# Is incorrigible Arminianism a sign of unregeneracy?



## Confessor (Sep 25, 2009)

The title pretty much asks the question. I firmly believe that many Arminians are saved, but I cannot imagine someone who is regenerate, accurately understands Reformed theology, and then rejects it.


----------



## Blue Tick (Sep 25, 2009)

Confessor said:


> The title pretty much asks the question. I firmly believe that many Arminians are saved, but I cannot imagine someone who is regenerate, accurately understands Reformed theology, and then rejects it.





> Is incorrigible Arminianism a sign of unregeneracy?



Yes, the classical orthodox position of Arminianism is damable. However, what we have today in the modern church is not the classical view of Arminianism. It's more like Semi-Pelagianism or Super Free-Willers with a hyper view of God's devotion to them. Most Free-Willers, not all, but most, do not understand the bondage of the will.



> but I cannot imagine someone who is regenerate, accurately understands Reformed theology, and then rejects it



Just ask William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, John Wesley, Hank Hanegraaff, Adrian Rogers (maybe Rogers doesn't understand correctly).


----------



## jd.morrison (Sep 25, 2009)

Confessor said:


> The title pretty much asks the question. I firmly believe that many Arminians are saved, but I cannot imagine someone who is regenerate, accurately understands Reformed theology, and then rejects it.



You should read the exchange I had on CARM.org's Forum...

The (loaded) question:
Does God elect babies to go to hell...
CARM.ORG - Christian Discussion Forums

It was said that an Islamic Terrorist who wanted kill Jewish children had more compassion than I did. This discussion soooooooo angered me, I can't even begin to tell you...

Here is a sampling...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Sara View Post
> There are some hyper Calvinists (James White, RC Sproul) and others that believe that God elects some to Heaven and others to Hell. While they would never in naked language say the above statement they teach the above by their words.
> 
> ...



-----Added 9/25/2009 at 02:39:19 EST-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benoni View Post
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
1 Corinthians 15:22-24 (King James Version)
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

This is why I addressed it as I did in my previous post some posts above...

Here is what the Westminster Divines had to say on the issue being that I subscribe to the Westminster Confession...

Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
The Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter IX: Of Effectual Calling[/B]]
1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, (Rom. 8:30, Rom. 11:7, Eph. 1:10–11) by His word and Spirit, (2 Thess. 2:13–14, 2 Cor. 3:3,6) out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; (Rom. 8:2, Eph. 2:1–5, 2 Tim. 1:9–10) enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, (Acts 26:18, 1 Cor. 2:10,12, Eph. 1:17–18) taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; (Ezek. 36:26) renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, (Ezek. 11:19, Phil. 2:13, Deut. 30:6, Ezek. 36:27) and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: (Eph. 1:19, John 6:44–45) yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace. (Cant. 1:4, Ps. 110:3, John 6:37, Rom. 6:16–18)
2. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, (2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:4–5, Eph. 2:4–5, 8–9) who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 2:14, Rom. 8:7, Eph. 2:5) he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (John 6:37, John 5:25)
3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, (Luke 18:15–16, Acts 2:38–39, John 3:3, 5, 1 John 5:12, Rom. 8:9) who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: (John 3:8) so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (1 John 5:12, Acts 4:12)
4. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, (Matt. 22:14) and may have some common operations of the Spirit, (Matt. 7:22, Matt. 13:20–21, Heb. 6:4–5) yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: (John 6:64–66, John 8:24) much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. (Acts 4:12, John 14:6, Eph. 2:12, John 4:22, John 17:3) And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested. (2 John 9–11, 1 Cor. 16:22, Gal. 1:6–8)

-----Added 9/25/2009 at 02:45:09 EST-----

"Uggh the thought of a baby going to hell is absolutely repulisuive to me ,and I believe it be totally unbiblical as well. You should read John Mccarthur's book" "Safe in the Arms of God"" -From the Discussion

" Originally Posted by travelah View Post
Please tell me what transgressions were committed by the 5 day old infant who died in it's mother's arms. Do you really believe that God is glorified by what you suggest?

Sin nature... Not an act, we are all under the curse of Adam... And yes I do, His Justice is satisfied when sinners receive God's wrath. Not to mention the fact that I don't know if the baby in the mother's arms is elect or not. Perhaps every baby is among the elect, I do not know. The fact is that no one deserves heaven because of our Nature, and our acts reflect our nature. I am only interested in what the bible teaches, not what I personally and not to mention sinfully would want to have happen. The bible is the standard by which we determine what is good and bad, not what makes us feel bad.

Infants are not more innocent, than I am thanks to the fall. No acts of sin are required, the sin is already there from conception." - From the Discussion...

"No offense,but I find it very sad and ironic that even some Muslim terrorists seem to have more compassion for infants and children than some Christians do.

I remember a couple of years ago,when the suicide bombings were happening almost every week in Israel,a Hamas terrorist who was captured before he could carry out a suicide bombing, reportedly said "according to my religion I am doing the Jewish children a favor[I assume the Jewish children he mean't to kill],if they die when their young they go to heaven, if they die when their soldiers they go straight to hell".

As I said,I think scriptures do indeed prove that God doesn't hold babies and children accountable for their sins, not because they are not sinners, but because they are too young to be able to discern between good and evil. As I said before,I think God is much more merciful than any of us can possibly realize." - From the discussion


----------



## Igor (Sep 25, 2009)

Confessor said:


> The title pretty much asks the question. I firmly believe that many Arminians are saved, but I cannot imagine someone who is regenerate, accurately understands Reformed theology, and then rejects it.


Come to the former Soviet Union, visit traditional (I mean, not set up by Korean missionaries) Evangelical Churches and Seminaries and you will find quite a few consistent Arminians (including pastors and theologians) who reject Calvinistic theology. More than that, some of the will ask the same question as you do...


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Is incorrigible Arminianism a sign of unregeneracy?

No.

It is a sign of ignorance of God's Word or of sin.

It takes discipline to rightly hear, read and understand God's Word, all of it, in context. It takes as much time, desire and energy as many people who follow the world take in memorizing the world's songs, dances and techniques. Scripture teaches we follow what we truly love- and our time, thoughts and attention reveal that. God help us all.

A remnant of the fall remains in us after regeneration. That sin clouds our thinking, makes us lazy (to pursue God), and causes us to seek self-justification.

Sin for believers comes with temporal miseries, including a sense of isolation from relationship with our Creator, an accounting at the judgment seat, and loss of some sort of rewards at the judgment seat (not salvation). We don't know much about the latter because Scripture does not give us a great deal of detail on it.

And those who teach God's Word are judged by a higher standard, also. (James 3:1)

But our salvation, given by God, a supernatural gift of faith in Christ's righteousness alone saves us. Although even that can be obscured at times by the blinding effect of our sin, we can, and do, believe many wrong things and still be saved. God's grace in the life of a believer will overcome.

Glory be to God for that!


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 25, 2009)

I agree, Scott! Unless you're a covenant baby (and some of them might not really understand completely), everyone is new to this doctrine and has to learn in stages. We all are still learning things that maybe Calvin and Edwards etc knew thoroughly and they were learning things till they died.


----------



## Herald (Sep 25, 2009)

Confessor said:


> The title pretty much asks the question. I firmly believe that many Arminians are saved, but I cannot imagine someone who is regenerate, accurately understands Reformed theology, and then rejects it.



Holding to Reformed theology is not a prerequisite for regeneration. Arminianism is a lose term. There will be many in heaven who did not embrace Reformed theology. That doesn't mean Reformed theology is not correct. We belong to the PB, so obviously we do believe it is correct. But there are many on the loosely defined "Arminian" side who have investigated Reformed theology and rejected it. We have to be careful about consigning that entire group to hell.


----------



## YXU (Sep 25, 2009)

Confessor said:


> The title pretty much asks the question. I firmly believe that many Arminians are saved, but I cannot imagine someone who is regenerate, accurately understands Reformed theology, and then rejects it.



I think to those who are confident that they can see everything, their sins remain, however, to those who know that they are blind and who are unable to have understanding of difficult matters (very old people), I believe their sins are washed.


----------



## Quickened (Sep 25, 2009)

We are not saved because we have a certain grasp of something. We are saved because God elects us to be. We all learn at different paces. Some are saved early in life. Some saved later.


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 25, 2009)

*Which One...*

So, if a certain caliber of soteriological understanding is necessary as evidence of regeneration, who is more likely to be regenerate: an evangelical free-willer or a truly Augustinian Catholic?


----------



## Confessor (Sep 25, 2009)

I'm not saying that Arminianism per se implies unregeneracy, but asking whether incorrigible Arminianism does. If someone, time and again, hears an accurate presentation of Reformed theology, and they truly have been regenerated by grace alone, then is that conclusive at all?


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Sep 25, 2009)

Christians are like the corn and wheat spoken about in the parables. Some corn have 100 grains, some have 80, 60, or 40. But can the ear of corn that gives 100 grain say to the one who has 40 grain, "Why can't you be more like me?" A ear of corn, (elect person) will produce what its seed is capable of growing.

It could be that


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Sep 25, 2009)

Confessor said:


> I'm not saying that Arminianism per se implies unregeneracy, but asking whether incorrigible Arminianism does. If someone, time and again, hears an accurate presentation of Reformed theology, and they truly have been regenerated by grace alone, then is that conclusive at all?



I think you're painting Arminians with too broad a brush. I have spoken with many well-educated, well-read Arminians who have closely examined the issue and still follow a Wesleyan model of Arminianism. Many, if not most, Arminians in America believe in salvation by grace alone - they may call it prevenient grace as Wesley did, but they would not say that they are saved on the basis of their actions. I'm not defending their belief - it is incorrect and contradictory on many levels. My point is that Arminians can reject Reformed theology and still be saved, because they place their faith in Christ alone for salvation - a faith they believe was brought about by some form of grace.


----------



## JTB (Sep 25, 2009)

Confessor,

Perhaps a good definition and an example or two of what you mean by "incorrigible" wouldbe appropriate?

I'm curious what folks here would consider to be signs of an unregenerate state, beyond your original question about Arminianism.

There is a distinctiong between ignorance or spiritual blindess and unrepentance, but I'm hardpressed to lay out what specific criteria may be used to distinguish them. We have always been called to measure judgment and reclamation on the basis of credible outward profession (e.g., remaining in adultery and being placed under discipline; repenting of adultery and seeking restoration).

My guess would be that an Arminian who insisted upon preaching/teaching his beliefs to a congregation after having been commanded by the elders to cease spreading his error would be placed under discipline, perhaps to the point of considering him outside of Christ's body. That seems incorrigible to me.


----------



## Herald (Sep 25, 2009)

Confessor said:


> I'm not saying that Arminianism per se implies unregeneracy, but asking whether incorrigible Arminianism does. If someone, time and again, hears an accurate presentation of Reformed theology, and they truly have been regenerated by grace alone, then is that conclusive at all?



It means nothing. We would consider them in error, but that error does not negate the work of grace in their life.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Sep 25, 2009)

> Is incorrigible Arminianism a sign of unregeneracy?



Short answer: No.

I dont remember anywhere in the Bible where it says "Hold to the Reformed tradition and you shall be saved". I do know where it says "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved"


----------



## Blue Tick (Sep 25, 2009)

Historic Arminianism


----------



## ewenlin (Sep 26, 2009)

I think the key in terms of the calvinistic/arminianistic debate is humility and the knowledge that each are dealing with their own brothers in Christ, polemics notwithstanding. Instead of whether their incorrigible arminianism (I would describe it as a militant arminian) would be a sign of unregeneracy, I see the opposite as the sign of regeneration. 

I have talked with arminians who are consistent yet recognizing historical or biblical evidences of calvinism that they simply cannot dismiss, talk with humility and grace because we are all heirs of the same king.

Nevertheless I have talked with people who are simply incorrigible. As if cupping their hands over their ears and going "free will free will free will free will." Not only their own ignorance of Scripture will damn them but for those who are militant propagators of it, I don't dare to judge but I would seriously tremble if I were in their place.

So I guess I can answer your question in the affirmative. It's dangerous ground though and I wouldn't go around affirming this. Just on the PB because you guys are awesome right.


----------



## Ron (Sep 26, 2009)

_I cannot imagine someone who is regenerate, accurately understands Reformed theology, and then rejects it._

Confessor,

I trust you are not merely saying that understanding something accurately entails non-rejection (i.e. embracing) of what is accurately understood. For if that is what you are saying then it would be true by definition that it is impossible for one reject what is accurately understood. But then why apply this to anything in particular? It would just seem like a passé axiom. Moreover, I trust you agree that those who perish accurately understood that they were under God’s wrath yet rejected the revelation of their plight. Accordingly, I don’t think you believe it is axiomatic that understanding something accurately entails non-rejection of what is accurately understood. 

We need to be very careful here, especially elders who are in a position to render declarations on such as these. In the forefront of all our thinking it must be bedrock that God may even grant accurate understanding without repentance. So we strive with men. Regarding the unsaved, that is easy to see. Those who perish accurately understand their rebellion without embracing their state before God. With respect to true believers, certainly there are people who God is pleased to allow to live in some darkness, and even harden (or allows to harden themselves if you prefer) in certain areas of doctrine or life for a season. For instance, many Paedobaptists while still Baptists rejected infant baptism after having accurately understood the Bible’s teaching on the matter. Adequate understanding need not always be accompanied by an embracing of what is understood in the life of the believer. Sin is still at work.

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 26, 2009)

[bible]Deut 29:29[/bible]

Regeneration or lack of regeneration belongs to the Lord alone.

Obedience to the Word belongs to us.

I consider Arminianism to be disobedient to the things revealed. Where God says He shows mercy and makes alive, man says he had it within himself to participate in his new life.

That said, I believe there are many areas of doctrine and practice where we are disobedient. It is never the case where God encourages us to sin so that His grace may abound but, nevertheless, His grace does save us from all of our sins.

I am personally never content with an approach that minimizes how sinful sin is. I think we all ought to be striving to gently and patiently correct and rebuke other Christians even as we are willing to be rebuked and corrected for our sin. The man of God is to be patient with others even as he once walked in the deception of the flesh.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 27, 2009)

There is a fine line when speaking on subjects as this. If, as an example of incorrigible, you mean Dave Hunt, or Dan Corner, then I would most certainly question their regeneracy. I do not say this with any sense of entitlement or haughtiness on my behalf, as if they are not savable, I say it with confidence that since we do confess the Holy Spirit will guide His sheep into truth and not error, then what work of the Spirit is to be found in people who hate and despise the Doctrines of grace with such a passion? That being said, the biblical example is shown that debating happened few and far between. Instead we proclaim the truth, expect to be ridiculed, and leave it up to God. 

Can we also state without a doubt how those who have gone before us would have answered this? Calvin, Beza, Gomarus, Toplady, Ness, Gill et al said much harsher words than we do. When is the last time you have heard anyone one who opposes the DOG called a Spanish Dog or Tadpole of divinity?


----------

