A Discussion About Jacob Arminius

[Providential]

I do not believe in OSAS or that women can have authority over men in the local church. Leadership is given to men in the home and church.

I leavewith a quote from Jacob Arminius proving he WAS NOT OSAS:


Arminius wrote:



That those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies — yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual. Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.
And he also said

“That true and saving faith may be, totally and finally, lost, I should not at once dare to say: though many of the [early church] fathers frequently seem to affirm this.”



And so it is clear that Arminius WAS NOT OSAS. He was not sure, and hesitant to say a believer would finally fall away, but admitted he COULD fall away.



In his debate with Perkins, he finds all the arguments and appeals from Scripture to support OSAS as presented by Perkins to be unconvincing.




Lastly, Arminius held that Election was conditional. That very fact does not lend itself to unconditional security. Salvation is conditioned upon faith, and Arminius knew well the Scriptures that said some shall FALL AWAY from the faith-1Tim 4, cast off their first faith and follow Satan-1Tim 5, and make their faith shipwrecked and overthrown1Tim 1.




Arminius immediate followers concluded from Scripture what Arminius acknowledged but refused to fully affirm--that believers could fall away and be lost. Arminius died before such studies and proceedings were completed.

[Churchwork]

You are here because you have doubts about your beliefs you didn't agree with in your profile. That's perfectly understandable.

The Church does not disallow women from being workers in the church. To say so is your false teaching. Your teachings are selfish especially against women. Non-OSAS is a false teaching and is a sign of unsalvation, because God saves eternally at new birth. Self is promoted when it comes to false teachings as they can't be for God.

As you quoted Arminius' famous words, "Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration."

It is quite disingenuous to tout Arminius as being anything other than an OSASer. He has made a proclamation. His other words don't violate his genuine belief of that proclamation.

Arminius is simply saying he doesn't know how to explain some verses, but he himself is a firm believer in once-saved-always-saved. As I have said many times, Arminius may not have realized those more difficult passages indicate "loss of rewards," and this is only understood in the context of the millennial reign of Christ in which some believers will return with Christ to reign during the 1000 years, whereas others will not receive this reward.

"Then I saw thrones, and the people sitting on them had been given the authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus, for proclaiming the word of God. And I saw the souls of those who had not worshiped the beast or his statue, nor accepted his mark on their forehead or their hands. They came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years." (Rev. 20.4) This is the first resurrection (v.5): a best "out-of" resurrection from the general resurrection at the consummation of this age. Not all Christians fulfill this condition. Read Rev. 2 & 3 speaking of only some who "overcometh."

Since Arminius rejected the teaching of some fathers who taught non-OSAS it shows where he stands. We should not rule out the unsalvation of many of those who are deemed fathers by greater Christendom, since not everyone is saved in Christendom. And the Bibles says call no man your father: "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23.9).

Arminius never admitted a person could lose salvation: "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish."

Conditional election does lead to eternal preservation, because the choice afforded all of us is a condition that if it meets certain requirements, it is effectively a choice for forever, and God will preserve us as new creations. 1 Timothy is talking about "loss of rewards," not loss of life. Those who apparently seemed to follow Arminius were called Remonstrants, but they were not following him at all, because they taught non-OSAS, whereas Arminius said, ""I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish." He fully affirmed this statement! There were non-OSAS arminians though that did agree with him, obviously, for I am one of them. Watchman Nee and Dave Hunt are two other people that also agree.

However, Arminius or anyone else should not be the point of focus. For Scripture is clear.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29).

Those who believe in non-OSAS I dare say are probably not born-again, because they say they can lose salvation tomorrow. That's not the kind of salvation I have. When I was born-again, January, 2001, it was once for all time. I can't be born-again AGAIN! How absurd! Just as we are born physically once, we can only be born spiritually once.

God predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints.

The selfishness of non-OSAS resides in thinking you can maintain yourself in salvation by works and control on that basis, but the Bible says salvation is by faith, not by works. Therefore, if you truly repent and believe, you shall be regenerated (saved) and God will keep you in His promised protection for eternity. What God is looking for from you is your genuine repentance to the cross as a helpless sinner then shall you be saved. Because you are unwilling to do this, how can God save you? He needs to keep it real!

When you are in Hell, you're not there because you were once saved then lost your salvation, but because you never received Christ and wanted to be saved in a way that God does not save. And a person who comes before the throne in heaven (Rev. 7.9) is not there with the possibility he could lose salvation sometime afterward, for God preserves his new life.

Amen.

[Providential]

You are here because you have doubts about your beliefs you didn't agree with in your profile. That's perfectly understandable


I stated why I am here. I do not "doubt" my beliefs, but have been a student of Scripture and history for 24 years.



The Church does not disallow women from being workers in the church. To say so is your false teaching. Your teachings are selfish especially against women.


You are reframing the debate, which is not an honest thing to do.

The issue IS NOT whether women can be "workers" in the church for they can and should be.

The issue is whether they can have governmental; authority over men, and the Bible is CLEAR they cannot.



1Timothy 2:
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


These verses are CLEAR to any honest mind. Paul tells us the PRIMARY SPHERE a woman works out her salvation is by being a good wife and mother at home, not trying to be over men in a local church. Paul did not allow women to teach or have authority over men. PERIOD.

And then in the next verses, whcih begin chapter 3, Paul tells us:



1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


Now then friends, authority in the church is predicated on the authority structure of a family and home, where men are the leaders and are to "rule". From this understanding men were to be selected who governed their homes well. And unless a woman can be "the husband of one wife", this debate is over.

The real problem is the wicked feminist spirit that pervades our culture and has invaded the church. Women want to be men and have the position God gave to men. This is bad and responsible for many of the family problems we see today. In us is fulfilled the same error as in Israel, where God said:

Isaiah 3:

12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.


This is the error, and the way of God;s paths are being destroyed. So the divorce rate is astronomical, and the number of children raised in Christian homes that grow up to NOT SERVE GOD is over 75% of them, AND I have ministered to many homosexuals who tell me their parents are Christians and many of them have been raised in the home of ministers!

What is the root of this? Isa 3 tells us.

Now as for Arminius, he was NOT a proponent of OSAS, as he made plain. He was NOT SURE, and said he found the arguments for OSAS were unconvincing. He admitted there are verses that seem to say that believers can fall away, but that he has not gone so far as to say they could finally fall away and be lost.

He recommended further study, and when this happened, the Arminians of that time unanimously concluded OSAS was false. Armnius died before this study was completed.

So to CLAIM HIM as a proponent of OSAS is simply FALSE.


Non-OSAS is a false teaching and is a sign of unsalvation, because God saves eternally at new birth. Self is promoted when it comes to false teachings as they can't be for God.


Utter nonsense and classic, textbook circular reasoning. These empty assertions are not proof, but merely assertions, and they are ludicrous.

So I guess all those Arminian friends of Arminius were lost. I guess John Wesley, John Fletcher, Charles Wesley, the hundreds of thousands of on fire Methodist/Holiness peope of those times, Charles FInney, and the entire Asuza street revival and the millions saved as a result are all NOT SAVED because they all rejected OSAS.

How absurd are these little Protestant pontifications by those who seem more like Protestant Popes speaking "Ex Cathedra" than true Apostles.



Those who believe in non-OSAS I dare say are probably not born-again, because they say they can lose salvation tomorrow. That's not the kind of salvation I have. When I was born-again, January, 2001, it was once for all time. I can't be born-again AGAIN! How absurd! Just as we are born physically once, we can only be born spiritually once.


Again, notice the Bible does not say that if you don't believe in OSAS, you aren't saved. That's the unlearned opinion of Church-worker. But it appears Church-worker believes his opinions are synonymous with Scripture. Amazing.

I was born again in January of 1984. I might be able to teach you a few things. A man CAN BE "unborn again". Lucifer was, Adam was, Saul was, Judas was, and many others. Jude warns of people who fell away and were TWICE DEAD, plucked up by the roots. There you have it.


The selfishness of non-OSAS resides in thinking you can maintain yourself in salvation by works and control on that basis

Wrong again. We teach what Jesus taught--DENY YOURSELF, take up your cross and FOLLOW Him. Christ said that if we can't do this, we cannot be His disciples.

OSAS is the Security-in-Sin doctrine. It teaches that no matter what Christians do they cannot be cut off from God, though Christ and all His REAL holy Apostles taught otherwise.

God said:
Ezekiel 18:

24But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? (OSAS says YES)All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

25Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

And there you have it, straight from God's mouth. God is telling us how He does things. A righteous man can fall away and die, and wicked man can turn and live. Both will die physically, the truth here is spiritual life or death. A righteous man can die in his sin and perish.

[Churchwork]

Regarding Women Apostles, Elders and Shepherds/Teachers


Many people have been students of Scripture for longer than you have and they are still not saved and still believe falsely many things about Scripture. You're no exception, because the proofs of Scripture show you are wrong.


For women to be workers includes them being Apostles and Elders, teachers (shepherds). There is not any position in the 4-fold ministry (Eph. 4.11) a woman can't have the calling or gifting for. This is governmental authority over men just like we observe in the secular world, where women hold the highest seats of power. Scripture does not disallow this. You have just misread God's loving Word, discriminate and are abusive towards women. I am an Apostle and have told you the truth, but you don't listen.


Your hostility against the Apostles is another problem for you said privately that a person ought not to admit they are an Apostle if they are one, but Paul said, "as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles about faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2.7).


"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (1 Tim. 2.11-15).


To understand these verses, we must understand the situation in which Paul and Timothy worked. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed to study. When Paul said that women should "learn quietly and submissively," he was offering them an amazing new opportunity. Paul did not want the Ephesian women to teach because they didn't have enough knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Evidently the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3.1-9) because they did not yet have enough Biblical knowledge to discern the truth.


Some interpret "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Tim. 2.12) to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church; however, commentators point out that Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul's commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher: "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18.24-26).


Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of responsibility in the church. Phoebe worked in the church: "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Rom 16.1). Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis were the Lord's workers: "Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us...Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord" (Rom. 16.6,12). So were Euodia and Syntyche: "I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord" (Phil. 4.2). Paul was very likely prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, from teaching.


Were Ephesian women targets for false teachers? See 1 Tim. 2.9-15 and 2 Tim. 3.6-7. This is given to Timothy in Ephesus. I don't think it is a stretch that Paul had to address this matter to them because it was pertinent, so Paul brought it up.


In Paul's reference to women listening and learning quietly and submissively, he is speaking about an attitude of quietness and composure (not total silence). In addition, Paul himself acknowledges that women publicly prayed and prophesied (1 Cor.11.5): "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved." Apparently, however, the women in the Ephesian church were abusing their newly acquired Christian freedom. Because these women were new converts, they did not have the necessary experience, knowledge, or Christian maturity to teach those who already had extensive Scriptural education.

In 1 Tim. 2, Paul talks about the male and female roles in the church. Some scholars see these verses about Adam and Eve as illustrating of what was happening to the Ephesian church. Just as Eve had been deceived in the Garden of Eden, so the women in the church were being deceived by false teachers. And just as Adam was the first human created by God, so the men in the church of Ephesus should the first to speak and teach because they had more training. This view, then, stresses that Paul's teaching here is not universal but applies to the churches with similar problems. Other scholars, however, contend that the roles Paul points out are God's design for his created order-God established those roles to maintain harmony in both the family and the church.

Paul is not excusing Adam for his part in the Fall (Gen. 3.6,7,17-19). On the contrary, in his letter to the Romans Paul places the primary blame for humanity's sinful nature on Adam (Rom. 5.12-21).

"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (1 Tim. 2.15).

There are several ways to understand the phrase, being "saved through childbearing": (1) Man sinned and so men were condemned to painful labor. Women sinned and so women were condemned to pain in childbearing. Both men and women, however, can be saved through trusting Jesus Christ and obeying Him. (2) Women who fulfill their God-given roles are demonstrating true commitment and obedience to Christ. One of the most important roles for a wife and mother is to care for her family. (3) The childbearing mentioned here refers to the birth of Jesus Christ. Women (and men) are saved spiritually because of the most important birth, that of Christ himself. (4) From the lessons learned through the trials of childbearing, women can develop qualities that teach them about love, trust, submission, and service.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Cor. 14.34,35).

Does this mean that women should speak in church service today? It is clear from 1 Cor. 11, that women prayed and prophesied in public worship: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven" (v.5). Make note that it does not say what the woman should cover her head with. Humility is a very appropriate head covering! It is also clear in chapters 12-14 that women are given spiritual gifts and are encouraged to exercise them in the body of Christ. Now, even though an Apostle is not commissioned by God by gifts, nonetheless, God still does the commissioning and the giving of gifts. Women have much to contribute and can participate in worship service.

In the Corinthian culture, women were not allowed to confront men in public, but today obviously, things have changed. Apparently some of the women who had become Christians thought that there Christian freedom gave them the right to question men in public worship. This was causing division in the church. In addition, women of that day did not receive formal religious education as did the men. Women may have been raising questions in the worship services that could have been answered at home without disrupting the services. Paul was asking the women not to flaunt their Christian freedom during worship. The purpose of Paul's words in 1 Cor. 14.34,35 was to promote unity, not to teach about women's roles in the church.


"But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves" (1 Thess. 5.12-13).


"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching" (1 Tim. 5.17).


"Now I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints), that ye also be in subjection unto such, and to every one that helpeth in the work and laboreth" (1 Cor. 16.15-16).


God sets in the church authorities such as "the elders who rule well" and "those who labor in preaching and teaching." They are the ones whom everyone should obey. The younger ones in age must also learn to be subject to the older ones. The apostle exhorted the Corinthian believers to honor especially men like Stephanas whose family was the first converts in Achaia and who was willing to serve the saints with great humility.


In the church the women ought to be subject to the men. "I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11.3). God has arranged to have the men represent Christ as authority and the women represent the church in subjection. Therefore, the women ought to have a veil (Greek: authority) on their heads because of the angels (1 Cor. 11.10), and they should be subject to their own husbands.


"As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home" (1 Cor. 14.33-35). Some sisters ask, Supposing our husbands cannot answer our questions? Well, God tells you to ask, and so you ask. After awhile your husband will know, since being repeatedly asked he will be forced to seek for understanding. And so you help your husband as well as yourself. "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2.11-13).


"All of you gird yourselves with humility, to serve one another" (1 Peter 5.5). It is most shameful for anyone to consciously display his position and authority.


God has also instituted authorities in the spiritual world. "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement, and despise dominion. Daring, self-willed, they tremble not to rail at dignities: whereas angels, though greater in might and power, bring not a railing judgment against them before the Lord" (2 Peter 2.10-11). Here we are told of a most significant fact: that there are authorities and glorious ones in the spiritual world under whom angels are assigned. Although some of them have failed, the angels dare not revile them because once they were superiors. After their fall, though you may recount the fact of the fall, you may not add on your judgment, for fact plus judgment is reviling.


"But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 9). Why? Because at one time God had made Lucifer the chief of the archangels; and Michael, being one of the archangels, had been under his authority. Later Michael, in obedience to God, sought the body of Moses because one day Moses was to be raised from the dead (possibly at the Mount of Transfiguration). When Michael was hindered by Satan, he could, in a rebellious spirit, have dealt with that rebellious one, Satan, by opening his mouth and reviling him. But he dared not do so. All he said was, "The Lord rebuke thee." (With men it is a different story, since God has never placed men under the authority of Satan. Though once we fell into his rule, we were never under his authority.)


On the same principle, David at one period submitted himself to the delegated authority of Saul. Subsequently, he still dared not overthrow Saul’s fading authority. How dignified is delegated authority in the spiritual realm. It should not be despised; any reviling of it will result in the loss of spiritual power.


If you ever once in your life meet authority you will then be able to see God’s authority everywhere. Wherever you go, your first question will be: Whom should I obey, To whom should I hearken? A Christian ought to have two senses: the sense of sin and the sense of authority. Even when two brothers consult together, though each may voice his opinion, only one makes the final decision.


In Acts 15 there was a council. The young as well as the old could rise up and speak. Every brother could offer his opinion. Yet after Peter and Paul had finished their words, James got up to give the decision. Peter and Paul only related facts, but James made the judgment. Even among the elders or the apostles there was an order. "For I am the least of the apostles," says Paul (1 Cor. 15.9). Some apostles are greater, some are lesser. This order is not arranged by man; nonetheless, each needs to know where he stands.


What a lovely testimony and beautiful picture this is. It is what Satan is afraid of, for eventually it will cause the downfall of his kingdom. For after we are all on the course of obedience God will come to judge the world.

We are content with the work and position which our Lord has appointed to us or arranged for us. We should not "glory in another’s province in regard of things ready to our hand" (2 Cor. 10.16). How we like to desert our own ground and tread on another’s field. The question is not whether we are able to work, but whether God has commanded us to work. Sisters, for example, need to keep their place (1 Cor. 14.34,35); they should not be teachers, that is to say, they should not be those deciding with authority the word of God (1 Tim. 2.12). In all our works we must let Christ have the preeminence. This doesn't prevent women from being Apostles, Elders, shepherds/teachers, but that women need to maintain humility. During the time when Paul was building the churches, women did not have authority for these things, even though there were women Apostles, but that was the exception not the rule.

Romans 16.7 speaks of two notable apostles, Andronicus and Junia, and good authorities agree that "Junia" is a woman's name. So here we have a sister as an apostle and a notable apostle at that. "Salute Andronicus and Junias [some manuscripts say "Julia"], my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me" (16.7). These apostles were doing the Work of the Ministry even before Paul started. Male-centered systems will try to teach these apostles are not apostles, rejecting God's commissioning and authority, because they prefer a male-centric and egotistical system which is abusive towards women. God's Word would never be so unclear as to confuse "note among the apostles" could be taken to mean they are merely respected by the apostles. No! They are "among the apostles" because they are apostles.

This same word for Junia is given in the NLT. The footnote reads, "some manuscripts read Julia." "Salute Philologus, and Julia" (v.15), "who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." We do not know if they were Apostles before Paul became one, but we know they were born-again before Paul was saved. Julia means "soft haired" and "youthful". The KJV Concordance refers to Junias ("Iounias" in Greek) as a "Christian woman," a "Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoners." Thayer's Lexicon refers to her as "a women's name...and the name occurs again in Rom. 16.15" - "Salute Philologus, and Julia" (v.15).

Today, women can do these things they couldn't do before. Just as the society they were in antiquity restricted their rights, so God restricted their authority until the time was right. Just this past century women can vote now. It is difficult to place a woman in authority long ago when women were not highly esteemed for such work. But today it is common place so women can have such responsibilities. All in God's good timing!

Women need to realize, though humbly, they are fallen in a different way than man. Eve ate of the fruit with a darkened mind (that is, doubting God), while man ate of the fruit for the affection of Eve, knowingly sinning. Both are sinning, but in comparing the fall of men and women, Paul says,

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim. 2.12-14). This is a call to be humble in light of what has occurred in the fall. This does not disallow women from teaching, but is an expression of how careful women need to be when they teach and do the Work of the Ministry or as elders or deacons.

[Churchwork]

Jacob Arminius Believed in OSAS

Jacob clearly said, "I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish..."

The Bible clearly states, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave me, is greater than all; and no is able to pluck out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29).

Yes, many men believe in non-OSAS, ex-cathedra protestant popes, but the Bible says we shall know them by their fruit which includes their false teaching. What love is this to save a person and give them eternal life then take it away? Whereas God of the Bible is able to foresee all things. If a person entered into a salvation that could be lost tomorrow, God would not save that person in the first place, because regeneration is not a salvation with the option to get out later. Rather it is a choice in fulfilling God's condition for forever.

The Bible says you are appointed once to die, not twice. Therefore, you can't be be reborn again spiritually, logically speaking. Lucifer, Adam, Saul and Judas were never born-again. So they can't even be reborn again. To claim they are is a very nefarious teaching for they never received Christ in their lives at any point in time. The negative outcropping of such a false teaching is that you claim people are saved who are not and lead other people astray by their false beliefs. Satan has his hold on you. I do not believe you have ever been born-again, not in 1984 or ever. My prayer is one day you give your life to Christ and enter into a salvation that can never be lost. Amen.

Non-OSAS is self-righteousness in sin because it is salvation by works. "Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2.9). We are "justified by faith in Christ, and not by works: for by works shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2.16). "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among people, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4.12). Therefore, we must conclude that you believe in a false Christ.

There is accountability for Christians though, because if you want to remain a fleshly Christian, you will lose the reward of reigning with Christ for a 1000 years. That is quite a long time. So all those verses you read as "losing life" don't say that at all, but should be construed as "loss of rewards."

" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eze&c=18&t=KJV&x=3&y=9#)But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous [man] turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked [man] turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die" (Ez. 18.24-28).

Physically dying is doesn't mean you are unsaved though dying sooner than dying sooner than you ought to due to sin is quite possible for anyone. Not everyone in Israel is saved, but as a nation they can grow or fall.

"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn [yourselves] from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin" (Ez. 18.30).

To be saved you must believe individually, but once-saved-always-saved. Just because there are hoards of people following Jesus doesn't mean they are all saved. Similarly, just because a disciple who is saved does not follow Jesus faithfully, doesn't mean he is unsaved, but he certainly will lose his rewards of reigning during the kingdom.

"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations..they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" (Rev. 2.26, 20.4).

Antinomianism is the false teaching you can just believe and that's it, no works towards overcoming are needed. You don't have to be watchful, prayer and keeping the word of His patience (Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10) to escape the hour of trial that is to come upon the whole world (first rapture according to readiness). The irony is non-OSAS is antinomian because all you need to do is believe and rebelieve every time you allegedly lose salvation. By the way who has the record of being unsaved the most number of times and then getting resaved again? Probably some Roman Saint or somebody under Wesley? I would think that is like Hinduism and Buddhism in their reincarnations. Reincarnation promotes sin because you always get another chance. It's all just a false salvation to begin with. Man likes to make up different ways of salvation, used to control people, to reject God's way of saving.

Your twisted theology allows you for a couple of years go and murder and rape people then come back and get saved again. It doesn't work that way. Once-saved-always-saved. The fruit of the Spirit disallows such sin in the true believer because that is the kind of faith Christians want and thus have by the grace of God and mercy in Christ. Amen.

[Providential]

For women to be workers includes them being Apostles and Elders, teachers (shepherds).

No it doesn't. Prove it from Ephesians 4


There is not any position in the 4-fold ministry (Eph. 4.11) a woman can't have the calling or gifting for.
Excuse me, the list is FIVE, not four. It is the 5-fold ministry.

This is governmental authority over men just like we observe in the secular world, where women hold the highest seats of power.

Thank you for admitting you get your ideas from the secular world which is in rebellion to God and cannot submit to the law of God.

In 1Timothy we are told PLAINLY women cannot have authority over men, and you say THEY CAN. WHo is the false teacher in rebellion to God's Word???


Scripture does not disallow this. You have just misread God's loving Word, discriminate and are abusive towards women. I am an Apostle and have told you the truth, but you don't listen.

You are a liar, and not an Apostle. I have never abused a woman one day in my life, but in order for you to defend your worldly position you must resort to Ad Hominem and slander because you cannot deal with the texts I posted.

You are not an Apostle, but a self-promoting self-proclaimed one. Prove you are an Apostle.


This is a call to be humble in light of what has occurred in the fall. This does not disallow women from teaching, but is an expression of how careful women need to be when they teach and do the Work of the Ministry or as elders or deacons.

This is a lie and a blatant DENIAL of what Paul said. He said HE DOES NOT PERMIT WOMEN TO TEACH OR HAVE AUTHORITY OVER MEN. PERIOD. And he tells us why, and its not the old "Ephesus was full of deception" nonsense. Paul said his policy is derived from Scripture in that Adam was formed FIRST and has the pre-eminence, and the woman fell into deception. And then he tells us that a woman's place is IN THE HOME, not trying to lead men.

And then Paul gives us SIXTEEN qualifications for eldership in a local body, and one of then is that the candidate must be THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE. Now unless you believe in lesbian marriage, there is no way a woman can be THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE. And the woman does not "rule" her home, the man does. Your position shipwrecks at every turn.

How many women did Jesus choose as His Apostles??? Zero.

==============


As far as Arminius, you are misrepresenting him. HE SAID HE WAS UNSURE. He was not OSAS. I have made plain his position with IN CONTEXT quotes, which you quote OUT OF CONTEXT.

The truth is he was UNDECIDED on the matter and recommended further study. Saying anything more is dishonest.

[Churchwork]

There is nothing in Ephesians 4.11 fourfold ministry that says women can't be these workers.

This group of special people includes the following: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds (pastors) and teachers. Let us now discuss the differences amongst these four classes.

Strictly speaking, pastors and teachers are one gift, not two, because teaching and shepherding are closely related. In the enumeration of the gifts in Ephesians 4, apostles, prophets, and evangelists are all mentioned separately—whilst pastors and teachers are linked together. Further, the first three are each prefixed by the word "some," whereas the word "some" is attached to pastors and teachers unitedly, thus—"some apostles," "some prophets," "some evangelists," and "some pastors and teachers," not "some pastors and some teachers." The fact that the word "some" is used only four times in this list indicates that there are only four classes of persons in question. Pastors and teachers are two in one.

These four classes of persons may be divided into two categories: the apostles and the prophets for one, the evangelists and the pastors and teachers form another. This is because the apostles and the prophets lay the foundation (see Eph. 2.20), whereas the evangelists and the pastors and teachers build on that foundation. The first set of two comes directly from the Lord and establishes the foundation of God’s Heavenly Abode in an extra-ordinary fashion. The second set is comparatively more ordinary since the evangelists and the pastors and teachers save souls and edify the saints on the basis of the teachings of the apostles and the prophets.

There is another way to distinguish these four classes of persons. The apostles and the evangelists are more for the Gospel, whilst the prophets and the teachers are more for the Church. The prophets proclaim God’s Word in a supernatural way, but the teachers expound God’s truth less supernaturally. The ministry of the prophets and teachers is especially confined to one local assembly.

Hence we find that as it pertained to the church at Antioch, these two classes of men were recorded as being there (Acts 13.1). On the other hand, the apostles are appointed especially to the ministry of preaching the Gospel. But whilst the evangelists preach the Gospel in one locality, the apostles are to preach the Gospel everywhere.

Though these four classes of persons are all God-given gifts to the Church, they do not necessarily represent by their class names the special spiritual gifts given to them severally by the Holy Spirit. We know that the prophesying of the prophets is a gift (see 1 Cor. 12.10 and Rom. 12.6) and that the teaching of the teachers is also a gift (see Rom. 12.7). But the Scriptures do not tell us what special gift makes the apostles. We do not even know what is the gift of the evangelists. There is the gift that is identified with the prophets and there is the gift that is identified with the teachers, but not the gift that is identified with either the apostles or the evangelists. So that whilst all four classes are in themselves gifts to the Church, only two amongst them are also personal gifts. Therefore, apart from the prophets and the teachers who respectively receive gifts of prophesying and of teaching, we are ignorant as to what special gifts the Holy Spirit bestows upon the apostles and the evangelists to equip them for their works. Nevertheless, all four are God’s appointed workers in the Ministry. They receive their ministry from Him to do His special work of building up the Body of Christ. They bear special spiritual responsibility in the Church for the realization of God’s purpose in this age.

You did not respond to the points made about 1 Tim. 4 by how you are misreading this passage. Until you do so, how can we have a conversation about it? That way we can have a fruitful discussion. In short, women did not have authority because they were restricted in society, but such is not the case today. Women can vote now, for example, just this past century, whence before they could not. And in antiquity women had even less rights. It would be strange to have lots of women Apostles running around in antiquity when women had no rights. Even so, there was one woman Apostle by the name of Julia or Junia. Christians in ancient times did not usurp the world inordinately regarding women, but by the Holy Spirit did try to make some headway in giving women more rights as time progressed, slowly but surely. Today, there are even more women Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists and Shepherds (Teachers). You know you are in the wrong Church if you can't even accept this. Just as you are hostile and abusive toward women is it any surprise you are the same way towards God's Apostles? God makes a liar out of you by His loving Word.

Paul identified a woman Apostle Junia, so you need to reconcile all Paul's words, not just the portion you want to use to be abusive towards women and subject them to your selfish control. Were Ephesian women targets for false teachers? See 1 Tim. 2.9-15 and 2 Tim. 3.6-7. This is given to Timothy in Ephesus. I don't think it is a stretch that Paul had to address this matter to them because it was pertinent, so Paul brought it up.

Just as women need to be humble towards men, men need to do so towards women. You are not doing your part but abusing women by twisting Scripture and context. Man should be the leader of the household. He is the protector. Just as a woman Elder must be the wife of no more than one husband, a man must be a husband of no more than one wife. If you are an Elder of a locality you can be single too. God is not a legalizer. The 19 questions for Elders at Biblocality Forums are presented for proper teaching and disallows false teachers from being Elders; this is clearly needed into the basic items for Elders mentioned in Scripture for Elders.

Distinguish between the original 12 Apostles Jesus chose personally in a time when women had no rights; so obviously, this is not the appropriate time for God to commission women Apostles on mass, but as time went on, we notice Paul identifying a woman Apostle Junias. As the centuries go on as women got more rights, there will be more women Apostles. Julia (Junias) was directly chosen by God as an Apostle, no matter how much this offends you.

You're contradicting yourself about Arminius because on one hand you said he is unsure then you said he was non-OSAS. You can't have it both ways to cover your tracks? Especially in light of his adamant position: "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish."

How can he make himself any more clear to you? Since you accuse but don't show it, the burden remains on you to show otherwise. And you get an infraction for mindlessly repeating yourself without ever responding to what he has specifically said here in his proclamation.

[Providential]

You quote PART of my quote of Arminius, and you twist what he said. This would not work for you in a court of law:

Arminius said:
But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.

If Arminius was OSAS, why did he want to have a study to see if it was possible for people to fall away from Christ? Well because he was not sure exactly what the Scriptures taught. But next he says:


Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish;

So he wants to do a study to see if people can fall away, and then he says that he has never taught a believer could totally fall away...he says:

yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect;

That is what Churchworker IGNORES and so TWISTS WHAT ARMINIUS THOUGHT. Here he PLAINLY ADMITS that there are Scriptures that SEEM TO TEACH what he has yet to affirm--that Christians can fall away, and that is why he wants a diligent study of this issue. And then he says:


and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding.

Notice he says here that the answers that Calvinists gave to those verses that seemed to deny OSAS were not convincing to him.

So, how is a man OSAS if:

1-he admitted there are Scriptures that seem to refute OSAS
2- Confessed that the OSAS answers to these verses were not convincing
3- Wanted a study done to see of a believer could finally be lost
4- Admitted that at this point in his life, he had not affirmed that a believer could be totally lost, but wanted a study done because there were scriptures that seemed to teach this and the answers to them so far were not satisfactory

How ANYONE can take those facts and say "See, Arminius was OSAS" is a mystery that only the mystery of iniquity can explain.

[Churchwork]

A "diligent inquiry" is not the same thing as believing in non-OSAS, for he is just being humble in his assessment. Arminius still clearly says, "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish."

That which "seems" is not an admission that it is, but rather some explaining is necessary. Though some points were not fully explanatory to his understanding at that moment, as I can appreciate that, he is still strongly positioned he has never taught that a believer can fall away. In response, it would help to see such verses can be explained in the context of millennial rewards and "loss of rewards," not loss of life, in the time of recompense and accountability for Christians.

Consequently, even though Arminius investigated, he never changed his position from saying "I never taught a true believer can either totally or finally fall away..." He would have clearly said so to render such a monumental change in his beliefs. It is striking that he held his position on enough ground of truth even though he could not explain some verses adequately enough. After all, he is only human. The principle here I think is important. Once you have a truth in your heart, stay will it, build on it and don't let the evil spirit move you from it.

In a court a law, presenting evidence does not render a verdict unless that evidence is convincing enough. Jacob never found it convincing enough to change his view. Even so, we should rely on Scripture and not a man only, so you still provide no challenge the verses for OSAS such as:

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29).

I suggest you stop bearing false witness against Jacob Arminius and stop avoiding Scripture. You still have not responded to this verse and the others commonly used for OSAS.

Since you are essentially just repeating yourself, bearing false witness against Jacob, I should warn you, you're boring me and will have to take action if you don't bring new evidence to light. Further regurgitation of your sinful bearing false witness, misrepresenting him, ends now. You read him absolutely horribly and don't seem to have a conscience to realize how wrong your behavior is. These forums are not for someone who is persistently and mindlessly belligerent.

Careful now.

[foreversaved]

V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS (p. 176, Vol. 1, The Works of Jacob Arminius)

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies -- yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention [or Synod], to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration. (Works of James Arminius, p. 254).

To help us understand his thought process, Arminius explains that there are passages of scripture which seem to teach loss of salvation and which have not been resolved to his satisfaction. Further, he notes that there are other scriptures indicating that a true believer cannot lose his salvation and which “are worthy of much consideration.” For this cause, the above first paragraph suggests a “diligent inquiry from the Scriptures” to determine the truth. I have no problem with a man who acknowledges that some scriptures seem to lend support to either side of an issue. Many of the passages you cite come from Arminius’ wrestling with this issue. But the fact remains that he states—not just once—that he never taught that a true believer can lose his salvation.

Written in response to the teachings of Calvin, the writings of Arminius contain hypotheses (as you speculate), as stated numerous times within the body of the text.

To our twenty-first century ears, Arminius uses rather formal and complicated language to state the issues. Our task is not to confuse his hypotheses with his clear statements of position.

To recap, more than once in clear, unambiguous language he states that he had not taught that Christians can totally or finally fall away from the faith and perish. That’s the point and until words change their meanings, it still stands. The only misrepresentation is that generated by your preconceptions.

That Arminius apparently held this position to the very end of his life is demonstrated by an address he delivered February 8, 1606, three years prior to his death. In speaking of those who were teaching false doctrine, he said:

"It is possible that they who entertain these mistaken sentiments, are of the number of the elect, whom God, it is true, may have permitted to fall, but only with this design, that he may raise them up with the greater glory. How then can we indulge ourselves in any harsh or unmerciful resolutions against these persons, who have been destined to possess the heavenly inheritance, who are our brethren, the members of Christ, and not only the servants but the sons of the Lord Most?"

[Churchwork]

But at no period have I asserted, "that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation." This article, therefore, is ascribed to one who is not its author; and it is another offense against historical veracity (p. 198, Vol. 1, The Works of Jacob Arminius).

"That such persons would never really be damned" who seemed to fall away after being saved. "They will not finally fall away, because God will bring back to himself his own elect before the end of life."

"Faith is peculiar to the elect," and "believers do not finally fall away from the faith."

"It is impossible for them not to be saved."

Augustine falsely taught a person could lose salvation: "God does not bestow perseverance on certain of his sons, whom he hath regenerated in Christ, and to whom he has given faith, hope and love."

Prosper also falsely taught a person can lose salvation: "persons who were regenerated in Christ Jesus, have relinquished the faith, and, ceasing to preserve their former sanctity of manners, have apostatized from God."

The "Harmony of Confessions" says that "it condemns the Anabaptists, who deny that those persons who have once been justified, can lose the Holy Spirit."

Works of Jacob Arminius 3 Volumes -- http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius


Satan Tries to Remove Classical Definition of Words in the English Language

I would now like to make a very interesting point about how Satan works. He is being underestimated in his wiles. I believe Satan is trying to remove classical definitions of certain words in the English language so that there ends up being no word in the English language to describe that particular something by the classical definition.

For example, if you have ever talked to Atheists, you will soon discover when you tell them the definition of Atheism is "believing God does not exist," they will reject it. Instead, they say the definition is "lack of belief in God." That sounds eerily like Agnosticism, not Atheism.

Agnostics say "God could exist, but we are not sure because we don't feel we have enough information to decide yet." Atheists prefer the term "Atheism" because it has more punch than "Agnosticism," but they are really expressing themselves as Agnostics not as true Atheists. Even so there are still a few out there are true Atheists, that is, they believe God does not exist. Period!

The result of all this is now there is no word in the English language for traditional Atheism "believing God does not exist". That's Satan's goal.

The same thing is happening with OSAS Arminianism in Christendom. People will generally contend for Calvinism or non-OSAS. They completely leave out the 3rd possibility which is OSAS Arminian. They attach non-OSAS to Arminianism, but that is wrong to do that, because Jacob Arminius said many times, never once did he ever teach a person could lose salvation once saved. So you have these views in Christendom: Calvinism with its 5 points and those who redefine Arminianism into non-OSAS Arminianism. No longer is there OSAS Arminianism at all according to them. The audacity and the ignorance! Do you see how Satan has removed the actual definition of OSAS Arminianism from the English language?

It's gotten so bad, people come up to me and say, well most people they talk to think Arminianism is non-OSAS so it must be true. My response is: "I don't care if 998 out of a 1000 believe that, the two people that are right are Jacob Arminius and myself.

Please stop being ignorant and read Jacob Arminius' 3 Volumes.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of Jacob's wordiness. It's quite off putting, but that doesn't change what is said here.