On a different thread, Stan encouraged me to write more posts on Former Adventist Forum regarding Calvinism

Stan Ermshar - 12 April 2009 10:00 PM

Keep fighting the good fight and post your clear thoughts on as many websites as you can, including FAF, as former Adventists need to understand fully the implications of Roman Catholic theology, and how closely tied it is to SDA theology and other forms of semi-Pelagianism in the majority of evangelicalism.

I’m watching with interest what people are writing on FAF and I want to share with you, and eventually with FAF lurkers, my opinion regarding the trends and evolution of FAF in the last period. I noticed a resurgence of anti-Calvinist rhetoric under the silent encouragement and even participation in it from the administrator of the forum. Since the policy of the forum, rule 8 especially, forbids debates on the forum and Calvinism is perhaps the hottest debatable subject, I refrained myself from defending it from the unjustly misrepresentations made by some vocal members of the forum.

Even so, I was not able to resist posting something in defense of John’s Calvin character when he was slanderously described as the tyrant of Geneva. You can read my post on this thread, under the nickname Jackob. I had only posted some incontestable historical facts, easily available for verification that picture a different view about Calvin’s tyrant straw-man image. Immediately after my post, the administrator of the forum, while acknowledging some truth in what I posted, said:

I’ve long thought that Calvin and Luther and Spurgeon and Wesley and CS Lewis and Yancey, et al, have received both valid and invalid criticism. And sometimes these men of God receive the greatest blow to their legacy not from those whose views differ but from those who uphold them.

At this time things should be clear: invalid criticism of Calvin (or slandering Calvin, and others, of course) is less important, less serious than “the greatest blow”, the greatest damage done by “those who uphold” him. It may be argued that I was not included in “those who uphold” Calvin, that only “sometimes” this was the case, still the general statement that invalid criticism of Calvin is less problematic than the behavior of people who defend him makes my defense of him less important. I was told that the first and foremost problem is found in my camp, in the camp of Calvinists, not in the other.

At this point I had a deja-vu. I remembered a similar situation, Stan, when, after the long discussion you and others had with people regarding Calvinism, I complained of unjust treatment. I made clear that I don’t mind criticism, but I had great problems with misrepresentation, slander, ad-hominem attacks. The response from administration was similar, that the problem resides in the camp of those who are promoting Calvinism. The unjust behavior was not acknowledged and, more than this, it was presented as justified in the context by my own and your own behavior. Maybe you’re remembering this, maybe not.

Since the situation is repeating, it’s obvious that no progress was made. We are still where we had been two or three years ago. Maybe after another three or why not, five, or ten years, the situation will be more favorable and God will grant the administrators a better view of things. At this moment all I can do for them is to pray.

Gabriel

FAF and Calvinism - Different Hermeneutics (principles of interpreting the Bible)

The five points of Calvinists had not appeared in a theological vacuum. They are the result, the final product of a peculiar hermeneutic, a mode of interpreting the Bible based on the formal principle of Reformation, Sola Scriptura. Without this principle, the theology of reformation cannot exist. It is not unreasonable to think that a departure from this principle will result in opposition to the doctrines of grace, to Calvinism, because they are the product of a different hermeneutic.

When the reformers, starting with Martin Luther and continuing with Calvin established Sola Scriptura, they came into conflict with two apparently different groups, the Church of Rome and the Anabaptists. Both groups criticized the reformation’s principle Sola Scriptura, and it’s interesting to see how the history has a tendency to repeat itself if the lesson is not learned. Catholics opposed Sola Scriptura on the basis of contemporary, continuous revelation embodied in the oral tradition of the Church of Rome and his magisterium. They argued that God’s revelation goes beyond the borders of the Bible and it’s not restricted to it. A similar argument was used by Anabaptists, only this time, since they had no way to appeal to any kind of oral tradition and hating it, made claims of personal revelations, prophetic visions, dreams. They accused Luther and the reformers of being guilty for setting a “pope of paper” instead the living pope from Rome. They said that the reformers have the Bible as a “dead letter”, since they are against the contemporaneous manifestations of the Holy Spirit, that they are insulting the Holy Spirit.

The reformers stood with the text which tells us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). They understood that the Bible is God’s special revelation and it has a singular character, consequently, God’s speaks to us only through the Bible. They had not denied that God’s providence goes beyond the Bible, but they understood that it’s highly impractical to search God’s will and truth outside the Bible. Trying to understand what God’s perhaps telling us outside the Bible is making our subjective experiences the norm, instead of letting our life be normed by the only norm, the Bible. In our current setting, God’s gift of illumination through the Holy Spirit for understanding correctly the Bible is what guides us safely to the truth about us, God, and the world.

I followed closely what’s happening on FAF, and the tendency is to lean in the direction of the old Anabaptists. Frequently, those who are in favor of current prophetic messages, especially charismatics, are criticizing the view which sees God speaking to us ONLY through the Bible, classifying it as a view which limits God, which puts God in a box, telling Him how to manifest Himself today. It’s quite intimidating, I admit, since nobody wants to be highlighted as limiting God, as being against God’s sovereignty. Interesting is that the same persons object strongly to Unconditional Election, the truth that God has the right to save the people He wants to save, and reject those He wants to reject, ““I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’ (Romans 9:15). Somebody said that predestination, as it is understood by Calvinists, kills people’s joy of being predestined.

The reformers dedicated themselves to the study of the Bible. Since they assumed that God does not contradict Himself, they sought to perceived the unity of God’s truth revealed in the Bible. They looked for objective truth, for harmonization between different parts, between Old Testament and New Testament, to a system of truth, and the five points of Calvinism is a direct result of this approach.

Sadly, on FAF, in order to prejudice people against Calvinism, leaders of opinion argue that believers in Calvinism are limiting the knowledge of God to their system of theology. God is greater than our system of beliefs, which, in a certain sense, it is true. Still, we can’t expect God to come in contradiction with the truth he revealed us in the Bible. Using the five points of Calvinism as an example, since God is one, the three Persons of Trinity work together for the same goal: the salvation of the same group of people. God will elect a certain number of people (Unconditional Election), Jesus will die for the same group (Limited Atonement), and the Holy Spirit will regenerate and preserve in faith the same group (Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the saints). Instead of a harmony in God’s will, we have Jesus dying for each and every person who ever lived and the Holy Spirit regenerating only some of those for whom Jesus died, and the Father electing all people in the Son. In spite of these contradictions, the internal tension is resolved quickly by those who argue that God is greater than our system of beliefs by appealing to mystery, to a kind of agnosticism, “We can’t know”. That’s seen as true humility, and, by contrast, any insistence that the theological system of Calvinism is seen as a lack of humility, as putting God into a box, and as a threat.

That’s the setting. Giving the situation, I have little hope that Calvinism will ever be allowed to have a fair hearing on FAF. In my view, FAF should go down the road of charismaticism in order to reap what the people are sowing today.

Gabriel

Thanks Gabriel for such well thought out and logical posts.

It is one thing to leave the SDA church over particular doctrines, but it is quite another to leave a false or a distorted Biblical hermeneutic and embrace a true method of Biblical interpretation.

I believe the bottom line truth that a person needs to understand to truly leave Adventism, is to at least get away from the synergistic view of salvation.

If one embraces MONERGISTIC regeneration, then I think this is the important first step. I don’t think one has to embrace all 5 points of Calvinism to be a Reformation Christian.  For example, Rod Rosenblatt on the White Horse Inn, is a Lutheran minister who embraces monergistic regeneration yet rejects limited atonement.  This may seem inconsistent, but at least he accepts Luther’s view of monergism, which is the most important concept in the doctrine of grace.

It is important that we be gentle in our dealings with former SDAs, but we must speak the truth.  In my own experience I rejected Calvinism for 8 years before the light finally dawned in my spirit that I had absolutely nothing to do with my salvation.

But, on the other hand, Calvinism doesn’t get a fair hearing on most websites including FAF. My one regret while on FAF, is that I did not do a very good job sometimes in representing it properly. I wished I had quoted more from scripture rather than from great Calvinist authors. The administrators responded to complaints from those who did not want Calvinism openly expressed and debated, and as a result, a locked portion of the forum was created for this purpose. I don’t know what happens in the locked section, so I won’t comment on that.

The FAF moderator seems to on the surface to agree with monergistic regeneration, but I am not sure this is really true, as that person seems to teach prevenient grace, which by definition is not monergism. I am very concerned about what seems to be vagueness in her responses, and sometimes can sound like a monergist, but in reality denies it in other instances. Then when confronted, ends up saying that it is all a mystery, and we can’t put God into a theological system, in fact she speaks negatively of those who speak of systematic theology as being important.

And recently charismatic beliefs are encouraged. Many on FAF still want to believe in extra-biblical revelation which speaking in jibberish represents. There is no Biblical basis whatsoever for any gift of tongues other than speaking in known languages for the purpose of preaching the gospel.

So Gabriel I agree with you. While I have appreciated the ministry of FAF, and have supported it, I am saddened by the directions it has taken recently:

1. Militant anti-nomianism. You should see the expressions on their faces when the Decalogue is spoken of in a positive manner.
2. Increasing trends towards charismatic phenomena
3. Embracing Synergism over Monergism
4, A general disregard for the Reformation and the teaching of the Reformers. There is rarely any mention of even Justification by faith alone.
5. A disregard for church authority
6 Tolerance for any movement in Christianity except Adventism. As long as it is not SDA, then it is just OK
----------------------------------------------

But it is important for Reformation Christians to stay on FAF and try their best to persuade in winsome ways, using a lot of scripture and prayer.

Most of all we need to pray that God’s will be done in all things, and that we have charity when dealing with important topics in which Christians disagree.

Stan

Here is a chart explaining the differences between Synergism and Monergism:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/twoviews.html

Monergism: In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration. The Holy Spirit, who joins us to Christ, quickens us through the outward call cast forth by the preaching of His Word, disarms our innate hostility, removes our blindness, illumines our mind, creates understanding, turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh. Only then do we apprehend the beauty and excellency of Christ. This gracious Spirit wrought work in the heart gives rise to a delight in His Word—all that we might, with our renewed affections, willingly & gladly embrace Christ. Monergism is when God conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is enabled to receive the offer of redemption. It refers to the first step (regeneration) which has causal priority over, and gives rise to, the moral and spiritual desire/ability to comply with all the other aspects of the process of being united to Christ, (i.e., the ability to apprehend the Redeemer by a living faith, to repent of sin and to love God and the Mediator supremely) It does not refer to the whole process that it gives rise to (justification, sanctification), but only the granting of the spiritual capacity to comply with the terms of the covenant of grace. As Michael Haykin says, “The Reformation was not merely about justification through faith alone but, more importantly, it considered “...whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christs’ sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith.”

Synergism: “...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives.” The synergistic doctrine of prevenient grace does not resolve this issue, but only pushes it back, for if all have grace and only some believe the gospel, then what makes them to differ? Jesus Christ or something else in them? According to the synergist, something other than grace makes men to differ. This unscriptural view is the greatest threat to a true understanding of salvation in the Church today.

Here is what is meant by Prevenient Grace:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/prevenient.html

The term “prevenient grace” – a distinctly Arminian doctrine – refers to a universal grace which precedes and enables the first stirrings of a good will or inclination toward God and it explains the extent or degree to which the Holy Spirit influences a person prior to their coming to faith in Christ. The Arminian, together with the Calvinist, affirms total human moral inability and utter helplessness of the natural man in spiritual matters and the absolute necessity for supernatural prevenient grace if there is to be any right response to the gospel. Like Calvinists, Arminians agree that, apart from an act of grace on God’s part, no one would willingly come to Christ. This point is important to distinguish so as to not confuse Classical Arminianism with either Finneyism or Semi-Pelagianism, which both reject the need for prevenient grace. So Christ’s redemption is universal in a provisional sense but conditional as to its application to any individual, i.e. those who do not resist the grace offered to them through the cross and the gospel. Prevenient grace, according to Arminians, convicts, calls (outwardly), enlightens and enables before conversion and makes conversion and faith possible. While Calvinists believe the inward call to the elect is irrevocable and effectually brings sinners to faith in Christ, the Arminian, on the other hand understand God’s grace as ultimately resistible. In short, they affirm that prevenient grace, which is given to all men at some point in their life, temporarily brings the sinner out of his/her condition of total depravity and puts them in a neutral state of free will wherein the natural man can either accept or reject Christ.

Prevenient grace defined as follows by “Wesley’s Order of Salvation”:

“Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as “Prevenient Grace.” Prevenient Grace doesn’t save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us WANT to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God.”

Furthermore, in reply to the orthodox assertion that the sinners’ generation of faith itself implies merit the Arminian will often respond by affirming that the human will, aided by prevenient grace, is free, even in accepting pardoning grace; that though this acceptance is no more meritorious than a beggar’s acceptance of an offered fortune, yet it is accepted freely, and with the full power of rejection, and is none the less grace for that. In other words, every sinner determines for himself, whether or not he will be saved, and thus determines his own election based on whether or not he responds positively to the gospel offered to him by God while under the influence of prevenient grace. The Arminian contends or reasons that anything else would be unfair of God.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Roman Catholic and SDA view is synergistic, as well as about 90% of the so-called evangelical community. Only Reformation Christians hold the monergistic view of salvation, but of course this view is the most unpopular, but this fact alone makes it highly likely that it is correct.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 15 April 2009 03:23 PM

But it is important for Reformation Christians to stay on FAF and try their best to persuade in winsome ways, using a lot of scripture and prayer.

I’m not sure, Stan, as far as my involvement is concerned. I don’t know if I have the time and energy, because I posted on FAF my own exegesis of significant bible texts for the topic, and nobody engaged my exegesis. They either run to other texts that seems to counteract the interpretation I provided, sometimes not engaging the texts at all, claiming that the Bible affirms both Calvinism and Arminianism, monergism and synergism, God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, claiming that Calvinism is an attempt to put God into a box.

Stan, from your experience, how can I have a meaningful conversations with people who’re not engaging the topic? If I’ll go and use my time and energy on FAF, I don’t need your encouragement, I need your advice regarding the precise situation in which nobody really wants to engage the topic, and beside different ways of evading it, ad-hominem remarks and other things that are not helpful, no sign of progression is seen.  I said that perhaps after 4 or 5 years FAF will be open to Calvinism, after the charismatic wave and Arminianism will disappoint them in order to look after a God centered religion, instead of a man centered religion.

Gabriel

Stan

Tell me how you will deal with the situation I presented.

I’m looking for a solid answer, because until this point i saw only Dennis’ posts which were quickly dismissed and he had no chance to present his views as they should be. It would be better if people’s objections will stick with the biblical texts presented, because this will create the opportunity of bringing clarity on the subjects. In the present circumstances I don’t see how this level of openness can be reached, since a skin-deep presentation of the truth leaves people with a caricature of what Calvinism is. In my view, this caricature does more damage for those who are interested in the subject, because it makes them reject what they don’t accurately know. In order for somebody to testify about the doctrines of grace with some efficiency, a more elaborate and substantial engagement of the biblical text is necessary. How that level of substantial conversation can be accomplished, I have no idea.

Have you?

Gabriel

My computer has been down for a while. Upon coming back up, I thought I’d check out the for the Gospel site.

You guys aren’t for the gospel anymore than a brick.

You are anti-Former Adventist Fellowship (FAF) Calvinists. Any other brand of Christianity (which, if you travel the world much you would find the whole Calvinist/Arminian debate irrelevant, particularly on the mission field) you denigrate as not being Christian. How is that for the Gospel?

A true Calvinist, who understands that God has foreordained all things, would recognize that God’s desire to choose someone is not based on their theology, but on His sovereign grace. As soon as you make the Calvinist/Arminian debate important, you have, in effect, become Arminians.

Why don’t you at least stop deceiving yourselves and give yourselves and the public the proper tag, so when searching for information on the gospel, honest seekers will not be misled.

After several months, (a year???) I can’t believe that you are still blabbering such drivel.

And to Stan Ermshar,

Walter Martin would be very disappointed in you. Someone who claims to have been a student of his, but spends his time devaluing true Christians, is the antithesis to his ministry. Perhaps you don’t respect Martin anymore, though, because he openly embraced Arminians, Calvinists and OTHERS (yes, there are others!) as fellow Christians.

Bye for now.

Steve

Hey Steve, welcome back.

I think you have (perhaps unwittingly) created a false dichotomy between being a Christian and carefully handling the Bible. I’ve seen this before on FAF—a dichotomy is made between having a relationship with Jesus and the study of theology, as if the two are opposed to each other. Wouldn’t you agree that our highest calling as Christians is to get the gospel right by understanding what Jesus has revealed about himself? If some of us are convinced that Calvinism is biblical, why are you surprised that we would seek to convince our brothers and sisters in Christ of its truthfulness by pointing to the Bible itself? In what way is this opposed to the practice of Christianity or the gospel?

By the way, I don’t think anyone here is calling Arminians non-Christians and nobody said that God chooses people for salvation on the basis of their theology. Please be careful that you do not jump to the wrong conclusions.

Steve, I ask that you (and everyone here) would continue this discussion with charity and refrain from veiled insults.

Greg

Thanks for the welcome, Greg.

You end your post with “refrain from veiled insults.” Early in your post you state “I’ve seen this before on FAF.” Is that not a veiled insult? If not, what is it? One thing you will not be able to outdo me on—Logic. Not that I will give you much time to do that, because I do not have the energy nor time to spend posting on this website.

I believe the study of theology and being a Christian go hand-in-hand. If I have (perhaps unwittingly) created a false dichotomy, then my point has been misunderstood.

(Please address these items that I bring up, rather than point out that you’re used to seeing this kind of thing on FAF.)

The point of my post was that, you have a website that indicates that it is “for the gospel.” As I read several threads, I find that there are a couple of common themes that are repeated.

1. Calvinism is Biblical.

2. Many who post on the Former Adventist Fellowship forum do not understand Biblical Calvinism.

Response:

1. Calvinism is Biblical. Arminianism is Biblical. Libertarianism is Biblical. None of these systems are complete in and of themselves. Our Lord condemned the narrow “ism” type of thinking in 1 Corinthians chs. 1, 2 and 3. Apollos, Paul, Jesus and others are not being condemned in 1 Cor. It is the attitude of those who claim allegiance with those listed there. That is the attitude that I am addressing on this website. You claim that I am “surprised that we would seek to convince our brothers and sisters in Christ of its truthfulness by pointing to the Bible itself.” I am not surprised that one would think that Calvinism is biblical. Again you miss my point. My point is not that Calvinism is biblical or unbiblical. My point is the direction your discussion takes on the majority of threads on this website. Direct your comments at unbiblical teachings. Why discuss the FAF discussions? My point was (and is) that your site is titled “for the gospel,” when the discussions here seem to be more “anti-FAF” that “for the gospel.” Just truth in advertising.

2. Many who post on the FAF forum DO understand Biblical Calvinism, but there are other, more serious issues that need to be addressed by those who are investigating or leaving the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Wouldn’t you agree that, if Calvinism is not a required theological position, that making it a divisive issue is unbiblical, may I suggest anti-Christian? SDA theology is clearly unbiblical. We are commanded by the Lord, through the writer Jude to content earnestly for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. Anything, under any name whatsoever, is a denial of the fact that the faith was delivered once and for all. I see less issues related to specific SDA theological points addressed here than I see issues related to FAF addressed. Is this not true? Or is the Calvinism/Arminian debate just as important as the Christian/SDA debate? I don’t see how they are nearly as important.

You request that I be careful not to “jump to the wrong conclusions.”

My conclusions are that your website is a prolonged and continuous attack on the Former Adventist Fellowship, some that post on the FAF Forum and the administrators of that website.

You can reply that I do not understand.

I was a philosophy major who aced symbolic logic. Logic, just like theology, apologetics, philosophy, etc., is a tool to be used by the Christian. I am not opposed to the right use of any of these things. I love theology, philosophy, logic, apologetics and rational discussion. I am opposed to the use of any of these things, even good theology, to bash other individuals. That is the gist of your discussions here. All I’m saying is stop the bashing, and start lifting up our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You are continually guilty of destroying the foundations laid by another, as stated in 1 Cor. 3:10, “According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it”, the more necessary it will be to address you as “false brethren.”

Oops! Am I not having charity or using veiled insults? Let me remove the veil. Quit attacking the foundation that was laid by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The Former Adventist Fellowship is a work of God and an outgrowth of the leading of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. Get to the point of being “for the gospel” or rename your website “anti-FAF.” Read Matthew ch. 23. Was Jesus not showing charity to the scribes and Pharisees? He was calling a spade a spade.

You (various posters on this website) are convinced that, when addressing Biblical topics on the FAF website, some of those there simply to not engage the issues that are raised. Although I have not posted there in quite a long time, I know that I would not only not engage, but openly criticize some of the viewpoints that are freely offered on this website. Those who feel “ignored” or criticized on the FAF forum, must not understand the intent of the FAF forum. It is a place to openly criticize the Seventh-day Adventist Church for teaching false religion, it is a place of healing for those who have been twisted by unbiblical SDA doctrines, and a place to begin understanding Jesus as He is revealed in scripture. It is not a place for particular theological positions.

I am not saying that Christianity and theology are opposed. Carefully handling the Bible is the mandate of all Christians. But I am saying that theology is “an activity” of members of the Body of Christ. Theology no more defines the body of Christ than church membership. In that sense a “brick” is as theological as some of the posts on this website. The brick lacks any sensitivity towards the things of God or the Body of Christ. As long as you oppose FAF, you are not “for the gospel.” The posters on the FAF forum, although being opposed to the SDA Church, are more “for the gospel” because of their careful analysis of false theology, NOT BASED ON CALVINISM/ARMINIASM/otherISM.

You claim to be surprised at various conclusions you assume I hold. If, as you say, “I don’t think anyone here is calling Arminians non-Christians” then why the prolonged effort to bolster this point of view rather than life up our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

My conclusion from the previous post stands:

Being for Calvinism makes one no more “for the gospel” than a brick.

A living relationship with the one Lord Jesus is the only thing that makes theology, or any other “ology” of value. You theology overshadows your relationship with Jesus.

What is happening with the Former Adventist Fellowship is similar to what has gone on with varous former-Mormon Christian groups such as EMFJ (Ex-Mormons for Jesus), ULM (Utah Lighthouse Ministry of Jerald and Sandra Tanner), Concerned Christians (an ex-Mormon group), Lifeway (ex-Christian Science), Tower Watch Ministries (ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses) and other like ministries.

Those groups are not only openly opposed by the false religions they have come out of, they are also opposed by so-called “brothers” in the faith.

I DO apologize for the rambling. Perhaps that is why what I have posted today, and previously, goes unanswered. Perhaps you could find a way to actually understand me, without feeling like this is a personal attack. It is a defensive move on my part. I am defending my brothers and sisters in Christ on the FAF website against those who continue to attack them. If quenching the fiery darts of the enemy is seen as attacking, a lack of charity, or insulting, so be it.

The title of your website, and an attempt to correlate that with the discussions contained on the site, are the issue. You’re like the “Bibles for America” folks. Sounds great, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

My fellow sheep (fellow Christians on the FAF website) are being devoured. Woe to you if you so much as touch a hair on the heads of one of these little ones!

Steve

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 16 April 2009 07:56 AM

Stan

Tell me how you will deal with the situation I presented.

I’m looking for a solid answer, because until this point i saw only Dennis’ posts which were quickly dismissed and he had no chance to present his views as they should be. It would be better if people’s objections will stick with the biblical texts presented, because this will create the opportunity of bringing clarity on the subjects. In the present circumstances I don’t see how this level of openness can be reached, since a skin-deep presentation of the truth leaves people with a caricature of what Calvinism is. In my view, this caricature does more damage for those who are interested in the subject, because it makes them reject what they don’t accurately know. In order for somebody to testify about the doctrines of grace with some efficiency, a more elaborate and substantial engagement of the biblical text is necessary. How that level of substantial conversation can be accomplished, I have no idea.

Have you?

Gabriel

Gabriel,

When I was on FAF in 2005, we had a lot of folks who loved theology and loved to discuss it. The moderators allowed for healthy discussion, and our discussions were never discouraged.  I never dreamed that things would change so much, as suddenly the discussions were not allowed on open threads.

In those days I posted a lot of links to solid theological websites and authors.

We are in a post-modern era at this time. The culture has changed, so that many don’t want to dig deeply into theolgical truths.

However, you still have the opportunity to start discussions on the closed threads. Don’t worry if you seem to get little or no response. I got no response to many links, but only later did I find that people read them. Remember, that most coming out of SDA want to discuss the issues that pertain directly to SDA, and I understand that. However, once one sees what is wrong with SDA, then that theology needs to be replaced with the solid meat of the Word and good Biblical teaching.

Again, I understand why some would not be interested in Reformed theolgy, but I don’t understand why there seems to be hostility towards it. However, this is also true of evangelical Christianity in general today.

John Piper has a great article on how to teach and preach Calvinism at this link:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1998/1509_How_to_Teach_and_Preach_Calvinism/

1. Be rigorously textual in all your expositions and explanations and defenses of Calvinistic teachings. Make it a textual issue every time, not a logic issue or an experience issue.

10. Tell stories and experiences from biography and from the lives of living saints that illustrate their dependence on the sovereignty of God. Especially stories related to missions and evangelism and holiness of life.
---------------------------------------

It would be impossible for me to improve on John Piper’s advice.

Stan

Spitcher - 16 April 2009 10:24 AM

My computer has been down for a while. Upon coming back up, I thought I’d check out the for the Gospel site.

You guys aren’t for the gospel anymore than a brick.

You are anti-Former Adventist Fellowship (FAF) Calvinists. Any other brand of Christianity (which, if you travel the world much you would find the whole Calvinist/Arminian debate irrelevant, particularly on the mission field) you denigrate as not being Christian. How is that for the Gospel?

A true Calvinist, who understands that God has foreordained all things, would recognize that God’s desire to choose someone is not based on their theology, but on His sovereign grace. As soon as you make the Calvinist/Arminian debate important, you have, in effect, become Arminians.

Why don’t you at least stop deceiving yourselves and give yourselves and the public the proper tag, so when searching for information on the gospel, honest seekers will not be misled.

After several months, (a year???) I can’t believe that you are still blabbering such drivel.

And to Stan Ermshar,

Walter Martin would be very disappointed in you. Someone who claims to have been a student of his, but spends his time devaluing true Christians, is the antithesis to his ministry. Perhaps you don’t respect Martin anymore, though, because he openly embraced Arminians, Calvinists and OTHERS (yes, there are others!) as fellow Christians.

Bye for now.

Steve

My dear brother Steve,

Thanks for coming back on after a full year. I hope you don’t just hit and run with these posts today, as I would like to engage the discussion some. I miss so much seeing you regularly as I used too. I did come back again to an FAF Bible study last September, and missed seeing you, as you were handing out literature at an SDA evangelistic meeting.  I e-mailed you in the past wanting to reach you, but maybe your computer was down.

Steve, in those days when we had such great fellowship at the FAF studies, and afterwards at Coco’s, we had many long discussions on these issues. You studied the writings of John Calvin, and you announced at a Friday night study that you had become a Calvinist and we toasted with our coffee cups and I almost spilled my coffee! You always had a great love and deep respect for the writings of the Reformers, and for “Modern Reformation” magazine. And it is interesting how many of the participants in the Bible Study and many on FAF are convinced of these great truths of the faith, after careful study.

You passed out a CD by John MacArthur on Catholicism that was terrific.

But unfortunately I have not seen the leaders of the FAF movement nearly as enthusiastic about the Reformers, or the White Horse Inn, or Modern Reformation, as the people who study under their teaching. In fact, I am not sure that the leaders have read even one book by Luther or Calvin. I will be happy to be corrected if I am wrong on this. And by the way, the leaders on FAF or members have an open invitation to post anything they want here without getting censored. Greg and I were banned from that forum, so I occasionally feel the need to speak up about disturbing trends on FAF.

I think you know me well enough Steve to know that I am not a mean spirited individual. I am passionate about Reformed theology, and admittedly too enthusiastic at times, that I sometimes don’t express myself as well as I should.

If you have been offline for a long time, you might want to check out other threads on this website. You will find that most of the threads are gospel centered, We believe that the truths of the Reformation are very important, and believe that SDAs and former SDAs need to be exposed to the great teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Only a few threads have any reference to FAF.

BTW, have you checked out the very recent threads praising our King as at this link?

http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewthread/319/

Or this piece by John Piper?

http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewthread/316/

Or how about the beautiful new hymns and praise music at this link?

http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewthread/315/

Or how about this video by Desmond Ford?

http://www.forthegospel.org/forum/viewthread/297/
------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve, with all due respect you have made a lot of statements that are highly exaggerated, and for someone who is trained in logic, a lot of what you have written would have logical fallacies.

Please show me one place where I have ever made the statement that our FAF friends or anyone who held to an Arminian view are somehow not saved, or any less Christian.

I will submit that my SDA mother exemplifies the Christian life much better than I do, and this is in spite of her unbiblical theological views on certain subjects.

Please, Steve, your generalized attacks against this web site are unfair and hurtful. I will stand by anything I have written about FAF as true to the best of my knowledge, but I invite anyone to challenge objectively any statement I have written about FAF or its leaders. Such things would never have been written in the first place if our appeals for a private meeting had ever been granted.

Steve, in this statement you made;

And to Stan Ermshar,

Walter Martin would be very disappointed in you. Someone who claims to have been a student of his, but spends his time devaluing true Christians, is the antithesis to his ministry. Perhaps you don’t respect Martin anymore, though, because he openly embraced Arminians, Calvinists and OTHERS (yes, there are others!) as fellow Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve, you have made a serious charge that I devalue true Christians. Would you like to give me a specific example where I have devalued a Christian, even though I am troubled by their theology?

I embrace Arminians all the time Steve, and one of them is my dear wife who is totally disabled from multiple strokes, and my parents, and many other Arminian friends and colleagues.

I have come to appreciate the beauty of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in a special and personal way. I see God working in circumstances in my life that are not always pleasant, but nonetheless have taught me to trust Him better.

Steve, there is so much to discuss that you have put out here on your two posts, that I feel I would like to discuss this by phone, and I would like to take you to lunch and discuss some of these issues. I also would be happy to meet with the leaders of FAF at any time or place to further discuss these issues. I have wanted to resolve differences in private rather than by internet postings if possible.

my email address is

Thanks again Steve for coming on here. I hope all is well with you, and I continue to pray for all my friends at FAF and this includes those that I have had differences with.

God bless you and yours,

Stan

Steve,

You raise a number of points and Stan has more than adequately addressed most of them. I sincerely hope you think about what Stan wrote and that you will stay around to dialogue rather than lobbing verbal grenades and running away.

I will remind you that this is an open forum where anyone is allowed to participate—Adventist, former Adventist or otherwise. We believe this keeps us accountable to others instead of creating an exclusive atmosphere where only one side of the story can be presented.

I’d like to address a specific point you made. You said that we should rename the website because of the quantity of our “anti-FAF” content. In the 213 threads on the forum, only 5 specifically include FAF as its topic, while 38 have the acronym appearing somewhere in the comments. Your claim that we are waging a “prolonged and continuous attack” on FAF is highly disingenuous. If you had even once participated on a “non-FAF” thread—say one of the several that Stan posted above—your criticism would hold much more water.

As for the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, I will reiterate that nobody here has called Arminians non-Christians, yet you have ungraciously applied that label to us, implying that we are “false bretheren”, “Pharisees” and “ravenous wolves”. The irony of your assertions is inescapable, since this is just the type of behavior we’ve witnessed from Adventists whose letters get published in Proclamation! magazine. You appear just as “fighting mad” as those Adventists who react so angrily to the content of the magazine, yet you have a huge advantage over them because you can actually bring your disagreements to the source without any editorial filtering or forum rules to stop you. I encourage you to continue speaking freely, but please examine your own heart and realize that you are behaving in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from the angry Adventists you oppose.

You ended your long post by asserting that your challenges have gone unanswered. Perhaps you feel this vindicates you and absolves you from the responsibility of backing up your allegations with evidence. Now that you have received two responses (and perhaps more to come), the floor is yours. You are welcome (as is anyone on FAF including Richard and Colleen Tinker) to post here and hold us accountable for our words. In this regard, we’ve extended a courtesy to you and the FAF administrators that has not been extended to us. It’s one thing to hide behind locked forums and members-only clubs, but quite another to engage in open, honest dialogue and Christian accountability.

Blessings in Christ,

Greg

Thanks, Stan and Greg,

I will be replying. I was just reading Stan’s response when you posted. I actually do have examples from your website to support my accusations.

Be careful, I do not oppose “angry Adventists.” I oppose heresy. Both you and Stan claim that I am guilty of similar problems you’ve noted among former SDAs. I forget the name of the rule in logic (I can easily look it up) but just because someone is guilty of the things he is opposing does not invalidate his correct assessments.

Too busy tonight to respond, but I do have the info from your very website to provide you with the “evidence” you are asking me to present, and I will be posting that.

You both are coming awfully close to actually addressing the issues that I have raised, without actually addressing those issues.

BTW, the FAF forum is not a “locked forum” or a members only club—even if it were, that does not mean that it is not “open, honest dialogue and Christian accountability.” You are committing a serious logical fallacy.

A is evil.
A is done in secret.
Therefore, anything done in secret is evil.

This logical fallacy would label Jesus’ command to not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing as evil.

I’ll be back.

Steve

Steve,

As you know, FAF has a locked forum section and the entire forum is members-only. Stan and I were once members before being kicked off without warning for questioning Colleen Tinker’s assertion that “there is no Adventist who knows the true Jesus” (see this link). We both offered to meet with the Tinkers in private about this. Richard Tinker initially accepted our offer, but withdrew it the very next day. As such, there is no way for us to hold them accountable for their actions either on FAF or in private, but they (and you) have every opportunity to speak freely here. We’re bending over backwards to communicate, but so far they prefer to remain behind the walls of their forum. The logical fallacy you posit does not exist because Christian accountability cannot occur where there is no ability to communicate.

Steve, I look forward to seeing your evidence. For starters, please be sure to show us where we said Arminians were not Christians and please give us the evidence that we are non-Christians seeking to destroy the faith of others (or as you put it, “false brethren”, “Pharisees” and “ravenous wolves").

Greg

To my friends in this discussion:

For the sake of readers who are not fully aware of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, here’s a brief summary.

Quoting from The Five Points of Calvinism by Steele and Thomas:

“The issues involved in this historic controversy are indeed grave, for they vitally affect the Christian’s concept of God, of sin, and of salvation.  Packer, in contrasting these two systems, is certainly correct in asserting that “The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content.  One proclaims a God Who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself.  One view (Calvinism) presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of mankind--election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit--as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly.  The other view (Arminianism) gives each act a different reference (the objects of salvation being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them.  The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms.  One makes salvation depend on the work of God, and the other on the work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it.  Plainly, these differences are important . . .”

“. . . The five points . . . are really inseparable.”

“For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology:  the point that God saves sinners.  God--the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power, and love to achieve the salvation of chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of the Father and Son by renewing.  Saves--does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory; plans achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies.  Sinners--men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot.  God saves sinners--and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedaling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Savior.  This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the ‘five points’ are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.”

You guys know that I am not fully in step with the prevailing views on this forum in regard to covenant vs. new covenant theology, and there are other areas where I have so little knowledge that I can‘t enter the conversations in a meaningful way.  Coming out of Adventism, I’ve been forced to fight the bigger theological fires first.  But I must say that, if I could have appreciated the five points 40 years ago, it would have saved me a lot of wasted time and I’d have lived with considerably more peace and rest during those years. 

Bob

Bob,

A heartfelt thank you for your post!  You have always been an encouragement to me with your humble Christian spirit. I have also enjoyed the fellowship with you as well as Steve Pitcher at the FAF Bible studies.

Stan