give advantage to anyone. The Calvinist says that God has elected those he has chosen before the foundation of the world and with His power He can do whatever he wishes (whether man thinks it is fair or not).
Finally, Calvinists hold that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. Arminians hold, however, that a true believer may make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Not only may he fall into gross sin, but he may fall so as to perish forever.
Again, making salvation conditional on the works of man (going back to the first error). The scriptures happily negates this possibility since the Lord Jesus Christ said "and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.".
I too used to believe in conditional salvation and that one can loose ones salvation. It felt good in the flesh and felt right. But through memorization of these scriptures, faith came and I see that God has done all things necessary for salvation including giving me the words in my mouth to profess belief. He did this by His irresistible powerful Grace. This is what the scripture says.
And I know "He who began an good work in me, will complete it to the day of Christ Jesus". Thus I have no doubt of my salvation, because it is not conditional on me, Praise the Lord, but on my Living Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ!
Doc, they are not interested in the truth, they just want to confuse and mock
They can not face the issue straight on because scripture does not support them
6. Lastly. Of all the difficulties and controversies which have arisen in these our Churches since the time of the Reformation, there is none that has not had its origin in this doctrine, or that has not, at least, been mixed with it. What I have here said will be found true, if we bring to our recollection the controversies which existed at Leyden in the affair of Koolhaes, at Gouda in that of Herman Herberts, at Horn with respect to Cornelius Wiggerston, and at Mendenblich in the affair of Tako Sybrants. This consideration was not among the last of those motives which induced me to give my most diligent attention to this head of doctrine, and endeavour to prevent our Churches from suffering any detriment from it; because, from it, the Papists have derived much of their increase. While all pious teachers ought most heartily to desire the destruction of Popery, as they would that of the kingdom of Antichrist, they ought with the greatest zeal, to engage in the attempt, and as far as it is within their power, to make the most efficient preparations for its overthrow.
He was paid by the Jesuits. The Reformation was cataclysmic. Do you imagine Rome, the strongest force on earth at the time, would sit by and not try to subvert the changes taking place?
Do you imagine Alinksy was the first to think up how to disrupt and destroy one's opponents?
The Reformation came down to this -- either God saves the elect from before the foundation of the world, according to His own good pleasure and nothing within fallen man himself (Augustinian/Pauline/monergistic) OR God saves in concert with man (synergistic) thus allowing man, men and churches some/all control in God's ordination of the elect. Period.
Choose ye this day.
Boy that sounds like it was written by Alexander Hislop.
And yet Arminius is often accused on these threads of actually collaborating with the pope.
Did Calvin ever write anything so blatantly anti-Romanist?
pure unadulterated conspiracy theory, drE.
The guy compares "the popery" with the antichrist. He's in a Calvinist pulpit and teaching in a Calvinist University in Leyden right near the historic time when Orange had been assassinated and The Spanish King had murdered thousands of Protestants in the name of Rome.
Your conspiracy theorists have lost their marbles.
pure unadulterated conspiracy theory, drE.
The guy compares "the popery" with the antichrist. He's in a Calvinist pulpit and teaching in a Calvinist University in Leyden right near the historic time when Orange had been assassinated and The Spanish King had murdered thousands of Protestants in the name of Rome.
Your conspiracy theorists have lost their marbles.
Calling Art Bell.
BTW, Calvin was on the payroll of Rome when he was writing his Institutes. Should we infer the Calvin was paid by the Catholic Church to promulgate a false doctrine to weed out all the tares within the Roman Church?
There are those who change the wine but keep the bottle.
One simply has to look at the past 500 years to see the success of the latter's efforts.
And yet the new wine in a new bottle will triumph. We have that promise.
"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." -- Luke 5:37-39.
It's not.
And just what are you implying by that statement?
2. Dr. Eckleburg is a character in F.Scott Fitzgerald's "Great Gatsby." -- Fitzgerald was an apostate alcoholic.
3. (F. Scott Fitzgerald) was born and reared a Catholic, and he had a cousin, Thomas Delihunt, who was a Jesuit priest and whom, in 1924, the fully apostate Fitzgerald would still list beside Theodore Roosevelt and Garibaldi as one of his heroes.
4. I see a Jesuit connection, Dr.Eckleburg!!
LOL. I just love it when you talk lawyerly.
I agree with this Catholic on that important point.
But in order to understand this, one must read history a little deeper than the book jacket. Far be it from me, however, to turn you eyes away from the shiny objects of current delight.
And I love it when you talk doctorly. So why don't you just answser the question?
Just what were you implying by that statement?
I sure didn't think that comment of mine was so cryptic that it demanded an explanation.
Calvin's "fruit" is a greater understanding and clear defense of God's monergistic ordination of the elect from before the foundation of the world, determined according to His will alone, and by nothing within fallen man; a logical and righteous restatement of the Scriptural truths of Jesus and Paul and Mark and Augustine.
Arminius/Harmensen's "fruit" is the road back to Rome, i.e. salvation by the work of human effort towards belief.
But it's either/or.
Either God alone transforms man's corrupted heart; or man elicits goodness within himself to change his weakened heart.
Either God gives His grace unconditionally; or man makes the decision to accept God's grace.
Either God ordains according to His own good counsel alone, or history is fluid and open-ended, and ultimately dependent upon men's choices.
Either God has numbered every hair on our heads and is responsible for every leaf that falls, or He's just watching the parade passing by, stopping in for an occasional nip and nudge, rewriting the final act as He goes along, watching the players every move and adjusting the dialogue accordingly.
You know something, there are people who think actors make up the words as they go along. Really.
But it's either/or.
By our fruits are we known.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.