Ancient Christian Witness

A dictionary to help Arminians better understand Calvinist
terminology.
(Don't take this too seriously, this is meant in good fun)


"All: The elect

Altar Call: An insult to God

Arminianism: Man centered theology

Assurance: hoping that you're
elect

Augustine: The first church father.

Calvinism: The gospel

Call (effectual): to be irresistibly dragged

Call (general):
God's justification to condemn the reprobate.

Catholicism: What
Arminianism leads to.

Compatiblism: We are free to do whatever the
Potter decrees us to do."

Quote:
1187 How to treat the Devil:

"Satan may be overcome by contempt, but in faith, not in presumption.
However, he is certainly not to be invited; for he is a powerful enemy, seeing
and hearing everything that lies before us and that we are now talking about.
And, God permitting, he spoils everything that is good. He does not want one
little blade of grass or little leaf to grow."

The Christian often
senses and feels the devil's murderous anger. For this reason Christ gives him
reassurances as John 14:21, says Luther in his exposition of this passage.


1188 Face Satan with the Word

"Experience is required,
gathered in many kinds of bouts and temptations, to be able to meet the devil
when he comes and enters into judgment with us, wants us pious, and on the basis
of the Law, argues with us about what it means to have done right or not. Before
an untried and inexperienced Christian has learned his lesson, the devil has so
disturbed him that he must fear and tremble and does not know which way to turn.
Therefore we must learn to cling to Christ's Word and comfort alone and to
permit the devil no argument about our own works or piety."

At the
sametime Luther advises opposing the assaults and temptations of the devil by
simply telling him: I am a christian. Such a firm confession of allegiance to
Christ is often sufficient to send the old evil foe on his way, says Luther in a
sermon of September 1, 1537, on John 1:14.

1189 Confessing Christ Often
Chases the Devil away

I have read.....that a man who could have no peace
because of the devil made the sign of the cross on his chest and said: "The Word
was made flesh," or, what amounts to the same thing; I am a Christian. Then the
devil was defeated and chased away, and the man had peace. And I believe that
this is true if the man spoke these words from a believing heart. One does not
gain much ground against the devil with a lengthy disputation but with brief
words and replies, such as: I am a Christian, of the same flesh and blood as is
my Lord Christ, the Son of God. Settle your account with Him. Then the devil
does not stay long."

Quote:
Luther practiced what he preached. He often tells
us how he spoke to the prince of darkness when the latter came to disturb him.
According to the Nachschriften of Schlaginhaufen (May 20, 1532), the Reformer
once spoke as follows concerning his method of treatment.

1191 How
Luther Handled the Devil

"When the devil comes during the night to
plaque me, I give him this answer: Devil, I must sleep now; for this is God's
command: Work during the day, sleep at night.- If he does not stop vexing me but
faces me with my sins, I reply: Dear devil, I have heard the record. But I have
committed still more sins which do not even stand in your record. Put them down,
too......If he still does not stop accusing me as a sinner, I say to him in
contempt: Holy Satan, pray for me! You never have done anything evil and alone
are holy. Go to God and acquire grace for yourself. If you want to make me
righteous, I tell you: Physician, heal yourself."

These Words have a
ring characteristic of Luther. We have some to the same effect from his own pen.
the Reformer always felt that it was best to treat the proud devil with cold
contempt. In an Easter sermon on Luke 24:36-48 he says that Christ grants or
assumes the reality of beings tht are spirits (v39) This leads him to speak of
the evil ones, the devils. He himself has observed, he says. Then he relates his
reaction.


1192 Luther treats the devil with studied contempt

"The devil has often raised a racket in the house and has tried to scare
me, but I appealed to my calling and said: I know that God has placed me into
this house to be Lord here. Now if you have a call that is stronger than mine
and are Lord here, then stay where you are. But I well know that you are not
lord here and that you belong in a different place- down in hell- and so I fell
asleep again let him be angry, for I well knew that he could do nothing to me"

11 The story which tells of Luther hurling an inkwell at the devil, who
appeared to him at Wartburg, is a legend that has caught the popular fancy. See
E.G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times, p. 519.

Quote from: Rosehip
So many people say they want nothing
to do with organized religion,stating that it's all about money. In short, the
church is just one big business. I must admit, I've had similar doubts, and
often don't know how to respond to such accusations. I know it's just an excuse,
but still, I see a grain of truth to it as well... Also that religion is bad
because it divides people.

Thoughts, anyone?

quote:

I do believe in multiple levels of
interpretation, and the Orthodox believe that we know God better through
Experience. And this is how I understand what you are saying about Job.

However, with that said, I do believe in parameters. Anything that goes
beyond the Parameters shouldn’t be dogmatic, and they should be just one’s
personal view. At least until others are able to digest it in a way that doesn’t
go against the grain.

Saint Paul talks about how we must watch how we
build on the foundation that Christ and the Apostles built.


So
"interpretation" is dynamic, but only in the sense that it must grow and adapt
to the culture that it's in. But it must always stay the same.

I look at
it like a pivot. You know how in Basketball, one has a pivot foot. Well the
samething is true about Interpretation.

One aspect of it should always
be grounded and unchangable, while the other aspect of it should always be
moving according to the culture that it's in.

In Greek culture we use
Greek words like "Logos" to explain a Truth of the Christian Faith. If we were
in China then we would have to use the word "TAO" to explain the same truth
about the Christian Faith. One may have a slightly different shade that the
other may not have, but the people in that culture will be able to understand.
And that's the whole goal.



For some years now. I have seen
Christianity as semi-Pagan. I say that because Judaism is that which is non
pagan.

But when Christ came, He brought down the wall that divided the
Jews from the Pagan. And eversince then Christianity has been semi-pagan.

It always had one foot in Judaism and the other in various pagan
cultures. It took the good out of each pagan culture it was in and it transforms
it to the glory of God.


I think Loving our nieghbor as God loved us
extends to the Pagan World, For God became Incarnate in the Culture of Judaism
to save the World, so in like manor....God is Working through the Followers of
His Son who ingage the pagan culture by being incarnate in it, so that they can
help save the people in that culture as well as transforming the culture itself,
for when the people are transformed...the culture will be transformed too.

We have to be "IN THE WORLD, BUT NOT OF IT".

Being in the WORLD
to me = Being INCARNATE in the CULTURE

Whereas

Being not of the
World to me = Rejecting or untwisting the evil of the culture so that we can use
it to glorify God.


But that's my take on it.



"We
should select and posses what is useful out of all cultures." Clement of
Alexandria 195 A.D.



sidenote: Since Jesus is ISRAEL,
Christianity is the New Definition of that which is non-pagan. I only said what
I said so that people could understanding where I was coming from

Quote
I apologize for this quibble, but the word is
"Presbyterian" with a "b". Are you typing in the quoted passages because if the
books are being published with such a spelling error there is something wrong
with their editors.

Quote
You choose to lump them together under one name
where others do not. I understand that and as I wrote, this seems to be a point
on which we must agree to disagree.

Thank you also for the references to
both books. Is the orange line in parentheses on the quote from The History of
Christianity in the United States" by Nancy Koester your emphasis or did you put
it in to show what you consider an important point?


Ebor

Everything About Puritanism isn't bad, but I just wanted to show the influence they had on the founding fathers of this great Nation.

Quote
Interesting. It is always good to gain new
information. Could you please give some links or information on these groups?
Thank you in advance.

Quote
Then we will have to agree to disagree. Would you
please give some historical references for the Congregationalists and are they
the same as the Congregationalist churches of today?

Quote
Well, I know of the phrase "Protestant work ethic"
which was coined by the German sociologist Max Weber. He wrote a book on it that
was published in 1905
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/weber.htm

I looked your "cliche" as you called it up and it is equated
with Weber's idea.

Quote
I know of Harvard and Yale (though one source of
information says that it was founded by "Congregationalists" rather then
"Puritans". You appear to think that they are the same, but there seems to be
some difference of opinion.) I beg your pardon, "HBCU"? Would you please post
what those letters mean?

Quote
You have asserted that there is a "Puritan
Influence" on the American Revolution, but you have not provided any sources or
documentation to back this up. Would you please provide some support for this
claim. What people or movements in the time leading up to the American
Revolution are you thinking of when you write this, please? Also, the phrase "No
king but Christ" was not, from all of my reading, a rallying cry of the American
Colonists. I have found a reference to a biography of a Donald Cargill with that
title for example (Scots and during the reign of Charles II apparently). But no
reference to the American Colonies and the politics and economics that were
motivating forces for the Revolution.

Some of these for people to look
up were the Navigation Acts:
http://www.usahistory.info/colonial/Navigation-Acts.html

The Stamp
Act: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/stampact.htm

What are
termed the "Coercive Acts"
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/Resources/abscoer.html

You've asserted this before. On what evidence and documentation do you
base this claim please? Have you read the Declaration of Independence which lays
out the reasons for seeking to be a separate nation?

Ebor

"Some refer to Calvinism as Augustinianism. John
Calvin took the teachings of the later Augustine and systematized them.
The only major difference between the later Augustine and Calvin’s theology is
the doctrine of perseverance. Augustine believed that one could be truly
regenerated and yet not be granted the gift of perseverance. Calvin denied
that one who was truly regenerated could fail to persevere. But what about
the early Augustine?
The early Augustine had a theology that was little
different than the theology which had dominated the church since apostolic
teachings. Augustine held to a libertarian view of human freedom and only
began to move away from that view when embroiled in debate and controversy with
the Pelagians. In these debates his theology began to shift.
Calvinists
might claim that this shift was due to theological maturity and greater insight
into Biblical truths once overlooked. Another possibility is that when
trying to counter the Pelagian arguments regarding free will Augustine went too
far in the other direction and began to fall back into some of the gnostic
determinism which he had abandoned upon his conversion to Christianity from
the Manichaean sect. Augustine’s later redevelopment of much of
his theology was the direct result this overreaction to the Pelagian
controversy. I prefer the latter explanation.
So what did the early
Augustine believe concerning the will? He agreed with the consensus
of the chruch Fathers before him. He held to a libertarian view of
free will and argued for it along the same lines as many Arminians do
today.
Compatibilists often tell us we are “free” if we are not
coerced by external factors and do what we “want” to do.
The part that they often leave out of the conversation is that they believe that
our “wants” are causally determined by internal factors"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChoirBoy
Okay...so I am
talking to one of my co-workers today and she asks me a question that at first
seemed simple but the more I thought about it I was unsure. So I will ask you
all. Here it is.

If God is Love, can someone who is unsaved really love?

Thats it...what do you say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristNDC
The
unconditional love is only what God gives us - believers - the grace to
accomplish. So, I totally agree with Az...