Well, the short answer is that in the church to which I belong both have for many years. Some in the church, if labelled, would be ‘moderate Calvinists’ and others ‘moderate Arminians’. I suspect both are ‘moderate’ because the influence of the other has protected from extremes. This does not mean there are no discussions and exploring of differences, there are, sometimes ‘ardently’. But we have never lost respect for each other and differences have never surfaced in any aggravated way publicly. We disagree, agreeably. Why is this?
I think a number of factors contribute to the Spirit enabling unity in the face of potentially divisive issues of faith.
recognising that unity of the faith is a goal and not a given in any church
A church is a body of believers who are united in the Spirit by belief in a common gospel. Paul calls all believers to be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1). Unity of life in the Spirit is the basis of all fellowship among God’s people. It is the starting point. Believers may be immature and muddle-headed about many things but through belief of the gospel they are one in Christ. From this starting point a goal lies ahead – what Paul calls, ‘the unity of the faith’ (Eph 4:13). This is an unity we are to ‘maintain’ (as with the Spirit) but a unity we should seek to ‘attain’ or ‘reach’ (4:13); the unity of life in the Spirit from which we start has as its goal a maturing in the ‘unity of the faith’ and as Paul says,
Eph 4:13-16 (ESV)
… of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
In other words, church allows for growth in understanding, wisdom and holiness. It doesn’t insist we display this maturity right away. It doesn’t demand we all think the same from the word go. It doesn’t require signing up to a full blown theology as a basis for membership. It allows that it may take many years, in fact, a lifetime, for the kind of maturing that is its goal. One reason I am uncomfortable with Confessions of Faith is that they seem to demand ‘unity of faith’ as a starting point rather than an end point; a body of divinity to which one may hope new believers eventually arrive becomes a binding force on their conscience from the beginning. This allows little room for growth and development. One must accept the whole system fairly early on or be out in the cold. Worse, inevitably a confession, every confession, any confession, even a good confession, is narrower and more circumscribed than Scripture. Its very purpose is to remove ambiguities, delimit and proscribe.
Thus, it is difficult if not impossible for a believer whose understanding is of an Arminian bent to accept the authority of a Calvinistic confession, and vice versa, though both will happily accept the authority of Scripture. Believers, united by the same Spirit, members of the same body, find it impossible to share church fellowship because confessions insist on beliefs in certain areas that belong at best to a mature ‘unity of faith’ and even then involve tensions. We should, in my view, trust the Holy Spirit through the teaching of the Word to guide the church into spiritual maturity in belief and behaviour. After all, if the Lord does not build the house, then who can?
loathing stereotypical labels
I hate labels. Labels divide. Labels segregate. Labels are all too often partisan and destructive. Their purpose is generally to vilify or glorify and rarely to enlighten. In fact they cannot enlighten. They are inevitably caricatures. They take rounded people and make of them flat and wooden images. Labels do not define people, they diminish them and distort them. And people’s views, if guided by Scripture, do not neatly fit into pre-packaged theologies, for the truth of Scripture is inevitably bigger than our systems and labels. Labels impose and imply a theology, and even if it is a generally good theology it is inevitably a theology that demands more sophistication than is the basis for gospel unity in the Spirit. Labels mean a theology that leaves other believers out in the cold; they create fences not fellowship.
The more we resist taking and giving labels then the easier it will be for ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Arminian’ to live together as fellow members of the body of Christ.
displaying some theological grace
Now I am aware in our postmodern age ‘theological grace’ can be abused. Some want certainty where the Bible is silent and uncertainty where it clearly speaks. I do not support this. There are many areas where we must be firm and say ‘thus says the Lord’. I am not by any means advocating a trampoline theology that can bounce in every direction that we please. There is a faith ‘once and for all delivered to the saints’. Having said this we must remember the firm words of Paul,
1Cor 8:2-3 (ESV)
If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
We should all remember that our knowledge is limited. And nowhere more so than before the inscrutability of God’s sovereignty working in and through the history of the world. At the end of the day, each view must confess there are mysteries in this topic that none can answer. This is because we are humans and not divine, men and not God. It is our privilege to go as far as God reveals and no further. We must leave some issues with God. We must, in the final analysis, allow God to be God and simply trust where understanding is withheld (Roms 9:19-22; Job 38-42). Humility about our understanding, especially here, is all too appropriate.
We should remember too that while knowledge is important, it is not all-important. In fact, knowledge is not the truest criterion of Christian maturity of relationship with God, love is. Knowledge that does not act in love simply ‘puffs up’ and is conceited. Love is never conceited. The knowledge that is mingled with love will not insist on its way. It will not expect others to understand things exactly as we do, to cross our particular ‘t’s and dot our ‘i’s. Love will bear with slow apprehension, even the misapprehension, of others. It will welcome those that Christ has welcomed but not for the sake of an argument. It will not despise the other who holds some of the recognised tensions of Scripture differently. It will not judge, but leave all judgement to the Lord. It will not seek to quarrel and debate over matters that are not clear-cut and not of the essence of the gospel (Roms 14). It will not force its will and opinion but wait upon the Lord. Truth exists to promote love not destroy it and where truth is used to bash believers we must ask whether what we are pressing is truth and certainly whether it is ‘spoken in love’.
speaking with grace and seasoned with salt
Much aggro can be avoided just by a little grace in how we say things. Too many who wave a flag for one or other of these positions (Calvinist or Arminian) insist in force feeding them on others. They use confrontationary and extreme terms to make their point. They push debate to philosophical and logical conclusions that stretch Scripture and sometimes go beyond it. They leave their opponent (that brother for whom Christ died) with no wriggle room for individual conscience. We must distinguish between persuasion and coercion, between verbal appeal and verbal brow-beating. We should work at presenting our views in ways that are honest but as palatable as possible. We should judge how able our audience is to ‘hear’ and ‘receive’ what we wish to say. We should aim to give as little offence as possible without compromising truth. Belligerent and bellicose Arminians and Calvinists do not defend truth they betray it.
listening with love
Do we listen with love and forbearance? Do we make allowances for infelicities of language? Do we make allowances for different presuppositions? When my Calvinist/Arminian brother expresses a prayer in a way that doesn’t quite gel with my theology do I make allowances and simply mentally transpose where necessary? Do I focus on the 95% that we share in common and refuse to get out of perspective the 5% on which we differ? Christian love and forbearance can cover a multitude of sins. The reality is, when we do listen respectfully to each other and avoid unnecessary abrasion then we even begin to move towards each other. Love and respect win over those who differ from us, often much more effectively than the force of argument.
recognising scripture’s differing perspectives
A great deal of the heat is taken out of the controversy when we recognise that Scripture works with two perspectives that need to be held in tandem and tension. Some NT writers focus on God and his grace while others focus on man and his faith. Now these are never presented in opposition. Nor is one ever stressed to the exclusion of the other, however, in any one book, one position is normally principal and the other subordinate. For example, in a books like Romans and Ephesians, God’s grace and initiative in salvation is primary while faith though important is secondary. In other books, such as Hebrews and the Catholic epistles, the imperative of faith is primary and the grace of God is subordinate.
The issue is not the relative importance of each. Nor is the issue (as some suggest) that some NT writers have Calvinistic leanings and others Arminian. What is written, is written by the Spirit of God and is unified truth. It has dimensions and perspectives but no contradictions. No, the differing perspective or emphasis is due not to different theologies but to different pastoral concerns. The pastoral purpose determines the theological perspective. If, as in Romans, the pastoral purpose is the proclamation that God’s promised salvation has broken into the world uniting Jew and gentile in Christ then the emphasis will be on God’s initiative in grace. Faith will be there and vital, but it will be subordinate to God’s activity in grace. If, however, the pastoral issue is a potential failure in faith then the stress will be on the human need to persevere in faith drawing from all the grace of God in the gospel to do so. In each case, to repeat, the pastoral problem determines the theological perspective.
It is always thus in Scripture. Where the issue is the trustworthiness of God then God and his grace is to the fore. Where the issue is the responsibility of man then man and his faith is centre stage. The object determines the subject.
Now, I am not naive enough to think that recognising these differing perspectives eliminates every difficulty and brings immediate harmony between Calvinist and Arminian, far from it. However, I do think it helps to ease many of the tensions. Indeed, it seems to me, that if we recognise these two perspectives and give them full credit then many of the more contentious issues disappear. The differences that remain belong more to the realms of systems and logic where we ought in humility and grace bear with each other.
In my view, if we work with these dual perspectives and live with the above principles of Christian love and forbearing we shall discover that our opponents (Calvinist or Arminian) miraculously morph from a demon with red glowing horns into my brother or sister in Christ, believers like us who by grace are being transformed into the image of Christ, fellow pilgrims to and fellow citizens of the Kingdom of God.
Wouldn’t it be marvellous if this Christmas the ‘peace among men’ which the angels announced knew part of its realization in Calvinist and Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ sharing together the joy of church fellowship celebrating the birth of their common Saviour and Lord.
Interesting post John. But I did not notice any mention of what it is that unites elders and leaders within the church. How can you have such a diversity of teaching and preaching within the teaching ministry of a church without serious problems? Are you suggesting that “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” are equally faithful to the gospel and the word of God?
And, for a man of your knowledge and ability, this statement is staggering… “For example, in a books like Romans and Ephesians, God’s grace and initiative in salvation is primary while faith though important is secondary. In other books, such as Hebrews and the Catholic epistles, the imperative of faith is primary and the grace of God is subordinate.” Are we reading the same Hebrews and Catholic epistles? Faith is not the opposite of grace, it is the gift of grace!
Aha, David,
I knew some of my friends would find this post a little hard to swallow.
I would answer firstly by saying that in the eldership of my local church a few years ago some elders were of a semi-arminian persuasion and others calvinistic. We managed to work together with little difficulty. I believe a proper Calvinism (compatabilism) is faithful to the gospel and that a semi-arminianism is mistaken. However, I understand the anxieties that promote semi-arminianism, anxieties that though misplaced are normally well intended. I see this as part of living together until we all reach unity in the faith. Some of these distinctions are of such a sophisticated theological nature that I can accept even elders may have differing views.
‘Faith is not the opposite of grace, it is the gift of grace!’. Personally I agree. However, this is not the point being made in the Catholic epistles. Indeed, it is only rarely the point being made in any of the NT (or for that matter the old). Faith is most regularly referred to as the human response and responsibility.
I see the two perspectives as ‘the view from heaven’ and ‘the view from earth’. If we see from heaven and from the perspective of God’s purpose and initiative salvation is certain and secure and all aspects of it will triumph. If we see from earth, from the perspective of life and human experience, then salvation depends on on-going faith and it is our responsibility to keep believing. The Hebrew writer will remind us we have every resource and reason to keep believing but the responsibility to believe is ours.
That faith itself is a gift of grace is my conviction but it is not a truth that is to the fore in Scripture. Only occasionally in preaching have I stressed faith as a gift from God and I tend to add the rider ‘I know some may not agree with me here’, Riders like this where I know some of my less Calvinistic brothers are present tend to make my point more acceptable and flag up to others this is an area they may wish to investigate further.
I think the two perspectives tend to be married to two perspectives of salvation. The epistles of Paul tend to teach salvation as primarily something we have already received; they focus on the already (not exclusively though). The Catholic epistles tend to focus on coming salvation; the ‘not yet’.
What do you think? Do you think God is unhappy that I share church fellowship with non-calvinists?
There is nothing in the Bible that says we cannot believe in God on our own. That is man’s thoughts and assumptions. Calvinism even goes against the word of God. The Bible says Jesus died for all; all have a chance for Jesus to save them. Calvinists say that Jesus did not die for all that Jesus died only for the chosen. Therefore, you have a choice before you today, to believe what is scriptural, and continue to grow in God’s Word, or to believe in what demons have begun with thoughts in man’s head. I hope you choose God’s word. Search the Bible to see if anywhere in the Bible if it says we cannot believe on our own, you will not find that. Search the Bible to see if Jesus died for all, that you will find. Do not let anyone convince you with twisted doctrine. God bless.
John – that’s why I was very careful in my question… the question is not fellowship with non-calvinists, it is sharing leadership with other leaders. I could not share leadership with someone who denied that faith was a gift of grace, because that would be to share leadership with someone who denied a teaching of Scripture.
It’s been a long time since I read or thought much about the supposed Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Interesting that when you refer to your own experience you write about sharing leadership with “semi-Arminians” – you’ve qualified your original post if that’s what you think acceptable. Arminianism as I understand it is a denial of many Scripture passages, so I would find it tricky to work with an Arminian preacher teacher.
What difference between workng with an Arminian preacher teacher and working with a female preacher teacher elder? Why cant you “listen with love” to those Christians who see no problem with immoral believers being in positions of leadership? Arminianism is not simply a post-Reformation heresy – it’s not much different to all those positions in the early and middle ages church that opposed Augustinianism.
Either the debate matters or it does not – and I think it does matter, so it is worth holding a position on. Would you support the recognition and appointing of an elder who was an Arminian? If so, on what grounds? I can only imagine that to do so is to affirm that Scripture is not clear on the issues – a position you do not hold.
David,
You show you are worldly when you say you follow Calvin. Paul forbids such talk, so then why do it. If you study God’s word more instead of Calvinism, you would grow more in the Truth. If you loved God’s word more than the word of men like Calvin, you would grow in the Truth.
AMG
The problem with blogs is that we are all very impersonal. If we were sitting down together sharing a meal we would begin to see each other differently. If we were in church together and ministering to each other in love over many years then our view of each other would be even more different still. To begin with the years would give each of us a better understanding of the others position. Often we attack positions that don’t fairly represent where the other is coming from. This seems to be true in many calvinist/arminian debates. Close fellowship makes these misapprehensions less likely. Moreover, when we see the faith of the other in its rounded reality and not simply the caricature of a perceived ‘theology’ we find we respect and indeed love this brother who sees some of these issues differently from us. We know we have much to learn from him/her.
It is often (though not always) fear and ignorance that lead us to inflammatory statements. Both are less likely in an atmopshere of love and respect; churches provide for this but blogs don’t. I am not sure you fully grasp some of the calvinist arguments. D A Carson’s book has a chapter that develops them fairly. It can be found here.
AMG, I hope the New Year brings much joy to you and your loved ones.
You said: Often we attack positions that don’t fairly represent where the other is coming from.
My reply: You are wrong to claim as a defense that I do not understand Calvinism. Just because someone does not agree with Calvinism, that does not mean he or she does not understand it. I understand you love your Calvinists beliefs; however, I love the Word of God. I speak to all about God’s truth, to those who want to, and even to some who do not want to. I am bold on the computer, and I am bold in person. I talk about God’s Truth out of love.
You said: This seems to be true in many calvinist/arminian debates. Close fellowship makes these misapprehensions less likely.
My reply: I am not an Arminian. I would never say I belong to any one but Jesus. The scriptures tell us not to say we belong to men. Arminius like Calvin believed also in the false doctrine of infant baptism, and also real blood and body in the bread and wine.
You said: Moreover, when we see the faith of the other in its rounded reality and not simply the caricature of a perceived ‘theology’ we find we respect and indeed love this brother who sees some of these issues differently from us. We know we have much to learn from him/her.
My reply: Calvinist reject, deny, add to, twist, and nullify much of God’s word. I do not respect that, especially not after I spend a lot of time explaining to no avail.
You said: It is often (though not always) fear and ignorance that lead us to inflammatory statements.
My reply: If you are insinuating that I am fearful and ignorant, then I say you are guilty of the very falseness you accuse.
You said: Both are less likely in an atmopshere of love and respect; churches provide for this but blogs don’t.
My reply: As I have said before, I speak the truth wherever I am.
You said: I am not sure you fully grasp some of the calvinist arguments. D A Carson’s book has a chapter that develops them fairly. It can be found here.
My reply: I do not want to read the book, nor even a chapter of it. Unless you would like to debate with me things in the book, or I would like to debate the author. Otherwise, I am not interested in the least. Again, I know what Calvinists teach. There are many books by Calvinists for Calvinists, for they keep many such teachers around them for their itching ears.
I hope the best for you.
David,
I suspect different church experience influences our reactions on this issue. Your church experience has largely, I think, been among believers for whom calvinistic doctrines of grace have been a given. My experience has always been of churches where calvinist/arminian views have been mixed, even in leadership. Now admittedly the arminians have really been Semi-Arminians (but this is what most evangelicals who are non-calvinistic tend to be, in my first post I spoke of ‘moderate’ arminians) and most of the Calvinists have not been ‘flag-waving’ (those who see TULIP as the sum and substance of all truth) but these very ‘moderate’ positions are I suspect the result of different positions continuing in fellowship and each tempering the other.
Yes, in leadership grace at times has been required by both sides. However, in reality, grace and forbearance is required for many issues, the C/A debate has rarely been a really contentious one, perhaps because the areas of difference do not surface in practical contentions too often. Issues like women’s role quickly become potentially divisive because it is not possible to hold them without them directly affecting church practice.
We all have some notional idea about what is primary and what is secondary. We generally make what we consider primary a necessary minimum for church fellowship. Thereafter, we live to varying degrees with what we consider less than ideal theologically. Within this ‘less than ideal’ we aim by God’s grace to instruct each other more fully in the Word in love until a maturity of faith (belief and behaviour) is reached by all. In some evangelical churches I know, whether an elder was semi-arminian would be way down my list of concerns. When churches are embracing emergent and liberal ideas an old fashioned semi-arminian Billy Graham evangelicalism may be a welcome relief.
Trust you have a good New Year David. God bless in your work in Ireland. If you’re over home and have a free hour or two drop in. Be great to chew the fat.
You are teachers and do you not understand these things? For surely Jesus Christ has began to build the house of the LORD on this mount. Yet, do you not know the things of men are a stumbling block? Why do you not have in mind the things of God, so stop grumbling among yourselves, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. It is also written (second witness/sword): no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. But, this is the work of God to believe in the one he has sent. Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. But, Moriah and David, you have this in your favor you understand that wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses. My servant John will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant John has. Therefore, if anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
Don J Chiechi,
You said: You are teachers and do you not understand these things? For surely Jesus Christ has began to build the house of the LORD on this mount. Yet, do you not know the things of men are a stumbling block? Why do you not have in mind the things of God, so stop grumbling among yourselves, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. It is also written (second witness/sword): no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.
My reply: God enables people to come to Jesus through faith, we have access to grace by faith, see Romans 5:2. The Jews who did not believe in God before Jesus came to earth, God hardened those Jews, and God did not allow them to come to Jesus, only the lost sheep of Israel could come to Jesus. The lost sheep of Israel are the Jews who loved God and wanted to obey Him before Jesus came to earth and began his ministry.
You said: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
My reply: Grace is the gift spoken of here not faith.
You said: But, this is the work of God to believe in the one he has sent.
My reply: The Bible tells us many times to “believe,” yet Calvinists reply with “we cannot,” and you do not think that is evil.
You said: Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. But, Moriah and David, you have this in your favor you understand that wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses. My servant John will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant John has. Therefore, if anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
My reply: These are about people God saved they first believed and obeyed.
Hi Moriah,
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. Brother, such a one I could not address as spiritual but as worldly—a mere infant in Christ. To such a one, I would give milk, not solid food, for he would not yet be ready for it. Indeed, such a one would not be ready while he still embraces worldly ways. For where there is jealousy and quarreling is this not worldly? Would not such a one be acting like a mere man? For when one says, “I do/don’t follow this fellow,” and another, “I do/don’t follow this other fellow,” is this not the way of mere men? What, after all, are these men whose names some have come to know? For that matter, what am I? Only fellow servants, through whom Christians come to believe–as the Lord has assigned to each his task. One servant plants the seed, another waters it, but God makes it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; we are God’s field, God’s building. By the grace God gives us, we are able to lay foundations as expert builders, and someone else will build on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. Don’t you know that we ourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in us? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and we are that temple. Let us not be deceived. If any one of us thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about men! All things are ours, whether this fellow or that fellow or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are ours, and we are of Christ, and Christ is of God. So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. Now, brother, I have applied these things to myself and others for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have become a king–and that without us! How I wish that you really had become a king so that we might be kings with you! For it seems to me that God has put us on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men. We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated; we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world. I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as I would a dear child. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus the word of God became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate Jesus. For this reason I am sending to you this testimony, which I love; anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. The Holy Spirit will remind you of the way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. Some have become arrogant, as if the bridegroom were not coming soon. But he will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then he will find out not only how such arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.
Godspeed,
Don
You said: The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
My reply: I guess that is why you do not understand the things of the Spirit! That is why you do not understand the Truth.
Correction:
But he will come to “us” very soon…
Thx
Folks
Sorry I’ve not contributed to the comments recently – Christmas and a virus have held me back. I will comment shortly.
Glad your back, Captain. in your absence, I now find myself as one who has seized a dog by the ears, as I am guilty of being a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own. My apologies to one and all!
Don,
What I said to you, I am trying to make a point, I hope you got it. A side note, I noticed you called me Moriah, why is that?
Elementary my dear Watson. But rather than “the needle”:
…it was the “thread” of your writing style which lead me to “Moriah” as your preferred alias:
http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=1546772
Also, unless these are not your initials, and in case you aren’t advocating Mercedes, it seemed to me that “AMG” was your way of paying homage to “All Mighty God”, and not a title by which you desire to be addressed.
Oh, and in case you were wondering why I do not share your sentiments (though I certainly respect your concern for addressing false teachings), beyond what I have already shared, the fact of the matter is that I may not know enough about these specific “teachings” which you and David seem to contend are anti-biblical to argue for or against them…but like a father who goes after and defends his child (like in the movie: “Cowboys and Aliens”) even when the child is less than perfectly aligned with perfect truth…I believe John’s initial point was spot on.
So, in this case, I see myself leaning more in the direction to regard the concern over individual church members’ own take on this, like what a foot might say against a hand, or an eye’s concern over an ear…when all are members of the same body and all are needed. Or better stated: Do not stop them. No one who does a miracle in Jesus’ name can in the next moment say anything bad about him. For whoever is not against his church is for it.
Also, yes, I got your earlier point, friend…ouch!
Keep on keeping on, (whatever your real name is)
You said: …it was the “thread” of your writing style which lead me to “Moriah” as your preferred alias:
http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=1546772
My reply: Well, glad that I stand out so much. Is Don J. Chiechi your real name? I do correct many different people and their religions; there are all kinds of people out there. Not everyone fears God and has faith. There is nothing wrong about a beautiful name such a Moriah. Moriah is Hebrew and means taught by God.
You said: Also, unless these are not your initials, and in case you aren’t advocating Mercedes, it seemed to me that “AMG” was your way of paying homage to “All Mighty God”, and not a title by which you desire to be addressed.
My reply: Sorry, Holmes, but not all your deductions are correct.
Moriah is the “M” in AMG. Do you think the names everyone uses at the Baptist board are all actual people’s real names?hahahaha
You said: Oh, and in case you were wondering why I do not share your sentiments (though I certainly respect your concern for addressing false teachings), beyond what I have already shared, the fact of the matter is that I may not know enough about these specific “teachings” which you and David seem to contend are anti-biblical to argue for or against them…
My reply: I am trying to explain which teachings are anti-biblical. I would love to explain more to you about it. As for David, I thought he was a Calvinist.
You said: but like a father who goes after and defends his child (like in the movie: “Cowboys and Aliens”) even when the child is less than perfectly aligned with perfect truth…I believe John’s initial point was spot on.
My reply: Read some of my posts, maybe you will change your mind.
You said: So, in this case, I see myself leaning more in the direction to regard the concern over individual church members’ own take on this, like what a foot might say against a hand, or an eye’s concern over an ear…when all are members of the same body and all are needed. Or better stated: Do not stop them. No one who does a miracle in Jesus’ name can in the next moment say anything bad about him. For whoever is not against his church is for it.
My reply: Whom are you talking about John, or me? I want all of us who profess belief in Christ to be like-minded.
You said: Also, yes, I got your earlier point, friend…ouch!
My reply: Well, you call me friend, so I guess your okay.
You said: Keep on keeping on, (whatever your real name is)
My reply: That is encouraging, thanks for that. One more thing, in defense of my name…was Peter’s birth name Peter. Was Paul’s birth name Paul. I hope to see you around and discuss scripture with you…here and on baptist board.
Hi John,
As you are a retired teacher, I wonder if you have experienced anything similar to this…as I have done a some substitute teaching, and one thing I noticed is that answers/information abound (in my case, I was teaching ESL (English as a Second Language) to adult immigrants). To me, the real value of a teacher is in his/her ability to help students to form questions. I noticed that without a question existing in the student, knowledge found no place to land and nest (like without a docking bay, a spaceship can’t land and is destined to float about in space never achieving its purpose).
Your blog spot, and the comments of your readers seem to me to help us generate questions. Be they about the “mechanics” of salvation (like this post) or other. It is akin to: Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
I say that this discussion about Calvinism and Arminianism is really about the mechanics of salvation because, to me, that seems to be what these belief systems try to hash out.
And in regard to the mechanics of salvation, I offer this as being how I see it for one and all:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/grace.html
Thank you and get well,
Don
PS, I’ve heard and I believe that in God’s commanding is God’s enabling, i.e. when he through his word/servan tells one to “Believe”…BOOM! The hearer is immediately enable to do so. Kinda light the explosive power of “Let there be light” (where there wasn’t) and…BOOM, there was light!
Hi Don
Infection clearing up now I hope. No suffering at the time is enjoyable. Yet even a common viral infection does help to remind again of the fraility of health and life and makes one yearn for a new world. An overdose of movies (when head was up to it) leaves an emptiness that Christ never does. Itry to engage with some of the issues that seem to trouble current evangelicalism and also some that I feel should. I do like to encourage thinking… as long as this thinking is willing to subject itself to the Word of God. We seem to either not use our minds enough to enquire of Scripture what God has in grace revealed or we allow them to run unfettered and end up in heresy. Flesh is always recalcitrant and Satan is only to happy to assist it.
I agree wholeheartedly with the article. If truth be told my own convictions are largely calvinistic yet I have a great respect for many Christians I have known who have not shared these convictions. God anables all gospel commands in my view. I don’t think he enabled the Law demands of the mosaic covenant, and never promised he would. His purpose there was to demonstrate the sinful nature of the human heart when not renewed and enabled.
Thanks for contributing over the year Don. I trust next year will be rich with the Lord’s blessing.
Seems this “wrestling” has been ongoing for quite a spell, now:
http://galations220.blogspot.com/2006/04/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html
Still, I’ve heard a story about a man who, with a like-minded companion, once performed a certain procedure on his companion for reasons that (at that time) were in respect to things of men (though, this act in times past was done in respect to things of God). However this man and his companion were not trying to be “respecters of men” per se, but they performed this procedure in an act of love toward these men in whose presence they were now in. For it was in fact for the benefit of these men that this procedure was performed, and in a very real way, by doing so this man and his companion were acting by faith in obedience to God (for anyone who does not love his fellow man, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen). Another time, this same man said things like: To the Arminian I became like an Arminian, to win Arminians. To those under the sway of Calvinism I became like one under the sway of Calvinism (though I myself am not under the sway of either Arminianism or Calvinism), so as to win those under the sway of Arminianism and Calvinism. And to those having neither Arminianistic nor Calvinistic teachings, I became like one having neither Arminianistic nor Calvinistic teachings (though I am not free from God’s teaching but am under Christ’s teaching), so as to win those who do not have these particular teachings of men. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.