To say, “This man is an Arminian,†has the same effect on many hearers, as to say, “This is a mad dog.†It puts them into a fright at once: They run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
18 Comments(+Add)
I loved where Chris R. exhorted me to go read some “good” systematic theologies. I have read many, but the best systematic theology I have read has 66 volumes. I have found none better.
God’s command to “pray without ceasing” is founded on the necessity we have of his grace to preserve the life of God in the soul, which can no more subsist one moment without it, than the body can without air.
Whether we think of; or speak to, God, whether we act or suffer for him, all is prayer, when we have no other object than his love, and the desire of pleasing him.
All that a Christian does, even in eating and sleeping, is prayer, when it is done in simplicity, according to the order of God, without either adding to or diminishing from it by his own choice.
Prayer continues in the desire of the heart, though the understanding be employed on outward things. In souls filled with love, the desire to please God is a continual prayer.
As the furious hate which the devil bears us is termed the roaring of a lion, so our vehement love may be termed crying after God.
God only requires of his adult children, that their hearts be truly purified, and that they offer him continually the wishes and vows that naturally spring from perfect love. For these desires, being the genuine fruits of love, are the most perfect prayers that can spring from it.
From John Wesley’s writings on prayer and Christian holiness. Not so much goobledygook, right?
Rick – 66 volumes? hmmm … I got robbed, my Grudem’s Systematic Theology only came in one volume … crud.
You darn (can I use ‘darn’ here?) Arminian (can I use ‘Arminian’ here?)!!!
Don’t touch us Rick, we are toxic!
John Wesley was a hack and John Calvin was his ‘daddy’.
Alexander Campbell pwned Calvin!
as i’ve been reading through this site i could not help but notice that you guys are every bit as mean spirited and venomous as the odm sites that you’re complaining about. you guys take stuff out of context. you misrepresent people. you trash talk people.
i don’t see a different or loving spirit here. I don’t see christ’s love in your posts and especially don’t see them in your comments. you people claim to be friends of people but you are vicious and arrogant and snotty to anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
i am not a calvinist but because of your hateful reaction to them i feel like i should find out more about them. maybe they have more christian depth than what you people are spewing.
Simon – I’m a Calvinist, come on in, there’s room for you. We may be “limited” but I see Jesus reserved a spot for you.
Simon,
That’s hardly an original charge. Watchdoggies come on here quite frequently and justify their actions by claiming we’re doing the same thing here. Let me copy/paste my last response when someone said almost exactly the same thing you did.
That argument has been made before, and its been answered before, and it just doesn’t hold up.
First, we allow (with the exception of mistakes and technological issues) every non-spammy comment through. If we screwed up or you disagree with us then you can let us know. That’s not true any, or at least the majority of major watchdoggie sites.
Second, there is no where close to the level of vitriol found here as on watchdoggie sites. In recent memory on C?N.com we’ve had worshipers excoriated for using commonly used practice books, claims that certain types of churches are producing “false christiansâ€, deliberate distortions about what e/e leaders believe, and we haven’t even gotten into the various petty names Ken et al. have come up with (the hollow men of the emerging church, the pope of protestants etc). Where have you seen anything close to that level of malice on CRN.info? That’s not a rhetorical question, that’s a legitimate inquiry. One that you can answer freely and have posted in our comments.
Third, we have never decided who’s in and who’s out of the church. The watchdoggies have done that on an almost daily basis.
Finally, no one here has set up anyone as their enemy. The watchdoggies clearly have done that. Ken at one point recently even referred to one of his allies as his “brother in armsâ€, as opposed to his “brother in Christâ€. You can see that with Chris R. happily joining together with people who explicitly deny baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, and with the acceptance of Rick who is a dirty dirty semi-pelagian Arminian as long as he attacked the right people. This point and point three are connected. The watchdoggies claim that the people they attack are outside of Christ and on their way to hell so they can treat them as the world treats enemies. Again, if you believe CRN.info has done the same thing go ahead and point them out. This isn’t a rhetorical device, its a legitimate challenge/question/discussion/whatever you want to call it.
And finally finally whenever watchdoggies have been so completely wrong that its obvious even to their rabid commenters a correction and apology is never posted. The post just disappears without comment. We’ve had one post accidently deleted and then reposted, and then one post edited and an explanation posted as to why.
Keith, I have about a million times more respect for you than I do for the watchdoggies because you have been willing to discuss the issues, mostly malice-free. But on this issue I think you’re letting your sympathies for the watchdoggies get in the way of clarity. I suppose you could say the same about me, and you might be right, but the only way for either of us to agree or at least stake out clarity on the issue is to discuss it in this way. Am I wrong in my assessments? I don’t think so, but you have the opportunity to show me my error.
Watch out Simon, Rick has been marked at Pyro – the REAL Calvinists!
Simon,
First off, not all commenters here are writers here, so we can not (and do not) take responsibility for what they write – we allow any and all to comment w/o alteration or deletion.
Second, perhaps you could give evidence of “mean spiritedness” on our account, or “taking out of context” – I can think of a few I (and others) have apologized for, but I can’t think of many recently.
Can you show me some of the “venom” of which you speak?
Can you show me what has been taken out of context?
Can you show me where writers have been “vicious and arrogant and snotty” to those who disagree with us? I look most recently (besides yourself) to Tyler yesterday in this thread, whom we disagreed with but not feel like he was treated unkindly.
Are we perfect? By no means, and – as passionate defenders of justice and mercy toward those unfairly attacked within the church – there are times where our passions got the best of us and apologies were in order. I can provide you links, if you so desire…
If you attend the Evangelical Covenant church you’ve linked to, you’re not a Calvinist. Calvinism, in itself, is not evil, nor are those who believe in the TULIP of Calvinism fully in error. Where we take issue with Calvinism, specifically, is where it belief in its tenents are raised to the level of salvific requirement, which is often the case with most ODM’s.
By no means are we perfect, and by no means to we all come from the same background – in fact, we come from some very different church backgrounds, but we believe that the differences in our beliefs should be overcome by the love commanded of us by Jesus…
Simon,
thank you for your interest here. I am sincerely asking that you would cite examples of our mean spirit and venom so that we can know how to improve.
Simon,
A wonderful difference between this place and Slice/CRN is that you were given a voice to say such things. If you were to post a verbatim comment at Slice, about Slice, (before it died) it would have never seen the light of day.
I agree that there are a few petty comments here and there. But, what I appreciate about this place is that there is an understanding that words have precise meanings and ideas have consequences.
I’m baffled that CRN has a following in that so much of it drivel. And by that, i don’t disparage anyone’s character or question anyone’s salvation. I just mean that taking snippets of ministries, arriving at a poorly reasoned condemnation, and then moving on to the next target is a bad strategy for ministry. I have yet to see something that even passes for argumentation or analysis at CRN or Slice.
And in the intoduction of Wesley’s journals Rev. Hughes observes,
“Wesley has demonstrated that a true prophet of God has more influence than all the politicians and soldiers and millionaires put together.”
Orthodoxy kissed orthopraxy and Wesley was born.
Tim: If you’re going to correct someone’s misguided thinking or accusations, at least have the decency to edit my name out of your cut-and-paste your response. (he he!)
Keith,
Heh. To be fair I noted it was from before.
At least you got my original work.
Alright! I’m number one (it’s all about me ya know)!
This is a quote of a quote from J.I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. It is from Charles Simeon’s memoirs I believe, recounting a conversation Simeon had with Wesley.
“‘Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions – Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?’
‘Yes, I do indeed.’
‘And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?’
‘Yes, solely through Christ.’
‘But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?’
‘No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.’
‘Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?’
‘No.’
‘What then? are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?’
‘Yes, altogether.’
‘And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?’
‘Yes, I have no hope but in Him.’
‘Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.’”