John MacArthur: Can one be an Arminian and still be saved?

I read from two different sources what John MacArthur thinks concerning salvation of Arminians… and really I ended up scratching my head… what does he really believe?

“So, they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time–while being confused or ignorant of those things–to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God.

But, I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view, or anyone who holds an Arminian view, is, by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just don’t understand rightly those things, but who know they’re sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to save them. They don’t understand how what they’re doing works together with the great purposes and power of God, and consequently can’t give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could be genuinely saved, by hoping in Christ and Christ alone.” Source

Or this?

“He (Spurgeon) preached that both predestination and (limited) free-will were simultaneously in full force. He believed that in the end that salvation was wholly of God from start to finish, and yet God secures the complete cooperation of our wills in so-doing. He decried both antinomianism and fatalism (only predestination) and Arminianism (only free will) and said that anyone who denied either of these two truths was engaged in heresy.

He openly called both heresy. I tend to agree. I really like what this guy says since I had come to the same conclusions myself.

But he said something that confused me for a long time and said that John Wesley (a famous Arminian) was a man of God, yes he disagreed with him, but he said he had great respect for the man.

The best explanation I can come up for this is that Arminians are confused about how they came to Christ, but their definition of the atonement, and who Christ is is accurate, as is their view of sanctification (no striving by works), so it is possible Biblically to admit that Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It took me a lot of thought to get here however as at first glance I thought a heretical viewpoint always produces heretics who aren’t saved.

The message I heard was that Arminians might be on the the right side of the line, but just barely, just a little more confused thinking about other related issues and the line is easily crossed. You don’t have to get the finer points of theology to be saved, but certain basics are required and Arminianism appears to pass the test, barely, and only if you are willing admit that a faulty view of the atonment is not sufficient to block salvation. As time passes I realize that Spurgeon is essentially spouting double-speak, the definition of heresy is a soul-destroying perversion of either the Gospel or the nature of God. There is no such thing as a heresy that doesn’t kill. Therefore, to be technically accurate, if you believe an Arminian can be a Christian, then to you, Arminianism is not heresy. However, many Arminians of today have swallowed enough other false doctrines to sink their ships so there is no need to argue about Arminianism. I for example was such a one. Spurgeon is consistent with most of his forebears however, including Augustine, who first faced a theology similar to Arminianism, and dealt with it as one would to a brother in Christ, and not as one would deal with a heretic who is outside the body. “
Source

Now, talk about double speak! On one hand Arminians are saved, but are heretics and heresy kills… but as you keep reading John he is clear that they are not saved!

So which is it… or is he double minded?

Be Blessed,
iggy

John MacArthur: Can one be an Arminian and still be saved?

I read from two different sources what John MacArthur thinks concerning salvation of Arminians… and really I ended up scratching my head… what does he really believe?

“So, they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time–while being confused or ignorant of those things–to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God.

But, I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view, or anyone who holds an Arminian view, is, by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just don’t understand rightly those things, but who know they’re sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to save them. They don’t understand how what they’re doing works together with the great purposes and power of God, and consequently can’t give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could be genuinely saved, by hoping in Christ and Christ alone.” Source

Or this?

“He (Spurgeon) preached that both predestination and (limited) free-will were simultaneously in full force. He believed that in the end that salvation was wholly of God from start to finish, and yet God secures the complete cooperation of our wills in so-doing. He decried both antinomianism and fatalism (only predestination) and Arminianism (only free will) and said that anyone who denied either of these two truths was engaged in heresy.

He openly called both heresy. I tend to agree. I really like what this guy says since I had come to the same conclusions myself.

But he said something that confused me for a long time and said that John Wesley (a famous Arminian) was a man of God, yes he disagreed with him, but he said he had great respect for the man.

The best explanation I can come up for this is that Arminians are confused about how they came to Christ, but their definition of the atonement, and who Christ is is accurate, as is their view of sanctification (no striving by works), so it is possible Biblically to admit that Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It took me a lot of thought to get here however as at first glance I thought a heretical viewpoint always produces heretics who aren’t saved.

The message I heard was that Arminians might be on the the right side of the line, but just barely, just a little more confused thinking about other related issues and the line is easily crossed. You don’t have to get the finer points of theology to be saved, but certain basics are required and Arminianism appears to pass the test, barely, and only if you are willing admit that a faulty view of the atonment is not sufficient to block salvation. As time passes I realize that Spurgeon is essentially spouting double-speak, the definition of heresy is a soul-destroying perversion of either the Gospel or the nature of God. There is no such thing as a heresy that doesn’t kill. Therefore, to be technically accurate, if you believe an Arminian can be a Christian, then to you, Arminianism is not heresy. However, many Arminians of today have swallowed enough other false doctrines to sink their ships so there is no need to argue about Arminianism. I for example was such a one. Spurgeon is consistent with most of his forebears however, including Augustine, who first faced a theology similar to Arminianism, and dealt with it as one would to a brother in Christ, and not as one would deal with a heretic who is outside the body. “
Source

Now, talk about double speak! On one hand Arminians are saved, but are heretics and heresy kills… but as you keep reading John he is clear that they are not saved!

So which is it… or is he double minded?

Be Blessed,
iggy

Interesting points on the blogsphere

Ken Silva misses the point that he and Tony Jones agree that most American Christians are “Semi-palegian” and only focuses on the point that “John MacArthur” is mentioned as a “soft gnostic”… now even Calvin admitted to having been influenced by Plato, (many real scholars and researchers agree that this is true) so I see not reason why this is an issue to Ken Silva other than fanning the flames of discontent.

Now the comments at Tony Jone’s site are well worth the read. Oh, Tony is moving to http://tonyj.net/ so update your blogrolls.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Vanguard Church is doing an interesting series on John MacArthur’s “truth war” book.

1: John MacArthur’s Post-Enlightenment Philosophical Understanding of “Truth”
2: Is Rob Bell a Godless Man, Condemned by God?
3: Is Postmodernism Primarily Concerned with Truth?
4: Straw Men – The Emerging Church is Filled with Hard Postmodernists
5: MacArthur Fits His Own Criteria for an Apostate

I know this video is a bit old… but it still hits me and somehow seems appropriate.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Interesting points on the blogsphere

Ken Silva misses the point that he and Tony Jones agree that most American Christians are “Semi-palegian” and only focuses on the point that “John MacArthur” is mentioned as a “soft gnostic”… now even Calvin admitted to having been influenced by Plato, (many real scholars and researchers agree that this is true) so I see not reason why this is an issue to Ken Silva other than fanning the flames of discontent.

Now the comments at Tony Jone’s site are well worth the read. Oh, Tony is moving to http://tonyj.net/ so update your blogrolls.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Vanguard Church is doing an interesting series on John MacArthur’s “truth war” book.

1: John MacArthur’s Post-Enlightenment Philosophical Understanding of “Truth”
2: Is Rob Bell a Godless Man, Condemned by God?
3: Is Postmodernism Primarily Concerned with Truth?
4: Straw Men – The Emerging Church is Filled with Hard Postmodernists
5: MacArthur Fits His Own Criteria for an Apostate

I know this video is a bit old… but it still hits me and somehow seems appropriate.

Be Blessed,
iggy

The Emerging Church Newest Leader… Brad Pitt

Here is one that is stranger that fiction… and though I am trying to not read Christian Research Network it seems to drag me in like a sleazy news tabloid at the grocery counter… (BTW Did you know the Roundup Sheriffs found Bigfoot!?)

The “editor” who writes suspiciously like Ken Silva shows us that he can connect anything with the emerging church… Brad Opens Up About His Faith

“In this piece People gives us a capsule of the emerging church mentality and the new evangelical infomercial gospel in the following from Brad Pitt, “who was raised a conservative Southern Baptist,” but then pursued “God” his own individual way which lead to “a discovery of self”:”

Now, after reading this article I thought that there was more of a problem that is NOT BEING addressed with he Baptist denomination at the time Brad Pitt was in a spiritual crisis. They were not RELEVANT to Brad’s situation. This goes deeper than Brad Pitt being selfish… it goes to the core that if we as a church focus on things and call everything sin that is not sin (going to a concert) we are driving people away from Jesus. I was personally saved at a church who was giving a Christian rock concert… and it was in no way a “liberal” church… it was pretty mainstreamed. Imagine if a youth pastor had been able to take Brad to a Christian rock concert and that was enough to keep Brad out of crisis and refocus on Jesus.

We tend to make things MORE enticing when we make them taboo…

Instead of seeing this as a point where relevance would have possibly allowed Brad to grow more in his faith, I see Ken just sees it as another time to “gossip” and attack the emerging church and connect it with whatever he can. What is really sad is that I came across an article on a website that was posted in 2005. Ken seemed to have a good grasp of reality… it seems now he will grab any gossip mag like “People” to prove his research.

The blame is not on us… it is on Ken’s own denomination… which now is accepting to emerging church more and more seems to be missed on Ken as he is in an “emerging” denomination. He rants regularly against the SBC in which he is ordained.

Source 1 http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=southern+baptist

Source 2 http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/open_letter_to_1.html

Source 3 http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/update_on_sbc_d.html

Source 4 http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/ken_silva_on_th.html

It seems that Ken is willing to stay in a denomination he regards as apostate, and condemn someone like Brad Pitt who was in Ken’s own denomination… and blame it all on emergents… Strange logic if you ask me… I see at least Frank Page is trying to make a difference.

Now the real question would be (for the girls and those so inclined) … If Brad Pitt came to your church, would that in itself be an attractional ministry?

Be Blessed,

iggy

The Emerging Church Newest Leader… Brad Pitt

Here is one that is stranger that fiction… and though I am trying to not read Christian Research Network it seems to drag me in like a sleazy news tabloid at the grocery counter… (BTW Did you know the Roundup Sheriffs found Bigfoot!?)

The “editor” who writes suspiciously like Ken Silva shows us that he can connect anything with the emerging church… Brad Opens Up About His Faith

“In this piece People gives us a capsule of the emerging church mentality and the new evangelical infomercial gospel in the following from Brad Pitt, “who was raised a conservative Southern Baptist,” but then pursued “God” his own individual way which lead to “a discovery of self”:”

Now, after reading this article I thought that there was more of a problem that is NOT BEING addressed with he Baptist denomination at the time Brad Pitt was in a spiritual crisis. They were not RELEVANT to Brad’s situation. This goes deeper than Brad Pitt being selfish… it goes to the core that if we as a church focus on things and call everything sin that is not sin (going to a concert) we are driving people away from Jesus. I was personally saved at a church who was giving a Christian rock concert… and it was in no way a “liberal” church… it was pretty mainstreamed. Imagine if a youth pastor had been able to take Brad to a Christian rock concert and that was enough to keep Brad out of crisis and refocus on Jesus.

We tend to make things MORE enticing when we make them taboo…

Instead of seeing this as a point where relevance would have possibly allowed Brad to grow more in his faith, I see Ken just sees it as another time to “gossip” and attack the emerging church and connect it with whatever he can. What is really sad is that I came across an article on a website that was posted in 2005. Ken seemed to have a good grasp of reality… it seems now he will grab any gossip mag like “People” to prove his research.

The blame is not on us… it is on Ken’s own denomination… which now is accepting to emerging church more and more seems to be missed on Ken as he is in an “emerging” denomination. He rants regularly against the SBC in which he is ordained.

Source 1 http://christianresearchnetwork.com/index.php?s=southern+baptist

Source 2 http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/open_letter_to_1.html

Source 3 http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/update_on_sbc_d.html

Source 4 http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/ken_silva_on_th.html

It seems that Ken is willing to stay in a denomination he regards as apostate, and condemn someone like Brad Pitt who was in Ken’s own denomination… and blame it all on emergents… Strange logic if you ask me… I see at least Frank Page is trying to make a difference.

Now the real question would be (for the girls and those so inclined) … If Brad Pitt came to your church, would that in itself be an attractional ministry?

Be Blessed,

iggy

Bob Hyatt is a hypocrite! (according to CRN)

I don’t go to Christian Research Network any more… I used to, but ever since the day of prayer for Ken Silva, I have lost interest in them… so prayers were answered…

Now, I still go to Christian Research Network info and analysis where I found this.

This is the gist of the “hypocrisy”

“Well, Hyatt has now indeed done something rather foolish in linking this video at his Bob.Blog. You see this South Park production actually is mean-spirited and offensive to those of the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby exposing his own Hip Hip Hip Hy-pocrisy!”

So the bottom line is this,

You can attack and slander and lie about other Christians, yet if you show an accurate portrayal of the Mormons… even from “South Park” it is hypocrisy?!

There is a huge difference here… Bob never created South Park… which is accurate in its portrayal of Mormons. Team Pyro created the Emergent-See Po-Motivators For Emerging Christians posters which are mean spirited and an INACCURATE portrayal of the emerging Christians… Now, the kicker is CRN still linked to the video (via Bob’s blog) themselves… you know that foul mouthed video (he uses the word “ass”). So, they are complaining about Bob linking to the video while they link to Bob’s link to the video… (Can you say hip-hip- oh… oh come on! This is about as “dum” as it can get!)

Now, what makes me more angry (OK, let’s just say upset) is that CRN and Ken Silva made me watch South Park… and now seem to also defend the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby And worse they made me stumble by having me watch South Park! LOL! You see I had heard about the video, yet, because I do not like South Park, I did not watch it or had any desire to… until CRN decided to attack a friend of mine and claim it was “dirty” (spoken in that hushed kind of way). So thanks Ken and Crew!

Now, posts like the one at CRN seem just a little vindictive and petty to me.

be blessed,
iggy

Bob Hyatt is a hypocrite! (according to CRN)

I don’t go to Christian Research Network any more… I used to, but ever since the day of prayer for Ken Silva, I have lost interest in them… so prayers were answered…

Now, I still go to Christian Research Network info and analysis where I found this.

This is the gist of the “hypocrisy”

“Well, Hyatt has now indeed done something rather foolish in linking this video at his Bob.Blog. You see this South Park production actually is mean-spirited and offensive to those of the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby exposing his own Hip Hip Hip Hy-pocrisy!”

So the bottom line is this,

You can attack and slander and lie about other Christians, yet if you show an accurate portrayal of the Mormons… even from “South Park” it is hypocrisy?!

There is a huge difference here… Bob never created South Park… which is accurate in its portrayal of Mormons. Team Pyro created the Emergent-See Po-Motivators For Emerging Christians posters which are mean spirited and an INACCURATE portrayal of the emerging Christians… Now, the kicker is CRN still linked to the video (via Bob’s blog) themselves… you know that foul mouthed video (he uses the word “ass”). So, they are complaining about Bob linking to the video while they link to Bob’s link to the video… (Can you say hip-hip- oh… oh come on! This is about as “dum” as it can get!)

Now, what makes me more angry (OK, let’s just say upset) is that CRN and Ken Silva made me watch South Park… and now seem to also defend the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby And worse they made me stumble by having me watch South Park! LOL! You see I had heard about the video, yet, because I do not like South Park, I did not watch it or had any desire to… until CRN decided to attack a friend of mine and claim it was “dirty” (spoken in that hushed kind of way). So thanks Ken and Crew!

Now, posts like the one at CRN seem just a little vindictive and petty to me.

be blessed,
iggy

Quoting Tozer: Isn’t it Great that CRN is anti-mystics yet…

I find it so funny that CRN quotes Tozer regularly… and yet rants against many things Tozer taught!

1. Tozer promoted “Christian mysticism”.

Although many Christians cringe at the term “mystic,” A.W. Tozer used the term to mean, “that spiritual experience common to the saints of the Bible times and well known to multitudes of persons in the post-biblical era.” He referred to the evangelical mystic as one “who has been brought by the gospel into intimate fellowship with the Godhead.” from the back of the book: The Christian Book of Mystical Verse by A. W. Tozer

2. Tozer promoted “Free Will” Here is another source.

Tozer was asked by a young man studying at a Bible school, “Dr. Tozer when the boys begin to debate Arminian and Calvinistic theology, what position should I take.” Dr. Tozer replied, “Son, when they begin that debate you go and get in your prayer closet and you cry out to God and in four years you will be closer to the Lord but those boys will still be debating Arminianism and Calvinism.”

Now the real question is why would CRN quote Tozer and as I also do at times… being of emerging persuasion… I believe this quote sums it up.

Some wonder why “Tozer’s writings are as fresh today as when he was alive. It is because, as one friend commented, “He left the superficial, the obvious and the trivial for others to toss around. . . . [His] books reach deep into the heart.”

Yet, if one disagrees with someone to the point of name calling and often slanderous accusations… then why quote from someone that seems to back the ideas of your opponent… unless it is to show both are wrong. Why use one to show his ideals are yours when they are not? Now that IS the question that one need ask CRN.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Quoting Tozer: Isn’t it Great that CRN is anti-mystics yet…

I find it so funny that CRN quotes Tozer regularly… and yet rants against many things Tozer taught!

1. Tozer promoted “Christian mysticism”.

Although many Christians cringe at the term “mystic,” A.W. Tozer used the term to mean, “that spiritual experience common to the saints of the Bible times and well known to multitudes of persons in the post-biblical era.” He referred to the evangelical mystic as one “who has been brought by the gospel into intimate fellowship with the Godhead.” from the back of the book: The Christian Book of Mystical Verse by A. W. Tozer

2. Tozer promoted “Free Will” Here is another source.

Tozer was asked by a young man studying at a Bible school, “Dr. Tozer when the boys begin to debate Arminian and Calvinistic theology, what position should I take.” Dr. Tozer replied, “Son, when they begin that debate you go and get in your prayer closet and you cry out to God and in four years you will be closer to the Lord but those boys will still be debating Arminianism and Calvinism.”

Now the real question is why would CRN quote Tozer and as I also do at times… being of emerging persuasion… I believe this quote sums it up.

Some wonder why “Tozer’s writings are as fresh today as when he was alive. It is because, as one friend commented, “He left the superficial, the obvious and the trivial for others to toss around. . . . [His] books reach deep into the heart.”

Yet, if one disagrees with someone to the point of name calling and often slanderous accusations… then why quote from someone that seems to back the ideas of your opponent… unless it is to show both are wrong. Why use one to show his ideals are yours when they are not? Now that IS the question that one need ask CRN.

Be Blessed,
iggy