Posted on 07/13/2002 2:33:46 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
The Triumph of Arminianism (and its dangers) Keith Drury
For the last several hundred years, the church in America has been mostly Calvinist while Arminianism has been a minority position. All that has changed.
The evangelical church today is basically Arminian in its approach. For now, Arminianism has triumphed and Calvinism is in retreat. I don't mean that the Calvinist denominations have officially changed their doctrine. Most Calvinistic theologians have stuck with their five-points (see TULIP Calvinism Compared to Wesleyan Perspectives). But most of the ordinary people have drifted from traditional Calvinism toward the Arminian position. The average Christian today might claim to be Calvinist, but they function as a "practical Arminian." While many Calvinist pastors still ascribe to the Calvinist shibboleths, in their practical theology, they are functioning Arminians.
Arminianism has triumphed. This great theological battle was won without warfare, with few debates, with "dueling magazine articles." How ironic that in a day when theology no longer matters to most people, one of the great theological battles of all times seems to have been settled. Droves of Calvinists have become Arminians—at least in practice..
Some historical background The terms "Calvinist" and "Arminian" are derived from the names of two individuals who promoted differing theological approaches. Calvinism comes from John Calvin who was a French reformer who lived in the early 1500's. He was a main leader of the Protestant Reformation. An organized and systematic thinker with an excellent legal mind, John Calvin promoted the doctrines that eventually came to be called "Calvinism." Actually Calvinism was not a new doctrine at all. The approach was pretty similar to the theology of Augustine who lived about a thousand years earlier.
Arminianism derives from James Arminius who lived in the late 1500's. When Calvin died, Arminius was only four years old. James Arminius is not as well known in history as Calvin. But the Arminian approach was not new either. His approach was taken in the 400's and 500's by many of the early church's "Eastern fathers." One early church leader, Pelagius, even took this approach to the extreme and was ultimately condemned as a heretic by the Western church.
The Differences between Calvinism and Arminianism Does man have a role in getting saved? A true Calvinist begins and ends his discussion of salvation with God. God alone. For the true Calvinist, man has no ability to move toward God. He cannot even recognize his own sin. Salvation is something which happens wholly as God's work. What man does or is makes no difference. Confession, repentance, or "going to the altar" does not make a difference. To the true Calvinist, salvation happens totally apart from anything man does or is. It is purely God's work done without man's participation in any way whatsoever.
Today's church has drifted to a more Arminian approach. Most church people today believe the Christian's relationship with God is bi-lateral, not uni-lateral. While maintaining that God alone does the saving, today's church figures that men and women have a part to play—confessing sins and receiving Christ. To today's average Christian, Christ's death on the cross provided completely for our salvation, but forgiveness is not effective until an individual receives God's forgiveness. In this most Christians are "practicing Arminians."
How shall we approach evangelism? Since a Calvinist believes salvation is wholly God's work without any partnership with man, he or she approaches evangelism nonaggressively. Calvinism teaches there is nothing whatsoever a person can do to become saved—we can't "decide for Christ" or "receive Christ" enabling a person to "become a Christian." To do this would give man a part in salvation. Calvinists believe salvation is from God and God alone. To make salvation hinge on an individual's "accepting Christ" or "receiving Christ" makes salvation partially a human endeavor. A true Calvinist believes that nothing whatsoever a person does or is contributes anything at all to salvation. Salvation is God's work alone and we play no part in it—not even receiving salvation counts.
Today's evangelical church is far more Arminian in its approach to evangelism. Most Christians and even prominent Calvinistic churches emphasize our personally receiving Christ as Savior and invite attenders to "receive Christ" or "make a decision" to become a Christian.
Are people totally and completely evil? Calvinism teaches that men and woman are totally depraved—absolutely evil from birth. Every single baby coming into the world is born with an evil heart—totally depraved and completely inclined to wickedness. Total depravity teaches that men and women from birth are rotten to the core. A man or woman can do nothing whatsoever good or pleasing to God—it is impossible, for we are born absolutely and altogether sinful. Since we are born so sinfully inclined, we are therefore totally incapable of any good. Even little babies are absolutely sinful. (see Body and Soul: Greek and Hebraic Tensions in Scripture.)
Most Christians today are far more Arminian. They may not use a theological term like "prevenient grace" or "common grace" but they have a hunch that God has granted some sort of grace or "light that lighteth every man" to all people on earth. In fact, even these worldlings sometimes do good things out of this positive impulse in them—an impulse planted there by God. Though this impetus is not enough to save them... it is a "God-shaped Vacuum" drawing them toward God. This prevenient grace—the "grace that precedes"—enables naturally sinful men and women to seek God and to feel conviction over their sins. Most of today's Christians have a hunch that their unbelieving associates at work are really hungry for God deep inside. This approach is a mostly Arminian view.
Did God pick who would be saved? The Calvinist doctrine of election teaches that long before the beginning of time, God chose who would be saved. He "predestined"—set their destiny before hand—some to be saved and go to heaven. This teaching says that out of all the people who would ever live in future history, God selected some to be saved. Some were "picked," others were not picked. The chosen ones would be the only ones saved. No one else.
This view easily grows out of the conviction that man is wholly and totally depraved and unable to choose God. So, God must choose him. True Calvinists believe that God did this selection based on nothing whatsoever the individual might do or be in the future. In other words, God did not look down through history and pick those who would later choose Christ. Such a notion would make salvation based somewhat on man's later decision and not fully on God alone. Calvinists believe that God chose whom He wanted based wholly on His own criterion (see God's Foreknowledge, Predestination, and Human Freedom).
Since God chose only some, those left out are destined to go to hell. There is nothing at all persons can do to escape hell if they were not chosen by God long ago. The elect are picked for salvation, no matter what they do.
Most Christians today take a far more Arminian approach to "election." They suspect that God has not limited salvation to a "select few" chosen long ago. Most people today figure God has chosen all men and women to be saved, but some reject this offered salvation and thus exclude themselves from heaven. Many today think that "according to God's foreknowledge" God elected us to salvation. That is, because He knew beforehand who would accept His salvation, He elected these ones who would later repent and receive Christ. And when it gets "real practical"—such as the funeral for a baby—most folk have a strong intuition that God's grace extends to innocent babies. Few Christians today really believe that a dead baby will go to hell because it is not "on God's list."
For whom did Christ die? The Calvinist doctrine of a "limited atonement" teaches that Christ died only for a limited number of people—only for those chosen ahead of time to be saved. No one else. Calvinists believe that God chose beforehand exactly who would be saved. Thus there is no need to "waste" Christ's blood on those not chosen. Thus Christ did not die for all men and woman, but only for the elect, those God picked to be saved. Christ did not die for all men.
Most Christians now believe that Christ died for all men, as a ransom for all, for the whole world. They think that any person could be saved. They are basically Arminian in this approach to the Atonement.
Can you keep from being saved? The Calvinist teaching of "irresistible grace" argues that there is nothing whatsoever a man or woman can do to keep from being saved if he or she were already chosen. The grace of God is totally irresistible. Those elected by God will be saved. They can't help it and they can't resist it.
Arminians believe that Christ died for all men, and thus He granted common grace to all so that "whosoever will" may be saved, not just those picked beforehand. Most Christians today lean toward the Arminian approach that anyone may be saved and a person can refuse God's grace.
Can you quit being a Christian? The Calvinist doctrine of the "perseverance of the saints" teaches that once you are a Christian, you are forever a Christian. Once born into God's family, you can't quit being a family member. God will never disown you. Once made alive in Christ, you can never die—"once saved, always saved." To the Calvinist, you can never divorce God out of your life, and he won't divorce you under any circumstance. In a word, "you can't, He won't."
While this doctrine is the best surviving Calvinist teaching, even "eternal security" is eroding from the strictly Calvinist position. Many Christians in the pew today do not believe that a person living in wicked, flagrant, open, continual and habitual sin is on their way to heaven. More likely they will say that such a person never was a Christian in the first place. And many even believe that while it is unlikely, there is indeed a possibility that a person who was once saved could apostatize and leave God's family. While this single point of Calvinism remains, even the Calvinist doctrine of absolute unconditional security is moderating toward Arminianism.
The Triumph of Arminianism There is little doubt about it: Arminianism has triumphed in the pew, if not in the seminary. The average Christian is a practicing Arminian, even if he claims to be a Calvinist in theory. "Practical" modern church members are increasingly rejecting traditional "five-point Calvinism." While Arminianism has been a "minority view" for decades, today there is a major drift toward Arminianism in most Calvinist churches.
Why the switch? I spent several years as a determined five-pointer as a young man before changing my mind to accept Arminianism. I made the switch purposefully and with quite a bit of painful study as a student at Princeton Seminary. But many Calvinists today are making the switch for purely pragmatic reasons. They have not become convinced the Bible really teaches the Arminian approach. Frankly, Arminianism is simply more palatable to a secular culture. It "fits in" to the mind-set of the people in their pews. Like it or not, the secular mind is naturally Arminian in its outlook. I've discovered this repeatedly myself by administering a theological questionnaire to secular students in an adult education program. These "unchurched Harrys" invariably register Arminian theologically.
Face it, Arminianism is simply more logical. It makes sense to the person on the street. And today's church is scrambling to make sense to unbelievers. We want to sound sensible, logical, rational, enlightened, fair. Arminianism is so much more appealing to worldly people.
Thus, many Calvinist churches customize worship services, communication styles, architecture, and music, to fit the worldly customers. But they also adapt their theology by quietly creeping away from the "right end" of the theological continuum and drifting over toward Arminianism. The truth of the matter is, they are embarrassed by Calvinistic theology. They have found it offensive to the "customers." The Arminian approach to theology is simply a more "seeker sensitive."
The Dangers of Arminianism I admit that I am a committed Arminian. Of course I welcome the host of new "practical Arminians" joining ranks with my theological tradition. I think this approach fits better with the Bible, reason, tradition, and experience. But I must be honest. There are some real hazards over here in the Arminian ocean—especially for Calvinistic churches. You can sink your theological ship here. As a local "pilot," I'd suggest you keep your eyes open wide for submerged rocks!
We Arminians tend to put too much emphasis on man and his decisions, and not enough on God and the gospel. Sometimes we are tempted to act as if God is helpless without us and our work. We lean toward pragmatism and are constantly looking for "what works best" as if methodology were more important than the message. Since we believe that all men can be saved, we tend to assume that if they aren't saved, we have not packaged the invitation (or the message) right. We especially love management, leadership, programs, marketing, and research data. We tend to focus more on the "potential convert" than on the eternal gospel. Arminianism easily leans toward a NIKE mentality—"Just do it." We are somewhat less inclined to pray in order to move God to "do it" (see Divine-Human Synergism in Ministry).
And, as has always been true, Arminianism can be taken to the extreme of humanism. Calvinists have a sovereign God and an inactive man. Humanists have a sovereign man and an inactive God. Arminians lean toward the humanist end of this continuum and thus are always in danger of becoming humanists (see Humanism in Scripture and Culture: Recovering a Balance).
So if you are a former Calvinist who has drifted into Arminianism with little thought and for mostly pragmatic reasons, be careful as you navigate in this territory. You probably knew the dangers of your former theology, especially of "hyper-Calvinism." But you may not be aware of the dangers over here. Many of us Arminians have learned to stay out of the humanist end of the spectrum. We've learned that the best place to sail is on the Arminian end, but just over the line from Calvinism. Our five points would look something like this:
1. Total Depravity Mankind is totally depraved, but God has extended His common grace to all so that every man or woman can search and find God.
2. Unconditional Election Before the foundation of the world God elected all men to salvation but most refuse His offer.
3. Limited Atonement The atonement of Christ is open to all men everywhere and is limited only by our refusal to be saved.
4. Irresistible Grace The "common grace" [prevenient grace] of God is given to all men everywhere and it is irresistible, but saving grace can be refused by a stubborn heart.
5. Perseverance of the Saints Once saved, a person will always be saved unless by defiant, continual, purposeful, rebellion he or she refuses God's grace and chooses apostasy. Though relatively rare for a truly saved person, apostasy is possible.
If you are recently coming from the Calvinistic end, be careful not to pass right by the middle ground and run off to extreme Arminianism: man-centered humanism. Instead, if you stay on the Arminian side, but at the end near the Calvinist line, you'll be safe in these waters. If you want a name for that area—the area on the Arminian end, but just "a hair's breadth from Calvinism," some call this the "Wesleyan-Arminian" approach.
http://www.cresourcei.org/arminianism.html
Other articles by Keith Drury: Christian Security The Holiness Movement
For a graphic comparing the five points of TULIP Calvinism with corresponding Wesleyan-Arminian views, see TULIP Calvinism Compared to Wesleyan Perspectives
Send mail to the webmaster with questions or comments about this web site. For a handy fill-in form for response, see Feedback/Response Form Copyright © 2002 Christian Resource Institute Last modified: June 29, 2002
Definitely, Hillary's New York or Kennedy's Massachusetts. (Sorry, Rn, couldn't help it....sure hope you didn't vote for her.)
There was no way to avoid this road, it was vital for our progression. Its the refiners fire-
A man who separates the precious metals from the dross with which in nature they are usually found mixed. Part of the process consists in the application of great heat, in order to bring the mass into a fluid state, hence the term “refiner’s fire.” Christ is the great Refiner. See Isa. 1: 25; Isa. 48: 10; Zech. 13: 9; Mal. 3: 2-3.
D&C 136
30 Fear not thine enemies, for they are in mine hands and I will do my pleasure with them.
31 My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.
32 Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear;
33 For my Spirit is sent forth into the world to enlighten the humble and contrite, and to the condemnation of the ungodly.
Proof of this Calvinistic resurrgence?
I think the article makes very clear that the Arminianism of today is not that of Arminius or Wesley and fits very nicely into the last time church of Laodica (Rev.3:15-17)
Calvinism is not an antidote to this form of Arminianism, but the return to the objective truth of the Scriptues, the very thing that Calvinism (mysticism) and present day Arminianism (subjectivism) are rejecting.
Spurgeon stated it quite nicely when he said wheather Calvin beckon you or Wesley, stay with the Book!
I think the point he was making that even Calvinist are teaching with Arminian methods (subjectivism)
While many Calvinist pastors still ascribe to the Calvinist shibboleths, in their practical theology, they are functioning Arminians. Any examples? I don't know of any who call themselves Calvinist yet practice Arminianism. That would simply be an Arminian with an identity crisis.
I believe in the zeal to create larger churches, Calvinists are using the methods that have been successful with the present day Arminians, become a 'user' friendly church.
Arminianism has triumphed...one of the great theological battles of all times seems to have been settled. It isn't over yet and doctrine isn't settled by the number of people in the pews. Actually there seems to be an awakening to Calvinism which has picked up quite a lot of momentum in just the past decade.
Ofcourse, the author statement doesn't mean that because Armianism is more 'popular' it is the correct one. Nor, if Calvinism would have a resurrgance, nor would that make it correct either.
Rightness of a position is not determined by how many people accept it! (1Kings.19:18)
Droves of Calvinists have become Arminians—at least in practice. Again, I haven't seen this backed up. I would grant that droves of formerly unchurched have become Arminians, simply because they stepped into Arminian churches. The Differences between Calvinism and Arminianism... I'll pass on the Arminian views here of what they think Calvinism is, except to say this guy goes at it the same way too many people go at the Bible. Face it, Arminianism is simply more logical. Well that settles it...if we agree that our logic trumps God's plain truth.
This is from my post 'Calvin and Arminius'
In this book Calvin demonstrated his scholarly abilities, but also showed that he favored the opinions of the rhetoricians over those of the dialecticians. The dialecticians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by how well it fits into a coherent logical system. The rhetoricians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by its clarity and elegance as well as its persuasive power
Calvin's tendency to underplay the importance of logic can also be seen in his Institutes. Here are just three examples from the Institutes where Calvin emphatically states ideas that are logically weak — a sure indication of the rhetorician's approach to truth. First, any discussion of free will is logically related to the subject of divine predestination. However, when Calvin discusses Adam's free will, he claims that it is unreasonable to introduce the subject of divine predestination.
It were here unreasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. (Book 1, Chap 15, Sec 8). Second, the idea that human punishment is ultimately based on man's actions is logically contradictory to the idea that it is ultimately based on God's decision. Yet, Calvin states both of these ideas in the same sentence. Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 8). Third, Calvin states that man makes voluntary choices which are not free. This is an obvious logical contradiction which can be avoided only by adopting a very narrow and inappropriate definition of volition. … a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice. (Book 2, Chap 5, Sec 1)
10. Methodology There is a very simple and fundamental rule of methodology that applies to all fields of study. The rule is: Get all the facts before you make up your mind. When you have all the facts before you and then systematize, you are on much safer ground than when you systematize too early. Calvin systematized his thought much too early. He did not have all the facts. As a result, his system left out several very important biblical teachings. — Permission within sovereignty — God's consistently high value on human free will — Judgment based on human response — Accountability based on knowledge — A universal enlightening and convicting — A genuine general call If you don't get all the facts first, then when you face certain questions, you draw inferences from the few facts that you do have in an attempt to logically determine the answers to those questions. We make this mistake in many fields, but it is most damaging when we do it in the field of theology. And we have to be slow to point the finger, because we may be just as guilty. For example, some of us let our definition of the church answer questions about eschatology, when we should let the explicit eschatological passages of the Bible answer those questions. Nevertheless, we all need to beware of the temptation to systematize too quickly. When we do this we give too much place to logic and not enough to Scripture. We wonder if Calvin might have expressed different views in his Institutes had he written it after he wrote his commentaries, rather than before.
Arminius demonstrated a much better methodology. This is illustrated both by the fact that he included the biblical teachings on the six issues cited above, and by his willingness to withhold judgment on the question of eternal security. Rather than systematizing too early by allowing other doctrines to decide the doctrine of eternal security, Arminius preferred to wait until he could examine more carefully the relevant biblical passages.
Good day and God Bless.
Amen, the author goes on to say,
It is most unfortunate when either Calvinism or Arminianism is equated with biblical Christianity.
Sola Scriptura!
Thank you. Xzins had posted it before I did some months back.
The Differences between Calvinism and Arminianism Does man have a role in getting saved? A true Calvinist begins and ends his discussion of salvation with God. God alone. For the true Calvinist, man has no ability to move toward God.
Well, the Arminian would say the same thing. It is God who must intiate salvation, by grace, He makes a Universal call (Jn.12:32)
He cannot even recognize his own sin.
Well, that is also true since it is the Law that gives us recognition of just how sinful we are and the Law is from God.(Rom.2-3,Gal.3:24)
Salvation is something which happens wholly as God's work.
It does! Faith is not a work, therefore Salvation is totally God's work for us ( free gift). If we 'worked' in anyway, it would not be a free gift! (Rom.4:4-5)
What man does or is makes no difference. Confession, repentance, or "going to the altar" does not make a difference.
Well, those things don't! You have to 'believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ' (1Cor.15:2-3) and receive Him as your personal saviour (Jn.1:12)
To the true Calvinist, salvation happens totally apart from anything man does or is. It is purely God's work done without man's participation in any way whatsoever.
In that you are correct, we do disagree. We believe that man is responsible for accepting the free gift by faith (Jn.3:36) Faith is not a work (Rom.4:4-5) but part of the Grace plan that God has given us.
Are people totally and completely evil? Calvinism teaches that men and woman are totally depraved—absolutely evil from birth.
Well, in fairness to them , they hedge on this a bit. They acknowledge that even unregenerate man is rarely as bad as he can be. This they ascribe to God's restraining grace.
Every single baby coming into the world is born with an evil heart—totally depraved and completely inclined to wickedness.
The real issue in Total depravity is that we can do no good to please God to get saved! (Isa.64:6). We are cut off from Him due to our birth in the first Adam (Rom.5)
Total depravity teaches that men and women from birth are rotten to the core. A man or woman can do nothing whatsoever good or pleasing to God—it is impossible, for we are born absolutely and altogether sinful.
While we can do things 'pleasing' to God in an unregenerate state (Acts 10 Cornilius), the issue is that they cannot save us!
Since we are born so sinfully inclined, we are therefore totally incapable of any good. Even little babies are absolutely sinful.(Now to be fair WM,I don't know how accurate this is on babies Some Cal's I think differ on this?) (see Body and Soul: Greek and Hebraic Tensions in Scripture.)
Babies are born in sin, with the sin of the first Adam imputated to them at birth.
That is not unfair, since if they die that imputation makes them able to receive automatically the second imputation of grace from the Second Adam (Rom.5:18).
So man can be acted upon and not be able to act to get the devil of his back. He is doomed, if he is not choosen!
Yes, that is a falsehood that Calvinism teaches. Moreover, it is also a falsehood that we are not sinners at birth, unworthy of anything but death and hell (Rom.3:23).
That position is an act of grace of God not unfairness (that was what Pelagius failed to understand) because the obedience of the Second Adam was greater then the disobedeience of the First, hence the grace was greater then the condemnation.
By being identified with the first Adam, all men are now able to be identified with the Second. (Rom.5)
They become identified with the Second Adam by trusting in His work and rejecting the disobedience of the First Adam.
Amen!
The southern baptist church is beginning a slow turn to calvinism. The prediction one could make from this is that it will kill the growth of that church. For some time among the fastest growing of our protestant denominations, that growth is slowing.
It grew under an evangelism that proclaimed Christ for all and salvation possible for all. That growth will die (already dying?) under a calvinism that is exclusivistic and fatalistic.
It's odd that a growing church would turn against the calminianism that saw rapid growth.
That is true, but one must come down on one side of the other, is someone elect because he believes or does he believe because he is elect
Only then can those verses be understood in the unconditional vs conditional election debate.
So that doesn't point to a Calvinistic resurgance does it?
I know you like to think of us LDS as trying to save ourselves, and yet you ignore that the we see the Lord asking us to do our part and the Lord being just, will cover our deficiencies. A fair and just God has a place for all in His Kingdom, who are not the Sons of Perdition.
When we read the various version of the Protestant doctrines man is under condemnation for Adams sins, instead his own. After the resurrection Jesus all of our debt has been paid and we are now responsible for those we accumulate after His atonement and the Lord has also given us a way to continually clean ourselves if we are will repent and take sacrament often, to renew our covenants until we leave this probationary state. Those who are of the Lord are not deprave, for that is reserved for the Sons of perdition, but are subject to affliction in this state and needs refresh often one covenants.
The original reason for posting here was that an LDS was question about a Protestant statement which made clear the understanding was not misquoted.-
For the true Calvinist, man has no ability to move toward God. He cannot even recognize his own sin. Salvation is something which happens wholly as God's work. What man does or is makes no difference. Confession, repentance, or "going to the altar" does not make a difference. To the true Calvinist, salvation happens totally apart from anything man does or is. It is purely God's work done without man's participation in any way whatsoever.
I post this because when I talk of repentance in just this way, Protestant freepers seem to say well, it just sorta happens, or regeneration causes it to happen, or whatever, but it doesn't deserve the emphasis I put upon it in their opinion.
Could you tell me who said that?
So it was none else than to show how this concept is repeated even in commentary post did not expect to be engaged in any other diologue.
The eternal covenant mentioned in Is 55 is the Messianic Covenant and the one under which we currently live....agreed?
I am saying that we need not decide, as you insist we must. Our view of this debate fails to take into account God's extradimensionality. To us, it looks like it must be one or the other, but to Him they are simultaneously true. That is the only way to reconcile the apparently contradictory Scriptures. When the Bible appears to contradict itself, the one thing of which we can be sure is that the error is in our understanding.
Which grants that Calvinism is currently the minority position, in need of resurregence. Which means the article above is blowing smoke.
But you're wrong that there's no Calvinist resurregence. There's the SBC (which is not a church but an association of churches, or maybe congregations would be better), which you guys talked about. When you believe in inerrency, Calvinism comes naturally. The fact is, the debate hasn't faded away to an Arminian dominance, it's come back. And Calvinists are winning. (You can see both of these right here on Free Republic.) As more Christians come to see God's Biblical truth, Calvinism will continue to increase.
I will grant that the article did get one thing right:
Arminianism is so much more appealing to worldly people.
They believed T. Deprav, Condit Elect, Unlimited Atonement, Resist Grace, and Perseverence of the Saints.
Billy Graham is representative of that entire generation of outreaching southern baptists....Do you think BG is a 5 point calvinist?
Of course you have examples to cite...
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Now there is a seeker friendly sermon opening
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.