You will have to come over to the
Posted on 09/07/2003 6:36:06 PM PDT by nobdysfool
The Christ of Arminianism
The Bible warns us that in the last days in which we live there will be many false Christs-those who claim to be Christ but who are imposters. Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many." (Matt. 24:4-5). We who profess to be Christians must take heed. We must be very careful that we are not deceived. Our calling is to trust, love, and follow the true Christ and Him only. We may have nothing to do with the false Christs who are so numerous in our day.
We know about the Christ of the cults and other religions. He is a good man, a prophet, the first creation of God, a great spirit, a divine idea, or even a god himself. But he is not true and eternal God. He receives his existence from another who is greater than he. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ.
We know about the Christ of Roman Catholicism. They profess that He is true God. He suffered and died for the forgiveness of sin. He arose again, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. But he is not a complete Savior. The Christ of the Roman Catholics can not save sinners without their own good works and the intercession of priests. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ.
There is, however, another false Christ who is much more dangerous than the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism. He has deceived people for many years and he continues to deceive millions. This Christ is so dangerous that, if it were not impossible, he would deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24). He is the Christ of Arminianism.
This false Christ is extremely dangerous because in many ways he appears to be the True Christ. They say that he is true God, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. They say that he died on the cross to save sinners. They even say that he saves by his grace alone, without the work of man. This Christ will have nothing to do with the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism.
But watch out! Be warned! The Christ of Arminianism is not the Christ of the Bible. Do not be fooled!
1. The Christ of Arminianism - loves every individual person in the world and sincerely desires their salvation.
The Christ of the Bible - earnestly loves and desires the salvation of only those whom God has unconditionally chosen to salvation. (Ps. 5:5, Ps. 7:11, Ps. 11:5, Matt. 11:27, John 17:9-10, Acts 2:47, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:10-13, Rom. 9:21-24, Eph. 1:3-4)
2. The Christ of Arminianism - offers salvation to every sinner and does all in his power to bring them to salvation. His offer and work are often frustrated, for many refuse to come.
The Christ of the Bible - effectually calls to Himself only the elect and sovereignly brings them to salvation. Not one of them will be lost. (Isa. 55:11, John 5:21, John 6:37-40, John 10:25-30, John 17:2, Phil. 2:13)
3. The Christ of Arminianism - can not regenerate and save a sinner who does not first choose Christ with his own "free will." All men have a "free will" by which they can either accept or reject Christ. That "free will" may not be violated by Christ.
The Christ of the Bible - sovereignly regenerates the elect sinner apart from his choice, for without regeneration the spiritually dead sinner can not choose Christ. Faith is not man's contribution to salvation but the gift of Christ which He sovereignly imparts in regeneration. (John 3:3, John 6:44 & 65, John 15:16, Acts 11:18, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:1,Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 1:29, Hebr. 12:2)
4. The Christ of Arminianism - died on the cross for every individual person and thereby made it possible for every person to be saved. His death, apart from the choice of man, was not able to actually save anyone for many for whom he died are lost.
The Christ of the Bible - died for only God's elect people and thereby actually obtained salvation for all those for whom He died. His death was a substitutionary satisfaction which actually took away the guilt of His chosen people. (Luke 19:10, John 10:14-15 & 26, Acts 20:28, Rom. 5:10, Eph. 5:25, Hebr. 9:12, I Peter 3:18)
5. The Christ of Arminianism - loses many whom he has "saved" because they do not continue in faith. Even if he does give them "eternal security," as some say, that security is not based upon his will or work but the choice which the sinner made when he accepted Christ.
The Christ of the Bible - preserves His chosen people so that they can not lose their salvation but persevere in the faith to the very end. He preserves them by the sovereign electing will of God, the power of His death, and the mighty working of His Spirit. (John 5:24, John 10:26-29, Rom. 8:29-30, Rom. 8:35-39, I Peter 1:2-5, Jude 24-25)
As you can see, although the Christ of Arminianism and the Christ of the Bible may at first seem to be the same, they are very different. One is a false Christ. The other is the true Christ. One is weak and helpless. He bows before the sovereign "free will" of man. The other is the reigning Lord Who wills what He pleases and sovereignly accomplishes all that He wills.
If you believe and serve the Christ of Arminianism, you must recognize the fact that you do not serve the Christ of the Bible. You have been deceived! Study the Scriptures and learn of the True Christ. Pray for grace to repent and trust Christ as your sovereign
I understand that the Anglicans how helped found this country were Calvinistic (and a few were Free Masons, but we don't need to go there). The British first occupied South Africa in the late 1700s.
I'm not arguing that the Anglicans did or didn't abandon earlier beliefs. But I'm looking for the history of when that happened. Did it happen gradually in each of the different Anglican Churches (i.e. Church of England, American Episcopal, etc.)? Or did it happen in Anglicanism worldwide at the same time?
If you can answer without the snide commentary, fine. If not, please let someone else answer.
If there is a doctrine that is unique to a denomination than can a member church just change it and still call themselves whatever.?
The years that I attended tie AOG I never believed that tongues marked salvation or the baptism .but I was not a Pastor:>)
Corine in basic Christian doctrine we agree..we say Amen to the same creeds..( Of course we differ on the soteriology...that is about the main difference in the Arminian/calvinist stands.)
On tongues ..it would be easy enough to find out the requirements for ordination.
In all the years that I attend the AOG (15) I never saw or heard the pastors pray or sing in tongues (nor display any of the gifts publicly) . As you well know the AOG 's tend to be middle to upper middle class..the services are orderly and restrained. I suspect it is a considered decision for them not to pray in tongues publicly . I would be very surprised if Tongues were not required for ordination.(As I mentioned in the Nazarene Church you had to have a testimony of your salvation and of Sanctification (Baptism in the Holy Spirit) in your packet. With out them there could be no ordination
I can not believe that would not also be true of the AOG
It might be interesting for you to ask a pastor.BTW I am not sure but I think we had gotten off on a tangent..does the AOG require tongues as a mark of salvation or Baptism in the Holy Spirit ?? I am thinking it is that later..but I would not agree with that either , because it would imply that 80 or 90% of the christian church is deficient in the indwelling Holy Spirit
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ROFLMAO!
And your opinion is important because you are a leader in the AOG?
You will have to come over to the
I would say no, and I think (hopefully) I explained where my church is no that.
No, tongues are not a requirement for salvation. From the website you posted. ;-)
Receiving eternal life does not depend on being baptized in the Holy Spirit; for salvation is by grace through faith alone (Habakkuk 2:4; John 6:28, 29; Galatians 3:6; 5:6; Ephesians 2:8). It is a gift purchased for us by Christ when He was crucified. All we have to do is accept the gift. Just as the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus was assured of entering paradise that very day we too are assured a place in heaven with the Father if we believe in Jesus Christ. It is most unfortunate that some have said, "Unless you have spoken in tongues you will not go to heaven." This is not true. It is contrary to the Scriptures.
Interesting site. I think if you choose to read further, you will find what I have said about our congregation is consistent with the overall teaching of the AOG.
No but he is denying the position of the AOG . The AOG states clearly what they DEMAND on their site. No matter what Pastor zxins or I say is totally unimportant. It is what they say that is the standard for their church
"You aren't an AOG leader so you don't know what you're talking about. Here, let me tell you what they believe."
It was context. It was a moment.
That is what I thought..there are some Pentecostal churches that demand that evidence..but I thought it was for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Like the Wesleyans they consider it a second act.
I thought when you said you were "weird " and different...I questioned that because from what I have seen the AOG s might have a "different flavor " to them , but underneath they are the same doctrinally (And i think initially you said that was not true of your church because the pastors took a different position???) They must adhered to the basic tenets . If I remember correctly one of the district leaders visits every year for just that reason
Ask your Pastor if baptism in the Holy Spirit is a requirement for ordination ..
BTW Your church is very much like the one I attended . They were not "pushy" on sermons on the gifts etc. The sermons were quite mainstream teaching. No one was doing the "toronto blessing" thing , or rolling in the aisle:>) Other than a couple of minutes of praise where some folks did sing in tongues or raised their hands during worship or an occasional "prophecy " It was quite an ordinary Protestant service . It had a huge reach into the community (in fact it owns a local christian TV broadcasting company) . I do think that your church and the one I attended could be called fairly conservative (that was why I was surprised that my son rolled out of there a Charismatic at age 16, I never expected it because it was so mainstream )
As a PS I will say that church has moved in a direction that would make me uncomfortable then and now..they have really gotten into the faith movement .
Yeah, that would fit. Our district superintendent (I'm not sure of his actual title) is the founding pastor of our church. His son is one of our current pastors.
Back!
Back!
Whoops, wrong cross.....here:
The Charismatic churches and the Wesleyan churches came from the same tree in a way. Both believe that one does not receive all the Holy Spirit at salvation , so they believe in a "second act " of the Holy Ghost .
You know that charismatic churches see the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as one that prepares you for service or ministry (spiritual gifts). Wesleyans see it more as a change in heart. They refer to the "second blessing "as Total sanctification ". They believe that If you are totally sanctified by a Baptism of the Holy Spirit you no longer sin. But just as they believe that you can loose your salvation they also believe you can loose the sanctification.
The term "carnal Christian " is too broad by her definition I think. She is saying anyone that sins is carnal ..well we would have to put Paul into that group wouldn't we? :>).
one needs it does not seem biblical to me to divide christians into seperate camps, but seems it would rather give some a feeling of being elite, above others. any help would be great:)
Yes Paul does address Carnal Christians and he even makes a reference to himself as one.
What follows is my opinion only is my opinion only .
I believe in progressive sanctification (the position of most non Weselyans )
When we are born again we are babes learning to walk. As we read the word and pray we submit more and more of our lives to God we will be more and more conformed to the image of Christ , But "total sanctification" will not be complete until we go to be with God.
I believe that if there is no progression or growth in holiness we do need to ask if the person is saved, because we should be reflecting Christ
Weselyans are "holiness " people . They have many rules on holiness , like no smoking, no drinking , no gambling, no movies and in some areas no jewelry or make up. As you can see there is little room for any Christian liberty . I do not believe you can force holiness on anyone ,Christ has set the captives free...
I do believe that Holy Spirit works in our lives to convict us of sin and lead us to Christ . It is His work not ours, and it is progressive , He works where we need him to .
As for this dividing the body , I do not know. The Nazarene church I attended (A wesleyan denomination ) was full of very kind people . Most were not considered "Totally Sanctified" and actually had no clear understanding of the concept , so there was no division in that church. I would ask your friend two things. 1) What did she do to became totally sanctified? (I am guessing she will say she prayed for it).Ask her if it ever occurs spontaneously when people do not even know the doctrine.Can non Wesleyans be totally sanctified and not even know it?? (That would point up it is not an "elite" experience)
2) Then ask her how that affects the eternity of the saved?
Now, if you think that "tongues evidence" is a scriptural doctrine, then go believe it.
If you think it isn't, then ask yourself what a group within a denomination does that comes to realize they've been wrong about a biblical doctrine.
Anyone who GROWS is not being liberal....they're do what the Holy Spirit has led them to do.
My final comment on this subject. Say what you want. As O'Reilly says, "You can have the last word."
(Sigh)... we don't.
I forgot to mention -- Switzerland also has tight immigration laws and well-secured borders.
(go figure)
Do you think he was born an Arminian? They would not give him a pulpit to preach in ..so there were obviously doctrinal issues ..His mother came from a Puritan family with Puritan relatives
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.