Reformed? Not welcome here...

[Steven Burton]

I think Calvinism and Arminianism have two different sets of speak. They both claim to use logical arguments but I tend to wonder because they both go in two separate ways and seem to start on different paths to begin with. So really it is just yelling back and forth across a median while each other drives by.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think Calvinism and Arminianism have two different sets of speak. They both claim to use logical arguments but I tend to wonder because they both go in two separate ways and seem to start on different paths to begin with. So really it is just yelling back and forth across a median while each other drives by.

I find the Calvinism internally consistent and valid (not sound, just valid which has to do solely with the form of the argument) IF one accepts the doctrinal statements, the five points. But it needs all of them to stand. I reject most of them on biblical grounds. I can see why Calvinists so vehemently argue for complete sovereignty, penal substutionary atonement, complete foreknowledge, and other doctrines that follow from the theology. It makes sense from that perspective. That is why Marcus, and others who hold to this theology, cannot think of or accept any other theory of atonement, none of the others make sense and in fact don't seem compatible within Calvinism. It is why he can state that one MUST accept that God knows the future. These are the only conclusions that are allowable within the framework. It is why Wesley and Wesleyan Arminians are more generous in extending the hand of catholic spirit than Calvinsists have been. For me it is a house of cards. Granted I do not know all the intracacies and arrive at my opinion from reading the Canons of Dordrecht.

[Marcus Kibbe]

What are you, Marcus? Are you a Nazarene? Or just a stealth Calvinist trying to created havoc here? I want a straight answer.

I’m a regular attending, devoted, faithful, involved, tithe paying, official member in the Church of the Nazarene... although I'm pretty sure I wouldn't fit into your Nazarene box.

As to your question: "Love Wins".

And giving people freedom isn't blasphemous. Sending them to hell to burn in all eternity, without them having a choice, is too blasphemous for words. It's disgusting, outrageous, devilish and it makes one vomit just to think about it. And I apologize for not even remotely being able to convey how I feel. If such a god existed, let him be cursed.

You’re not being consistent, Hans. For a loving God to not save millions of people from the pits of hell for all eternity, when he could do so otherwise, all for the sake of “freedom,” is no less blasphemous than what you describe above. I’m sorry you are in denial about that. Arminians are in the same dilemma as Calvinists.

Please answer this question: Why would a loving God allow millions/billions of people to persist in their free choice rebellion, knowing they will spend eternity in hell?

[Marcus Kibbe]

Well, we can quibble all we want.... the fact remains as this:

- Orthodox Christianity has always (2,000 years) had a soteriology within which Calvinist predestination does not fit, but Arminian does.

- Catholic Christianity, for the large, large majority of its history has had a soteriology within which Calvinist predestination does not fit, and has even called the Catholic equivalent (Jansenism) a "heresy".

- Wesleyan Christianity has always held that Calvinist soteriology is blasphemy.

There are other groups, too, but I'll let that suffice for now. The fact is that the majority of Christianity has almost always considered this soteriology to be absolutely false. Once more, I'll stick with the historic expression of the Christian faith. If you actually somehow believe that Scriptures contradict this, and teach something else, more power to you.

Cherry-picking church history again I see.

[Marcus Kibbe]

This sheep metaphor is a reference that many Calvinists use to support their argument for predestination and eternal security. I've heard this before, nothing new. Come up with something original. Using this metaphor as such has severe limitations and will actually unmake your point.

Can you please explain the statement in bold. How does this unmake my point (which had nothing to do with predestination or eternal security)?

[Marcus Kibbe]

That is why Marcus, and others who hold to this theology, cannot think of or accept any other theory of atonement, none of the others make sense and in fact don't seem compatible within Calvinism.

What theories of atonement can't (or don't) I accept? You and other here are the ones who reject certain atonement theories, not me. And as a matter of fact, I have never read a proponent of PSA who claims that it is the only motif connected with the atonement in the Scriptures. I can only wonder whether you are shooting at a non-existent target.

It is why he can state that one MUST accept that God knows the future.

I never said this. In post #20 I said, "If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which we must)".... Meaning: If we assume that God knows the future, then we must assume that such future knowledge is true.

These are the only conclusions that are allowable within the framework. It is why Wesley and Wesleyan Arminians are more generous in extending the hand of catholic spirit than Calvinsists have been.

Your conclusion may be your opinion and personal experience, but thats all it is.

[Paul DeBaufer]

What theories of atonement can't (or don't) I accept? You and other here are the ones who reject certain atonement theories, not me. And as a matter of fact, I have never read a proponent of PSA who claims that it is the only motif connected with the atonement in the Scriptures. I can only wonder whether you are shooting at a non-existent target.

Hmmm, you, Marcus, vehemently denounce any theory that steps aside from PSA, you have done so consistently argued against Christus Victor, moral influence, and others since you began here on NazNet. You push PSA exclusively. If I am mistaken in saying that you do not allow for any other theories, it is not really my mistake, it is how you have presented.

I never said this. In post #20 I said, "If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which we must)".... Meaning: If we assume that God knows the future, then we must assume that such future knowledge is true.

This statement is nonsensical as in it has no meaning. If we assume X, then we MUST assume X. The original, as written, sure sounds more like we must assume God's foreknowledge than, IF we assume God's foreknowledge then we must assume that that foreknowledge is true (to which I would agree).

Your conclusion may be your opinion and personal experience, but thats all it is.

I don't think so. I think if you follow the logic....

[David Graham]

Marcus, I'm posting on the "fly" here..... I've so many things to do it's crazy!
But re your previous comments, I've this to say:

This is a farce, David. He gives the impression that a "True Calvinist" believes that both election and reprobation are carried out in the same way by God and have no essential differences. This isn't true. The term double predestination is most often used as a caricature by critics of Reformed teaching, and not by Reformed theologians themselves.

Not true! Most people who call themselves "Calvinists" are not "True Calvinists".
Some time ago I actually did a course on Calvin's Institutes of Religion, and if you follow Calvin's teachings consistently (which he was himself at pains to do..... being a Lawyer) one of the things that you have to conclude with regard to Predestination particularly, is that God is Sovereign and he decrees what the fate of all people will be. Hence double Predestination is not an option if you follow Calvin's teachings. Some blame Beza for double Predestination saying that Calvin didn't go that far, but that is not right. Beza taught double predestination because it was implicitly expressed within the institutes.

1) Scripture never speaks of our faith as the reason God chose (predestined) us.

2) This does not give people free choice. If God can look in the future and see that person A will believe, and person B will not, then those facts are already fixed (determined). If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which we must), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way their lives could turn out any differently than this. Their destinies are determined, for they could not be otherwise.

Errr, what about these verses from Romans that some of my Calvinist friends used to like to quote to me: Romans 8: 29, 30. "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren; and whom he predestined, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified".

Sure, faith is not mentioned within the above verse, but justification is mentioned, and in the context of the book of Romans, it is a justification based upon faith as apposed to works. In reality these verse favour the Arminian position rather than the Calvinist one, for the possibility of choice is implied within the "whom he foreknew".

This is a "True Calvinist" position... not surprising given that Lewis was a Calvinist.

This is the first I've heard that Lewis was a Calvinist. From what I've read of Lewis he is a Christian who was basically "unalligned" but identified with the village church he attended...... Anglican I believe. If anything Lewis tries to be the "Via Media" between Protestantism and Catholicism, which does not make him a strong representative of either camp. Besides all of that, Lewis was rather sympathetic as I am to the idea of "Universalism", where hell could be emptied.....i.e. that if a way could be found, than God would find that way. However, using the illustration that I gave (which is from Lewis) of the locks being on the inside of hell, then such an emptying must be with the full cooperation of the inmates themselves. I read no-where in Lewis where he advocates divine determinism alone.

Continuing in the Christian life is one of the evidences that a person is truly born again. When rightly understood, this should cause genuine worry (fear) in the hearts of any who are "backsliding" or straying from Christ. If one falls away from their profession of faith in Christ and obedience to him, the evidence that they are giving is that they are not saved, and never really were saved.

As an Arminian I would hope that my confidence of being saved was based upon "mere" continuence in the Christian life. However, if you mean that by maintaining a strong and vibrant relationship with Christ, than I agree that this is a good barometer, and far better than the "formalistic" lives that some Christians seem to live. i.e. I have heard some people say: "O I was saved many years ago, and I know that God is aware of the decision I made way back then and will recall it at the end"....... (Because at one time I have been declared NOT GUILTY, I am secure for all time)

Real assurance of salvation is dynamic and evident to the person in the everpresent NOW. Sure, Christ provided redemption through his meritorious work on the cross; yet we live day by day in the power and presence of the resurrected Christ, and he assures us that we are saved by the Holy Spirit within us.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I’m a regular attending, devoted, faithful, involved, tithe paying, official member in the Church of the Nazarene... although I'm pretty sure I wouldn't fit into your Nazarene box.

I have heard you say this before. However, the theology you present here is definitely Reformed and the theological foundations of the CotN are not. Maybe the local church you are in has a Reformed lean to it, I saw that happen to the one I came to Christ in. Reformed thought is infiltrating the CotN.

[Lucas Finch]

TThis is a "True Calvinist" position... not surprising given that Lewis was a Calvinist.

That's funny stuff there! I very vividly remember a debate that I had with a Calvinist on a discussion board over ten years ago where I tried to say that Lewis embraced a centrist position, but that person insisted that Lewis was Arminian.

For some perspective, I give you some lines from my favorite book, The Great Divorce:

All answers deceive. If ye put the question from within Time and are asking about possibilities, the answer is certain. The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it. But if ye are trying to leap on into eternity, if ye are trying to see the final state of all things as it will be (for so ye must speak) when there are no more possibilities left but only the Real, then ye ask what cannot be answered to mortal ears. Time is the very lens through which ye see--small and clear, as men see through the wrong end of a telescope--something that would otherwise be too big for ye to see at all. That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality. But ye can see it only through the lens of Time, in a little clear picture, through the inverted telescope. It is a picture of moments following one another and yourself in each moment making some choice that might have been otherwise. Neither the temporal succession nor the phantom of what ye might have chosen and didn't is itself Freedom. They are a lens. The picture is a symbol: but it's truer than any philosophical theorem (or, perhaps, than any mystic's vision) that claims to go behind it. For every attempt to see the shape of eternity except through the lens of Time destroys your knowledge of Freedom. Witness the doctrine of Predestination which shows (truly enough) that eternal reality is not waiting for a future in which to be real; but at the price of removing Freedom which is the deeper truth of the two. And wouldn't Universalism do the same? Ye cannot know eternal reality by a definition. Time itself, and all acts and events that fill Time, are the definition, and it must be lived.

[Doug Ward]

Other than T-U-L-I-P, what are we disagreeing with?

Other than the bullet, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

[Lucas Finch]

Other than the bullet, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Too soon!

[Doug Ward]

You’re not being consistent, Hans. For a loving God to not save millions of people from the pits of hell for all eternity, when he could do so otherwise, all for the sake of “freedom,” is no less blasphemous than what you describe above. I’m sorry you are in denial about that. Arminians are in the same dilemma as Calvinists.

No, we are not, and it is not even close. Marcus, you are missing the obvious point. God has saved millions of people from either the pits of hell or simple extinction - all of them - every one of them. His atonement is unlimited. If I do not enjoy the benefits of His gracious act, it is only because I refuse to walk with that Savior, refuse to take hold of our only hope - Christ in me.

A God who forces one against their will is a God who denies freedom, enjoyment, and denies the very idea of grace. If one is destined to fulfill a destiny laid out already, then that is not grace, nor is it salvation. It is the blind following of a certain future.

[Hans Deventer]

I think Calvinism and Arminianism have two different sets of speak. They both claim to use logical arguments but I tend to wonder because they both go in two separate ways and seem to start on different paths to begin with. So really it is just yelling back and forth across a median while each other drives by.

The issue has not been resolved in 400 years. So there is little chance that we will. Which is the very reason I see no use in that specific discussion here and reject any attempts to promote Calvinism on a Nazarene forum.

[Benjamin Burch]

Cherry-picking church history again I see.

Nope. Not cherry-picking at all. I'm sorry you struggle to grasp the concept of "majority of the Church" and "majority of the time." Both are true here. That isn't cherry-picking.

Unless, of course, you also believe that the USA "cherry-picks" which votes to accept when selecting the POTUS.

Marcus, give me a break. Seriously. lol.

But fine. I'll say it. Your small minority of Christianity which accepts TULIP, or Irresistible grace at all, has existed for about 700 (being generous) total years of Christianity, all as a minority. You never won the election. You've lost the election every time you've shown up, and you've only shown up for maybe 1/3 of the time as it is. Christianity on the whole has spoken and it has said we don't want Calvinism.

[Hans Deventer]

I’m a regular attending, devoted, faithful, involved, tithe paying, official member in the Church of the Nazarene... although I'm pretty sure I wouldn't fit into your Nazarene box.

You make the word "Nazarene" devoid of meaning. You are a Calvinist, and I don't know what your reason was to become a Nazarene, but it can never be a good one. Don't understand what church took you in. You would never have been able to become a Dutch Nazarene. We're Wesleyans, not Calvinists.

At least George is honest about who he is. I strongly disagree with him, but he is honest and that's what I appreciate. I disagree equally with you, as will do any real Nazarene, but you pretend to be who you are not. I would have been ashamed of myself if I stood in your shoes.
There is however one honest thing you can do: leave the CotN as soon as you can. (There is of course also the option to become a Nazarene by adhering to the Church's teachings, but knowing you, that is not a serious option)

You’re not being consistent, Hans.

No of course not. Arminianism is not about consistency, it is about being true to the character of God as we mere humans understand it. That is the very point you seem to be missing, Marcus. That is exactly THE error of Calvinism: it is more about logical consistency (and it definitely is logically consistent) than about being true to the character of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

For a loving God to not save millions of people from the pits of hell for all eternity, when he could do so otherwise, all for the sake of “freedom,” is no less blasphemous than what you describe above. I’m sorry you are in denial about that. Arminians are in the same dilemma as Calvinists.

See Doug's reply, I have nothing to add.

Please answer this question: Why would a loving God allow millions/billions of people to persist in their free choice rebellion, knowing they will spend eternity in hell?

Love never forces, Marcus. Have you ever noticed? Do you even know what love is? If you did, you would have known.

[Benjamin Burch]

I’m a regular attending, devoted, faithful, involved, tithe paying, official member in the Church of the Nazarene... although I'm pretty sure I wouldn't fit into your Nazarene box.

You're also incredibly dishonest bc you know this wasn't the question being asked. But, you won't answer Lucas' question. You'll continue to play smoke and mirrors while you waste our time on NN, arguing more for Calvinist ideas. At this point Marcus, you only detract from people's experience of NN. You do not contribute positively. I have no problem saying that.

[Benjamin Burch]

Y
Love never forces, Marcus. Have you ever noticed? Do you even know what love is? if you did, you would have known.

Marcus doesn't believe this, Hans. No Calvinist does. If Edwin were 3 years old, and tried to run out in the middle of the street, would you not force him to stop? If he tried to put his hand on a hot burner, would you not have forced him to not? Your love forced a lot of good upon Edwin when he was a small child, I'm sure. To Marcus, this is all we are to God. Helpless children.

[Hans Deventer]

Marcus doesn't believe this, Hans. No Calvinist does. If Edwin were 3 years old, and tried to run out in the middle of the street, would you not force him to stop? If he tried to put his hand on a hot burner, would you not have forced him to not? Your love forced a lot of good upon Edwin when he was a small child, I'm sure. To Marcus, this is all we are to God. Helpless children.

My love let him go to a festival when he was 14. Let him go to California on his own when he was 17. Love lets go. And that so happens to be exactly what God does, of which we see evidence every day around us and in world history since the beginning. And in the Scriptures:

Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelt the pleasing odour, the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. (Gen 9)

In other words, I could keep interfering because "the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth", but I won't, says the Lord.

[Hans Deventer]

What theories of atonement can't (or don't) I accept? You and other here are the ones who reject certain atonement theories, not me.

Marcus, if you cannot be honest, it is better not to write at all. This is too ridiculous for words. You are the great PSA champion, pushing it at each and every opportunity you can find, dismissing anything else. It is totally clear for all to see. The pope could just as well deny that he is Roman Catholic.

[Benjamin Burch]

My love let him go to a festival when he was 14. Let him go to California on his own when he was 17. Love lets go. And that so happens to be exactly what God does, of which we see evidence every day around us and in world history since the beginning. And in the Scriptures:

Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelt the pleasing odour, the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. (Gen 9)

In other words, I could keep interfering because "the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth", but I won't, says the Lord.

Well, surely you know that we aren't 14 in the eyes of God. We are no better off than when we were 3. We need God to keep us from putting our hand on the stove.

[Hans Deventer]

Well, surely you know that we aren't 14 in the eyes of God. We are no better off than when we were 3. We need God to keep us from putting our hand on the stove.

Well, He does it only for the few Jesus actually died for.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well, He does it only for the few Jesus actually died for.

Well, sure. God can't go around letting all the kids know there is no punishment for doing something wrong. Someone's kid has to get hit by the car when they go out in the middle of the street, or else there's no justice. No consequences for our actions! You certainly aren't going to let it be Edwin. Better it be someone else's kid.

2. Election and reprobation rest on different grounds: election on the redeeming love of God that undertakes the salvation of the lost; reprobation on the moral necessity to manifest to the universe the nature and consequences of sin in moral personality.

I mean, what would a world be like without manifestation of the consequences of sin? What a miserable place where everyone is saved!

[Jim Chabot]

Marcus, if you cannot be honest, it is better not to write at all. This is too ridiculous for words. You are the great PSA champion, pushing it at each and every opportunity you can find, dismissing anything else. It is totally clear for all to see. The pope could just as well deny that he is Roman Catholic.

While it may be true that most Calvinists strongly identify with PSA, it must also be noted that these are separate issues. It is perfectly ok for a Nazarene to support and embrace PSA, while I do not, most Nazarenes around here insist upon it. Let's keep PSA and irresistible grace separate shall we. As Nazarenes, we are holiness people and we are Wesleyan in that sense, in other areas of theology we are free to stray from Wesley's teachings. It isn't as if we are monolithic.

Many Nazarenes embrace PSA, there is no incompatibility with holiness here. Irresistible grace, on the other hand is antithetical to the doctrine of holiness, while we should strive to understand how and why some come to this, I do not believe that a Nazarene can embrace this and still remain a Nazarene. For the record, while Marcus has often attempted to correct misunderstandings regarding Calvinism, he has never stated that he embraces this. Perhaps, rather than determine that he is dishonest, you should rather ask him if he does embrace irresistible grace?

I must say that I am quite put off by the notion that a Nazarene residing in the Netherlands would be so bold as to invite someone halfway around the world to leave the church to which he is involved, devoted and faithful member. I believe that Grant Swank once did this to you, I will strongly suggest that there is no difference here. I would pray that you reconsider.

[Hans Deventer]

While it may be true that most Calvinists strongly identify with PSA, it must also be noted that these are separate issues.

Sure! I'm not mixing the two.

Irresistible grace, on the other hand is antithetical to the doctrine of holiness, while we should strive to understand how and why some come to this, I do not believe that a Nazarene can embrace this and still remain a Nazarene. For the record, while Marcus has often attempted to correct misunderstandings regarding Calvinism, he has never stated that he embraces this. Perhaps, rather than determine that he is dishonest, you should rather ask him if he does embrace irresistible grace?

Jim, he is always defending Calvinism. It is already obvious for anyone with eyes to see.

I must say that I am quite put off by the notion that a Nazarene residing in the Netherlands would be so bold as to invite someone halfway around the world to leave the church to which he is involved, devoted and faithful member. I believe that Grant Swank once did this to you, I will strongly suggest that there is no difference here. I would pray that you reconsider.

I was actually thinking about what I could do this morning. We reject the CN's methods. So what IS the proper way? If I had knowledge of a guy like Marcus in one of our churches here in the Netherlands, I'd discuss it as a problem in the District Advisory Board. It would mean we're either doing something very wrong in the introductory courses, or someone slipped in with evil intentions. In either case, the matter is serious and requires our attention. As the Lord said: "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall." (Luke 11:17) We can accept many a different view, but a catholic spirit must be maintained or we will fall indeed.

I don't remember Grant ever asking me to leave. He did contact my DS to complain about my heresies. But, I have to be honest, I haven't read everything he wrote about me so you may be right. I don't think he was a Nazarene at that time though, so it wouldn't have made a lot of sense.

But, as to your point, can I ask a person who so clearly pushes Calvinistic doctrine to leave the CotN? I'd say I can, you can, any Nazarene can. And in fact, should. Rightly or wrongly, we are an Arminian church when it comes to theology. If someone doesn't like that, well, the Church of Christ is so much bigger than the CotN. There must be a place where you can be a blessing rather than a curse. Unite and strengthen, rather than tear down and divide. If I'd ever find myself in such a situation, I'd be gone. I'm not called to tear down and divide. God may have needed a few Luthers in the history of the church, but chances are, that's not me. For most of us, the word is: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." And sometimes that means you'll have to ask those who are totally unwilling to abide by that word for their conscience sake, to leave and seek a place elsewhere. We should not be occupied with internal battles. That's not what the Lord asked us to do.

[Lucas Finch]

As I've read through the recent development of this conversation, I have tried to determine what is acceptible disagreement with the denominational statements and what is not. For example, I do not agree with parts of the Covenant of Christian Conduct. Does my disagreement here mean that I should disassociate with the COTN?

And, of course, we have our friends in the Concerned Nazarenes. They do not like our Article IV. And many of them choose to disregard our governing and reconciliation processes and would rather sow seeds of dissension. Manny himself has recently essentially said that he does not care about the Manual.

And then there is Marcus, who frequently comes on here defending Calvinism. My own church is in a lot of ways a "community" church in that there are a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds, some being pretty Calvinistic. I do not know of any members who are full out predestinarians, but we certainly have former Baptists who have sympathies with once saved, always saved.

So I do think that there needs to be some ground for disagreement. If there wasn't any, there wouldn't be a process allowed for changing the Manual. I think that the methods used and ultimate submission despite disagreement are the keys here.

Though I personally think that I should be allowed to have a glass of wine with my dinner or a beer after a hard day of work outside, I respect the authority of the COTN and choose to submit. I think that I can have a respectful conversation with others about this, stating why I believe what I believe, and still be respectful of my church. Should it ever come up to a GA vote, and should I be a delegate, I will vote to change the CoCCo, or eliminate it completely, as I believe that the CoCCh is sufficient, but I am not actively stirring up rebellion and dissension.

In the case of the CNs, I am completely fine with fundamentalists choosing to associate with the COTN, as long as they do not try to accuse those of us who are not fundies of being false teachers, heretics, etc. I am fine with them trying to have a conversation about inerrancy, as long as it remains respectful and all parties involved recognize that true Christ-followers can, in fact, disagree on this issue. But when they make slanderous accusations, stir up dissension, and subvert the processes of the denomination, then I believe that it is time for them to find another organization with which to associate.

In the case of Marcus, I have mixed feelings. I am fine with those who have reformed leanings associating with us. I am not sure why they would want to, but I am ok with it. Heck, if I was in a town with two churches, one being a PCA and the other being a COTN, and though I agreed more with the latter it proved to be a self-righteous bunch of jerks, whereas the former, despite its flawed theology, truely lived out the love of Christ, I would choose to associate with it. Perhaps Marcus is in a similar situation? And I certainly do not think that he has to remain mute. I think that conversation is healthy, as long as it is done properly.

However, the way he comes across in much of what he posts really stretches things for me. Maybe the correct answer is that online conversation is not the correct forum for the type of things he wants to converse about. Maybe the best setting for him is face to face, with people who know him and love him and know that he loves them, so that when disagreements arise, they are within the context of loving relationship.

So I do not oppose Marcus raising the questions that he does while remaining a participant in the COTN, but maybe he needs to find another context within which to raise those questions?

[Hans Deventer]

Good post, Lucas. Been thinking about it as well. Obviously, when you become a Nazarene, there's not much more that is needed than to declare that you agree with the Agreed Statement of Belief and covenant to give yourself in the fellowship of the CotN, as set forth in the two covenants. You're not even asked to agree with the Articles of Faith!
Now if you actually are a Calvinist, and you believe in entire sanctification, you can still be a member in good standing, though you'll have to swallow quite some Arminian preaching and teaching. If one can do that, having a good Wesleyan "catholic spirit", more power to you, but it isn't easy. If you can't, then we do have to raise the question in all honesty, if this is going to be a good match. Even worse when you are determined to change us into Calvinists.

So the door is pretty wide, but it most of all requires a catholic spirit to work properly. As A.B. Rigss said in 1904: "The secret of the whole matter [the growth of his church] is perfect love. We do not see every minor thing alike in respect to all church doctrines etc, but because of perfect love shed abroad in our hearts there has been no friction." (Timothy Smith, Called Unto Holiness, p 89)

If that spirit isn't there, that perfect love, it won't work and it is better to serve in place where the minds are more alike.

[Rich Schmidt]

Heck, if I was in a town with two churches, one being a PCA and the other being a COTN, and though I agreed more with the latter it proved to be a self-righteous bunch of jerks, whereas the former, despite its flawed theology, truely lived out the love of Christ, I would choose to associate with it. Perhaps Marcus is in a similar situation?

This is exactly what I was thinking. There are all sorts of reasons people choose to join a church. Full agreement on doctrine isn't always the deciding factor.

Of course, they still do commit, in the Covenant of Christian Character, to "evidence their commitment to God"...

27.3. THIRD. By abiding in hearty fellowship with the church, not inveighing against but wholly committed to its doctrines and usages and actively involved in its continuing witness and outreach.

[Cam Pence]

Too soon!

I actually think it is spot on what with the impending release of "Abraham Lincoln:Vampire Hunter"

[Greg Farra]

It's one thing to not share every point of doctrine, it's another to teach and/or advocate contrary positions to our theology.

[Lucas Finch]

I actually think it is spot on what with the impending release of "Abraham Lincoln:Vampire Hunter"

My [anticipated] movie highlights of 2012:

1. The Hobbit
2. The Avengers
3. The Dark Knight Rises
4. The Hunger Games
5. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

(Alright, so that last one isn't actually anything that I am looking forward to or planning on seeing, but if I were to see a preview of Honest Abe staking a sparkly Edward, it might very well displace The Hobbit as my top [anticipated] movie this year.)

[Marcus Kibbe]

Hmmm, you, Marcus, vehemently denounce any theory that steps aside from PSA, you have done so consistently argued against Christus Victor, moral influence, and others since you began here on NazNet. You push PSA exclusively. If I am mistaken in saying that you do not allow for any other theories, it is not really my mistake, it is how you have presented.

You're poorly mistaken, Paul. Nothing else to be said.

[Paul DeBaufer]

You're poorly mistaken, Paul. Nothing else to be said.

If I am, so are others here and it is where you led. Your failure to communicate, IF there is a mistake. But, as Hans has said repeatedly no matter the subject you try to sneak in PSA. Maybe you are just lying to yourself and the rest of us by accident. But this is blatant dishonesty.

[Marcus Kibbe]

That's funny stuff there! I very vividly remember a debate that I had with a Calvinist on a discussion board over ten years ago where I tried to say that Lewis embraced a centrist position, but that person insisted that Lewis was Arminian.

Lewis constantly harmonizes between free will and God's sovereignty. I think "centrist" is fair. It can be easily argued that he was Arminian when looking at various thoughts in isolation. He was a member of the Church of England and its 39 Calvinistic articles. His favorite theologian was the Reformd Richard Hooker (see post #36). For me, the most compelling evidence he leaned Calvinist is his conversion story described in 'Surprised By Joy':

I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion.... It was more like when a man, after long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake...

[Hans Deventer]

You're poorly mistaken, Paul. Nothing else to be said.

We only tell you what YOU communicate. If you do that so poorly that pretty much everyone who engages with you takes it like Paul does, guess who has some work to do.

For further explanation, check with our new friend Dan. He has a nice story about sender and receiver, and especially, about the responsibilities of the sender.

[Hans Deventer]

. He was a member of the Church of England and its 39 Calvinistic articles.

According to John Wesley, who also was a member and in fact a clergyman of the Church of England, supported its Articles and definitely was not a Calvinst:

Article 17 "barely defines the term [predestination], without either affirming or denying the thing, whereas the thirty-first totally overthrows and razes it from the foundation". (Letter to James Hervey).

Still, in order to avoid confusion, he omitted it completely from his 25 Articles.

All the same, even the 39 were a far cry from 5 point Calvinism.

And I notice you are once again propagating Calvinism.

[Benjamin Burch]

Lewis constantly harmonizes between free will and God's sovereignty. I think "centrist" is fair. It can be easily argued that he was Arminian when looking at various thoughts in isolation. He was a member of the Church of England and its 39 Calvinistic articles. His favorite theologian was the Reformd Richard Hooker (see post #36). For me, the most compelling evidence he leaned Calvinist is his conversion story described in 'Surprised By Joy':

You cannot possibly be serious, right?

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

This is a classically Arminian phrase. "Elected in Christ." God elects Christ before the foundation of the world, and all who join themselves to Christ - as Paul says, those who are "in Christ" - are elected with Christ, by being in Christ.

[Benjamin Burch]

For the record, while Marcus has often attempted to correct misunderstandings regarding Calvinism, he has never stated that he embraces this. Perhaps, rather than determine that he is dishonest, you should rather ask him if he does embrace irresistible grace?

For what it's worth, I believe Marcus has already told us that he is a Reformed Baptist who married a Naz pastor's daughter and since has joined the CotN.

[Hans Deventer]

For what it's worth, I believe Marcus has already told us that he is a Reformed Baptist who married a Naz pastor's daughter and since has joined the CotN.

My memory.... Didn't remember but it does explain a lot.

[Paul DeBaufer]

For what it's worth, I believe Marcus has already told us that he is a Reformed Baptist who married a Naz pastor's daughter and since has joined the CotN.

My memory.... Didn't remember but it does explain a lot.

Now that Ben mentions it, I seem to recognize that Marcus said something along these lines back in 2010 not long after he first came on NazNet.