You don’t know how welcome this article is. Because of a lack of good churches in our area, my wife and I have been searching for a long time for a church home. Lately, we’ve kind of taken a break and just met at home and have been studying 1 John for a while.

This past week, however, we decided to attend a local assembly. It meets in what used to be the area mission building. The pastor talked about being dead in sin and dependent on God to be saved at all.

Now, the atmosphere was great because the attendees were very diverse…racially and also because some were from the “new” mission a block or so away. They certainly made room for the poor and even treated them as equals. That was very refreshing.

The only possible “fly in the ointment” (that I haven’t even confirmed yet) was that one person who welcomed us (whom we know from years ago) told us that this church teaches Wesleyanism. Being a calvinist, that bothers me. But you see their attitude and you wonder “Do I draw a line here?”.

Again, I’m not 100 certain that this place *is* Wesleyan in its doctrine, and it is certainly possible that our friend has it wrong. But it was a concern; and a serious one considering how badly we wish to find a decent fellowship.

They had two quotes in the bulletin: One from J.C. Ryle, expounding on how a “redemption” that allows for a “Christian” to live in sin is not a “redemption” taught in Scripture…but also another one from a guy named H.W. Verner who said “There is no position of grace that you cannot fall from…” which would seem to contradict Ryle. So, perhaps, if I understand the Verner quote correctly, they are just a tad confused.

No commentments there yet. We just visited once and if we were to continue I’d have to ask plenty of questions. But I was struggling with this very issue.

Thank you for helping me be a bit more at ease.

Blessings,

Tim

Beautiful blog!

Let me say first that I don’t assent to the doctrines of grace. I think the Arminianis vs. Calvinism dialogues as they have been led so far, are far too narrow. The very same argumentation patterns are served up over an over again. Nevertheless I think ongoing debates are important and edifying. I also believe in God’s sovereignty but there are many things in Calvinism that don’t quite seem to be adding up. I lately started a new blog committed to providing arguments against the doctrines of grace based on particular scriptural pillars. One of these is Rom. 8:28-30, which you mention. I don’t think this “golden chain” promotes TULIP in any way.

Everyone is welcome to my blogs and to comment. I’m looking forward to debating the doctrines of grace.

Greetings
-a helmet

Thank you for your clarification. However, I assure you that I am in no way defending the Arminian position. I firmly believe that no man has the natural capacity to choose Christ. I also agree that there is no contrast to be made between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. The two are equally true and not in any way contradictory. You need not try to convince me of the correctness of your statements.

When I say that Calvinist look solely at the scriptures that teach man’s inability, I do not mean all Calvinists. Do not get me wrong on that account. I try to avoid the term Calvinist when referring to myself because of the extra baggage that, as you no doubt understand, can hinder my ability to discuss this subject with an Arminian. I do not mean to say that ALL Arminians believe/do this and ALL Calvinists believe/do this. I am simply saying that in my observation, the above mentioned shortcomings are somewhat commonplace among the opposing sides, and that if these shortcomings were to be resolved, I believe that many if not all of the differences between the two standpoints would be resolved.

Thanks again for your input.

The Bible itself emphasizes this connection between ability and responsibility. They may be “humanistic theories”, but they are also Biblical ones.

* In deciding who would die in the wilderness and who would be able to see the Promised Land, God spared everyone below the age of 20 – because they lacked the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. No ability, therefore no responsibility, therefore no punishment.

* A number of verses state variations on the concept that the Father will not be held accountable for the sins of the son; the son will not be held accountable for the sins of the Father. No one will be held accountable for sins they did not commit. Those who committed the sins will be the ones held accountable for the sins. There is a very clear connection in these verses between ability-put-into-action (sins) and responsibility and between accountability and punishment.

* Re. those verses that ask “how can there be sin without the law?” No law means no law broken means no sin. Because – sin is the breaking of the law. If you don’t know about the law, how can you be accused of breaking it? How can you be accused of sinning? Lack of ability (don’t know about the law) means lack of responsibility means lack of accountability means lack of punishment.

The consternation of non-Calvinist comes from the insistent denial by Calvinists of a cause-effect relationship that is clearly taught by the Bible.

both of these statements reflect garden-variety calvinism. there is no contrast to be made.

i disagree with your notion that calvinists “solely look at verses that emphasize man’s inability.” rather, calvinists readily affirm the scriptures that teach man’s responsibility, but differ in that they do not require that a connection be made between responsibility and ability.

calvinists would affirm that “all men are responsible to choose Christ” yet no man has the natural capacity to choose Christ. “all men are responsible to ‘be perfect as God is perfect’” yet no man has the natural capacity to attain that perfection.

to an arminian (please correct the spelling in the future to avoid dragging the people of armenia into this disagreement ), a God who holds men responsible to obey these commands when they lack the natural capacity is unreasonable and unfair. arminians reach this conclusion because their moral philosophy is ultimately founded on humanistic theories, which require a connection between responsibility and ability before there can be any true guilt for sin.

I think I have to disagree with you a little on your point about discussion forums. You know when we were back on Theology List, it was a great place to learn. It is more how the list is run, who posts, contents, and stuff. I think too, people were actually changed by the discussion in a positive way.

I think the bad change came with blogs and comments. The content and style of interaction on the old forums and on the blogs now is actually fairly different. Blog interaction does not lend itself to thoughtful and sustained dialogue. On the old lists, anonymity was not well tolerated, and posters were held accountable, more or less, by the discussion community and moderaters. On most blogs, the situation is now the opposite. A lot of “blogging” now can properly be described as Tabloid Blogging.

Blogs, in my opinion, should be informative, for reliable sources, news, etc, or diaries for families, informal activities, etc This is why I am trying to keep C&C information focused.

So to close, I really do miss the good old days of Theology List, even Stamper’s old Reformed List.

Thanks
David

Evangelistic Calvinism
by John Benton

http://www.covenanterbooks.com/book/975/Evangelistic%20Calvinism

Amen.

This is a brilliant post, thankyou for this, hopefully it helps prevent major fights!