This very academic arrangement is what makes it so hard for families to participate. Not many a young child can sit quietly and listen undistractedly for the same period of time as an adult. Sure, you can beat them into submission (as I’ve seen in some places), but their minds are going to wander. Truthfully, most adults minds wander when the sermon goes past 15 minutes.

Rather than trying to make our social organizations more “family oriented,” we really should break out of this mold entirely. Live out your life in Christ every day of the week, in your home, at the market, in the coffeeshop, at school. Engage the spiritual seekers around you and invite them home for dinner. Teach your children as you drive places together, do chores, take cookies to your neighbors. And let the older children teach the younger.

(sigh) I’ve said these same words to many who nod their heads and agree with me, but have no idea what I really mean. If I could write a book to explain it, it would come out very similar to “The Tangible Kingdom” by Halter and Smay. http://missio.us/store/tangible-kingdom-0 WARNING: Don’t read this book if you like Sunday morning social hour. It will challenge you and help you grow into a Great Commission Christian, but it’s not necessarily an easy road.

So, you’re unhappy with the “snarky meets snarky” bit, but then you can make bold, and unfounded claims such as “most Calvinists listen to what James What (sic) has to say about Arminians and build their opinion from that.”

Then, just to let you know, there is neither such an animal as an “eternal security Arminian”, nor, as you rightly said, a “3-point Calvinist.” The combinations are impossible.

How about, instead of simply complaining about the “snarkiness” of the article, you address the content thereof? Do you have anything in your position that can dismantle that which was presented by the writer of the article?

1 Timothy 4:10- This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers.

1 John 2:2- He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.

The final straw was when I mentioned to the elder that two professing Christian friends had asked if I could do a Bible study with them and he said I should invite them to my house and bake cookies while my husband taught them… *sigh*

The dad “judging” a persons salvation with regard to The Lord’s Supper–yeah… Paul Washer, who I would guess is more discerning than the majority was married to a false convert for 14 years… yet… that was seen as an exception than a rule…

I coud go on and on, but the issues you point out are so true… the fellowship I was part of is very involved in the NCFIC… while all NCFIC churches may not be in the ditch which this group was… It should send up a flag of warning… Of course, being a recovering feminazi… who’s going to listen to me?

If you ever decide to do a more indepth study in the issue, I would be glad to share some of my experiences… I was told numerous times that I should let my husband teach me heresy (modalism) because God would make up for that… and that God would be glorified by a supposed Christian husband beating his wife to death because she was submissive… It’s as if they had knocked Jesus of the throne and put the dad’s there… oh yeah… and forget pubic evangelism… the Bible told them that people would ask about the hope that is within them because of their wonderful families… Only problem…. as a lost person… I wouldn’t have wanted their “wonderful families” because they were weird….

“Sin was not only in the world, but also so exerted its power, that all flesh…corrupted its way, and every imagination of man was only evil from childhood.” (p.67)

Hence:

“It was from this [fallenness, depravity and bondage of the will] that the highest necessity and also advantage of divine grace, prepared for us in Christ the Saviour before the ages, clearly appeared. For without it, we could neither shake off the miserable yoke of sin, nor do anything truly good in all religion, nor finally ever escape eternal death or any true punishment of sin. Much less could we at any time obtain eternal salvation without it [grace] or through ourselves.” (pp.68-69)

So what I think is demonstrated from these passages is that the earliest Arminians were absolutely committed to the bondage of the will in sin, the total depravity of man and hence the necessity of grace, for we cannot “obtain eternal salvation…through ourselves.” Therefore those who call themselves “Arminian” today who do not adhere to this early convictions should not, I think, call themselves Arminians and much less should we, in the knowledge of the difference, refer to them as Arminians.

This kind of early, historic Classical Arminianism is represented today by the likes of Roger E. Olson (“Arminian Theology” 2006, “Against Calvinism” 2011), Robert E. Picirilli (“Grace, Faith, Free Will” 2002), F. Leroy Forlines and J. Matthew Pinson (“Classical Arminianism” 2011). Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell (“Why I’m Not a Calvinist” 2004) and a host of others such as Brian J. Abasciano, who is currently writing a massive three volume commentary on Romans 9 (vol. 1: http://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Use-Old-Testament-Romans/dp/0567030733/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320324938&sr=1-2; Vol 2: http://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Use-Old-Testament-Romans/dp/0567031039/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320324938&sr=1-1) and also heads the Society of Evangelical Arminians (www.evangelicalarminians.org) which in turn is represented by famous bloggers like the Southern Baptist blogger William W. Birch at http://www.thearminian.net.

Essentially classical Arminianism–which is faithful to Arminius and the early Remonstrants–abounds even today, and it is time this fact be recognised. This historic Arminianism is committed to the depravity of man, the necessity of grace and the supremacy of God’s holy character in all of its aspects; sovereignty, love, righteousness, justice and goodness, etc. What I hope this extended response demonstrates is that there are in fact sources which do hold to Jacobus Arminius’ original sentiments, and these are what is truly, historically, ARMINIAN. Other sentiments which focus on free will or man’s goodness and ability are foreign to Arminianism.

I even have written an extended 25,000 exposition on this topic: “The Fallenness of Man, the Will and the Workings of Grace: An Exposition on Historical Arminian Theological Thought.” If I may, I would invite anyone who is interested to obtain a copy of this exposition and read it, wherein the earliest sentiments of the early Arminians is expounded regarding the creation, the fall and its effects, the will of man and of God including the government of evil and providence, the method of the Holy Spirit in bringing salvation and the place of grace in the believer’s life. Anyone who wants a copy should email me at brendan_27@hotmail.com with subject heading “Arminian Exposition.”

Thanks.

Of course there will always be variations of Arminian theology (see Amaraldianism), but it is classical Arminianism which is most prevalent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? Is this really the case? I didn’t see a footnote. I can see why: Because this was surely not the case! Arminius says in context of the fallenness and depravity of man:

“In this state, the free will of man is not only wounded, maimed, infirmed, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by divine grace… Exactly correspondent to this darkness of the mind and perverseness of the heart, is the utter weakness of all the powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause.” ~~~ (John D. Wagner, Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God (2011), p.3).

And John Wesley, an Arminian, speaks of man’s nature after the fall thusly:

“But was there good intermingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with darkness? No; not at all: “God saw that the heart of man was only evil.”… For God, who “saw the whole imagination of his heart to be only evil,” saw likewise, that it was only the same, that is, it “was only evil continually;” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good… From all these we learn concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is” still “evil, only evil” and that “continually.”” (Wesley, J., The Works of John Wesley, Third Edition: Complete and Unabridged, (2007), 14vols., 6:57.)

Arminius believed firmly in total depravity just like the Calvinists. Even R. C. Sproul has noted this:

“The above citation from one of Arminius’s works demonstrates how seriously he regards the depths of the fall. He is not satisfied to declare that man’s will was merely wounded or weakened. He insists that is was “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius. . . . Arminius not only affirms the bondage of the will, but insists that natural man, being dead in sin, exists in a state of moral inability or impotence. What more could an Augustinian or Calvinist hope for from a theologian? Arminius then declares that the only remedy for man’s fallen condition is the gracious operation of God’s Spirit. The will of man is not free to do any good unless it is made free or liberated by the Son of God through the Spirit of God.” (Sproul, R. C., Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (1997), pp.126-128.)

Thanks so much for taking the time to provide this useful information. I have watched the divided documentary and that alone has helped me enormously. Just in assuring me that this is a Biblical position and not just something i ‘feel’ strongly about based on experience or opinion etc. I will move through the other things you recommended also. Knowing the Biblical authority properly creates a solid ground. I was beginning to feel a bit tossed about with the whole thing.

I still have to be courageous in speaking truth as to my reasons now, rather than trying to skirt around the subject or run when i see the ladies approaching. LOL But i am VERY glad the Lord has kept me from any conversation about this until providing me with proper ‘reasons’.

Just a question about vacation Bible schools. I noticed Ken Ham was on the divided documentary. Yet he promotes VBS curriculum for churches. I understood the men on the documentary (well the man who concluded it all at least……i forget his name) to be saying that children’s ministries were unbiblical, whether aimed at children of saved parents or lost parents. That if we are seeking to do outreach, we must order that in the same social structure. Which i presumed would mean witnessing to parents primarily………….or if there were children without parents to have them come alongside a family and receive instruction from a father rather than inviting them to VBS or whatever else. I highly regard Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis btw. I had just recently noticed on the A in G website a VBS curriculum and it seemed to contradict a little of what he stood for. Or am i misunderstanding a difference between saved and lost families?

What are your conclusions on that?

I have talked with my children, and they are so precious. Entirely trusting of my decision and not even a downcast face. They have never actually been in Sunday School, and so i am quite sure that made it easier for them to accept. That and the fact they are still so young. It had been a ‘possibility’ just for the last 3 or 4 weeks and this has all been very much the Lords perfect teaching and timing.

Thanks again for your willingness to help

Jo

What’s that you say?

Rice edited out Spurgeon’s Calvinism when he printed his sermons!

Oops, my bad, I guess Spurgeon was a Calvinist after all.

Sorry for the slow response!!

Its sounds like we’re in much of the same situation. The church we attend is the most doctrinally sound church in our area, but like the majority of churches, they have adopted the same age segregated, family divided, classroom model that the world has.

I would say this, I agree with R.C. Sproul Jr. when he says, family integration is a secondary issue, for this reason…..Family integration is not more important then sound doctrine/accurate Gospel. The church does not need to adopt family integration in order for a family to be integrated. As parents we can choose to be integrated though not everyone else is.

My recommendation is this…do all the research you can, within reason. Understand the foundations of age segregation and youth ministries. The more you know about it, the more confident you’ll be in discussing it. I recommend the following resources:

- Divided the movie (I believe you can still watch this for free online, great video, google “divided the movie”)
- Christian Education by R.C. Sproul – http://www.ligonier.org
- Bound for Glory (The Covenent family) by R.C. Sproul Jr and R.C. Sproul Sr – http://www.ligonier.org
- The Truth Project by Focus on the Family (this will provide a logical framework around the roles and responsibilities of each social system God has designed) – http://www.thetruthproject.org
- Book called “The socialization trap” by Rick Boyer (homeschool family, helps to understand the orign and effects of age segregation.)

Ultimately, be ready for others to disagree and its ok if they do. Have compassion and love them. This can only benefit, not hurt. Your choice to follow scripture above human tradition will cause others to ask questions. 2 Timothy 2: 24-26 says “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

Help them to see the following:
1. If we didn’t have a pre-conceived idea of church and only had scripture as the blue prints for church, we would never have youth ministry
2. Age segregation stems from atheistic ideology. Its rooted in Darwinian and humanistic thought. It destroys multi-generational unity and creates individualistic sub-cultures.
3. Responsibility must be put on the shoulders of those God ordained to have it. We need to be careful that we don’t userp responsibility from others while thinking we’re doing a good thing. I’m sure those who created the welfare state, didn’t think they were doing a bad thing, but you see how the responsibility has shifted from those who should have it, to those who thought they were helping. (I believe I explained this better above)
4. Understand the distinctions between the roles and responsibilities of the social systems God has designed.

Be bold Jo, ultimately it will be us as parents who will stand before God as the one’s who will be held accountable for the spiritual well-being of our children. Explain why you’ve made this decision to your children, lovingly hold your position in church, and do your best to be gentle, honest, and clear to those who ask.

I don’t know if I’ve helped you or not. I’d love to answer specific questions if you have any.

God bless Jo,

Chris