tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post2907129395061299925..comments2023-05-18T03:50:23.681-07:00Comments on The Center for Theological Studies: Who Wants To Be An Arminian? The Dividing Fifth Point (Perseverance)Byronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11537490279115937176noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post-51808567209629985012011-01-19T16:18:08.102-08:002011-01-19T16:18:08.102-08:00Dr. Lemke,
Thanks for responding. I have had con...Dr. Lemke,<br /><br /> Thanks for responding. I have had conversations with Arminian Baptists as of late whose churches actually affirm eternal security. I was raised a 4-pt. Arminian who held very strongly to eternal security. When my mother was alive, we talked about losing salvation. Mom did not agree with the idea and neither did I (at the time). It was when I realized that I was holding to Calvin's notion of "temporary faith" in regards to the issue that I then considered that, if the idea of apostasy was defined differently, I could hold to it. This, not to mention the strong warnings, is what moved me to affirm conditional perseverance.<br /><br /> In regards to Arminius himself, he did hold to apostasy. For instance, in his article XXII titled "The Assurance of Salvation," Arminius wrote:<br /><br />"The persuasion by which any believer assuredly persuades himself, that it is impossible for him to decline from the faith, or that, at least, he will not decline from the faith, does not conduce so much to consolation against despair or against the doubting that is adverse to faith and hope, as it contributes to engender security, a thing directly opposed to that most salutary fear with which we are commanded to work out our salvation, and which is exceedingly necessary in this scene of temptations...<br /><br />He who is of the opinion that it is possible for him to decline from the faith, and who therefore, is afraid lest he should decline...suffices to inspire consolation and to exclude anxiety, when he knows that he will decline from the faith through no force of Satan, of sin, or of the world...unless he willingly and of his own accord yield to temptation, and neglect to work out his salvation in a conscientious manner" (James Arminius, Article XXII, "On the Assurance of Salvation," Works II: 726).<br /><br /> It has been my discussions with Arminians as of late that led to this post. There are many Arminians today who desire to wear the label but also desire to hold to eternal security. In my mind at least, someone who holds to eternal security is Calvinistic...so more so-called "Arminians" are really Molinists. I just want Arminians to clearly define where they are in terms of theology...and stop dabbling into a little of Calvinism, a little of Molinism, a little of Open Theism. Thanks for responding and I pray your comment is read by quite a few readers here.Deidre Richardson, B.A., M.Div.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04415891901162852180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post-34546717109484376372011-01-19T15:41:55.299-08:002011-01-19T15:41:55.299-08:00As a person who is neither Arminian nor Calvinist ...As a person who is neither Arminian nor Calvinist (smile), let me suggest to my Arminian friends what I suggest to Calvinists, or to the "moderates" in the SBC who align with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship -- DISTINGUISH YOURSELVES. Calvinists whine when they are confused with hyper-Calvinists. Fine. Want to fix it? Make it clear to everybody that you're not a hyper-Calvinist! Criticize hyper-Calvinism. Don't invite hyper-Calvinists to your meetings. Take a clear doctrinal stand against hyper-Calvinists. Then you won't be confused for a hyper-Calvinist.<br /><br />I give the same advice to my CBF friends who cringe at the "liberal" label. You don't want to be called liberal? Fine. What to fix that? Make it clear that you don't embrace homosexuality as a valid Christian option. Don't invite homosexual advocates to your meetings. Take a clear doctrinal stance against homosexuality (and other classic liberal issues). Then you won't be confused for a liberal.<br /><br />So now, for my Arminian friends. Don't want to be associated with openness of God (as I was in a recent <i>Founders Journal</i> caricature)? Fine. Make it clear you're not openness. Don't invite openness advocates to speak at your meetings. Take a clear doctrinal stance against openness theology. Then nobody will confuse you with an openness theologian. (It's free advice -- take it for the price tag).<br /><br />It's always tempting to compromise with someone who is basically on your side, but goes to an extreme with which you feel uncomfortable. My advice it, don't do it. Draw the line in the sand. Distinguish yourself. If you don't distinguish yourself clearly, you'll be associated with them in perception.<br /><br />Now, about the Richardsonian Synod? I dunno. I thought and had taught on the basis of Remonstrance 5 that ambivalence was the official policy. Someone showed me a quote from Arminius recently (I can't seem to find it immediately) which suggested he was fairly firm in believing on apostasy, and I believe that all Arminian denominations affirm that one's salvation can be lost. Clearly, this tenet of the five, more than anything else, distinguishes Arminianism in the minds of non-Arminians.Steve Lemkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06892853747098200144noreply@blogger.com