# Is Arminianism another gospel...



## tdowns (Dec 22, 2004)

In the post about dispensationalism, it seemed it became confused with Armenianism at times. I know as it got going, that's where I was at. Seemingly so many churches that are Dispensational, also have Armenian tendencies, I was lumping the two together.

My question is? It was said a couple of times on the Dispensational post, that Ariminianism churches hold to faith alone? Is that true? If it is, the form of Armin. that I've seen at churches and radio guys I've listened to: Their Faith alone is lip service alone.

I guess I don't understand how Faith alone, corresponds with losing ones salvation, or having to make that RIGHTEOUS CHOICE before regeneration, or any of the other "works" the quasi Armenian American churches hold to.

If salvation is by Christ alone, faith alone, then how can a gospel that puts our decision above Gods not be a false one?

I've struggled with this for a long time, since hanging out at Calvary Chapel bible studies, etc. I don't doubt that Christ's church is in these places (people are saved there, including the teachers) but isn't that despite a false gospel?

So can a church that teaches losing ones salvation, puts the emphasis on works and/or sinless life to keep ones salvation, etc, then gives LIP SERVICE to faith alone, be a true church. Seems to me that's the majority of the Dispensational churches out there.

Would a better way to describe the "Arminianism" of American churches, as synergistic teaching?

How is denying Faith alone either through creed or general analysis of someones teaching, not be a false gospel? It's easy to say we hold to faith alone, then spend the next 45 min sermon teaching or implying that it is not faith alone.

Could it be said that when the "Armin" circles say faith alone, they pour a different meaning into it, just like a Mormon or JW pours a different meaning into Christ. So that when a JW says they believe in the saving power of the God Jesus, it is not a true statement biblically. So when the Armenian says I hold to faith alone, it is not a true statement. The words themselves have false meanings.

TDREVOLVER


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2004)

True Arminianism is a denial of justification by faith alone, hence it is a false gospel. I have never met a historic Arminian.


----------



## Ranger (Dec 22, 2004)

Generic Arminian Joe does not think about the end results of his beliefs in Arminianism. He just thinks that God is gracious for giving him free will, and that God was so loving that he died for everyone, or that God would be cruel to elect some and reprobate others before they were born. I think for most of them, the thinking ends there. Or if they do learn about the doctrines of Grace, they may stop their studies when they begin to think that we are ragdolls or robots.

But to be honest, we all thought those things at one time or another. For some of us, it was truly hard to overcome, but Christ slowly revealed it to us in His Word and confirmed it in our Spirit. Generic Arminian Joe still confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, and is therefore saved. He is just struggling on understanding how that salvation came about.

Now, is Arminianism proper a different gospel? I think it leads to preaching Christ "plus." That God did 99%, but you have to do that last 1%. I don't believe Arminius himself would have said that, but that is where it has led (and inevitably always will lead).

So my answer would be yes and no. It creates a distortion of the gospel, but your typical guy who came to Christ through Arminian preaching or who has only read books from the "Christian Living" section at the local, popular, make you feel good about yourself, Christian store is still a believer.

[Edited on 22-12-2004 by Ranger]


----------



## Scot (Dec 22, 2004)

This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may be helpful. I'd say, yes, Arminianism is a false gospel.

http://www.soundofgrace.com/v4n3/2_relig.htm


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 23, 2004)

I have met some inconsistent Arminians. They would say that salvation is completely God's work and that the basis of how they are justified before God is Christ's substitutionary atonement and the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer. They would also say that if you do not accept Christ's payment of your sin in your place, then you will not be saved. The questions to ask are "If Jesus was punished for all of your sins and you go to hell, then what are you being punished for?" and "Why would you pay a debt that has already been paid for?".

[Edited on 23-12-2004 by cih1355]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scot_
> This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may be helpful. I'd say, yes, Arminianism is a false gospel.
> 
> http://www.soundofgrace.com/v4n3/2_relig.htm



If Arminianism is a false gospel, is it accurate to say that an Arminian is actively engaged in sin?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scot_
> ...



At the heart of clinical Arminianism is a works related salvation. If one is trusting in anything other than Christ for their salvation, then they are still _in their sin_ actively, hence, perishing.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scot_
> This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may be helpful. I'd say, yes, Arminianism is a false gospel.
> 
> http://www.soundofgrace.com/v4n3/2_relig.htm



Scot,
Serious question here: As a reformed presbyterian, why would you choose a NCT as a resource when there are so many other choices to go to whom are likeminded with us? Do you see NCT as a logical theological sytstem?

[Edited on 12-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scot (Dec 23, 2004)

> Scot,
> Serious question here: As a reformed presbyterian, why would you choose a NCT as a resource when there are so many other choices to go to whom are likeminded with us? Do you see NCT as a logical theological sytstem?



You know Scott, I thought of that after I made the post. I thought maybe someone would bring that up. I came across that article a couple of weeks ago and thought it was decent. I don't see NCT as a logical theological system. You're right, there are better resources that I could've went to. I appreciate your observation.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

Dan,
Thanks for your answer. May the Lord continue to bless the work of your hands!


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> True Arminianism is a denial of justification by faith alone, hence it is a false gospel. I have never met a historic Arminian.



I think technically Arminianism is not a rejection of _sola fide_ (i.e. faith alone as the instrument of salvation, but rather of the historic understanding of _sola gratia_ (i.e. grace from God is salvific and effective not prevenient). I think this makes a difference in determining whether Arminianism is a false gospel. I personally believe that because of this Arminians can (and are) saved.


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...





That is _the_ important distinction. It is why Whitefield was able to say of Wesley (an historic Arminian), when asked by his fellow Calvinists if if they would see Wesley in heaven:

"I fear not, he will be so near the throne, and we shall be at such a distance, that we shall hardly get sight of him."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

Was not Arminius a close follower of Pelagius?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Was not Arminius a close follower of Pelagius?



No. Pelagius (or maybe more properly his student Coelestius) believed that man was autonomous and not affected by the Fall. The Pelagian views man as having complete _natural_ ability to follow either the example of Adam or the example of Christ. Further, the Pelagian denies the substitutionary atonement.

The Arminian (perhaps best termed a semi-Pelagian, but less Pelagian than Rome) believes that man is indeed completely rendered incapable by the Fall and is spiritually dead in his sins. Where the Arminian errs (and it is an error) is in seeing a work of God that applies to *all* men, making them just alive enough to respond to the gospel. This work is called prevenient grace, and has no foundation in Scripture.

So for the Arminian, the Christian is saved by the work of Christ alone, through the instrument of faith alone, but that faith is not the product of God's grace alone, but rather it is the work of man in response to God's work of prevenient grace.

Does that make sense?


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Was not Arminius a close follower of Pelagius?



There was a great difference between Pelagius' heretical teaching and Arminius' erroneous teaching. Pelagius denied total depravity and the whole doctrine of original sin; Arminius affirmed both. The gospel of Pelagius is more damnable than Rome's in that it teaches man can be saved quite apart from God's grace. Grace, in other words, is totally unecessary. Arminius agreed with Augustine that grace was essential because man was totally depraved. Where Arminius errs, and errs terribly, is in nullifying the effects of the Fall to all men through resistable (prevenient) grace to all men. This is how he and his followers (including Wesley) were able to deny the other four points of Calvinism. Here's a taste of Arminius. Regarding the Fall, he wrote:

"By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is under the dominion of sin. For 'to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey,' (Rom. 6:16,) and 'of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,' and is his regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet. 2:19.) In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is *not only wounded, maimed, infirm, 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*: For Christ has said, 'Without me ye can do *nothing*.' Though we always and on all occasions make this grace to precede, to accompany and follow; and without which, we constantly assert, no good action whatever can be produced by man. Nay, we carry this principle so far as not to dare to attribute the power here described even to the nature of Adam himself, without the help of Divine Grace both infused and assisting. It has become evident, that the fabricated opinion [that he taught Pelagian free-willism] is imposed on us through calumny. Concerning Grace and Free Will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true spiritual good, without Grace."

The Remonstrants, Arminius' immediate followers, wrote a document that Matt has posted here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianArticles.htm

I believe that it shows they were a good deal closer to us (Biblical Calvinism) than they were to the heretic Pelagius.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

Greg,

Not sure you meant to say this, but prevenient grace (in my understanding) is not defined as resistable grace, but rather "the grace that comes before" salvation. In effect it makes grace resistable, since it comes to all without distinction.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> There was a great difference between Pelagius' heretical teaching and Arminius' erroneous teaching.



Ok. Hold the presses. Are you saying that Arminianism is not heresy? The remonstrant articles deemed the teaching of Arminius are heretical.


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Greg,
> 
> Not sure you meant to say this, but prevenient grace (in my understanding) is not defined as resistable grace, but rather "the grace that comes before" salvation. In effect it makes grace resistable, since it comes to all without distinction.



Exactly. It comes before (prevenient) to all and may lead to faith in Christ or not (resistable / supressable).


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > There was a great difference between Pelagius' heretical teaching and Arminius' erroneous teaching.
> ...



Different folks on this board have meant different things by the "h" word. If you mean, by heretical, bad theology and error, then yes. If you mean, on the other hand, soul-destroying, damnable heresy (i.e. Wesley burns in hell), then no.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

Greg,
What did Dordt mean?


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Greg,
> What did Dordt mean?



I've no idea.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

Cmon Greg. You know what Dordt meant. Heresy! Thats the point. Arminianism is nothing less than Pelagianism and nothing more than semi-Pelagianism. These doctrines deny justification by faith alone.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Greg,
> What did Dordt mean?



Scott,

Does Dordt pronounce the "errors" its words a damnable heresy? I looked quick but could not find it. I confess to not being as up to speed on Dordt as Westminster.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

In contrast, the articles pronounce the teachings of the remonstrants as heresy.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Cmon Greg. You know what Dordt meant. Heresy! Thats the point. Arminianism is nothing less than Pelagianism and nothing more than semi-Pelagianism. These doctrines deny justification by faith alone.



Scott,

It is certainly not Pelagianism. Not even Rome teaches Pelagianism. To accuse them of such gives them some ability to wiggle out of the errors they do teach. That is EXACTLY what has happened in the NPP movement; they accuse Reformed scholars of calling so-and-so a Pelagian, calling the Pharisees Pelagians, etc. And then they defeat that accusation. But it is a straw man. They are not Pelagian, but semi-Pelagian. There is an important distinction.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> In contrast, the articles pronounce the teachings of the remonstrants as heresy.



"The articles" ? What kind of heresy? I really need information here - not to disagree, but to find out. I'm not familiar with this off the top of my head.


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Cmon Greg. You know what Dordt meant.



No, in all honestly, I do not. I have not studied that Synod yet.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> These doctrines deny justification by faith alone.



On that point, we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

One of the articles states:

Arminius:

"Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ's merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life."


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

John Wesley, who welcomed the title Arminian and asserted that he had no essential differences with Arminius raised the question, "How can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings?" Wesley then offered this advice, "Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means." Wesley noted that Arminianism was usually charged with five errors: 1. they deny original sin 2. they deny justification by faith 3. they deny absolute predestination 4. they deny the grace of God to be irresistible 5. they affirm a believer may fall from grace. Wesley said that Arminians pleaded "not guilty" to the first two charges. In fact Wesley claimed the doctrine of original sin was "the first, grand, distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity." Concerning justification he also wrote that Arminians thought exactly as Mr. Calvin did. "In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth." It's the other three of which they are certainly guilty, and Wesley admits as much.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> One of the articles states:
> 
> Arminius:
> ...



This is I think but one form of Arminianism - neonomianism. Richard Baxter was a neonomian as well. I don't think all Arminians would see faith as the grounds of salvation. Some would, but others would not. But your point is certainly applicable to at least some.

Where does Dordt call this damnable heresy (i.e. those who believe it are not just wrong, but going to hell)?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

Fred,
Isn't all heresy damnable? Was not the point of Dordt to bring the remonstrants and their illicit theology up on charges of heresy?

From what I have read, all of the remonstrants were defrocked and run out of the country. Would the church defrock someone for less than heresy?

[Edited on 12-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Greg, 
Is Arminianism an off-shoot of Pelagianism? Does Pelagianism deny justification by faith alone?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> Isn't all heresy damnable? Was not the point of Dordt to bring the remonstrants and their illicit theology up on charges of heresy?



No, historically not all heresy is damnable heresy - that is, a heresy that is so bad it takes one outside the reach of salvation.

One example: paedocommunion is heresy. It is a serious error, that has serious consequences. It is a threat to the Church and should be stamped out wherever it rears its head, using the judicial processes of the Church. But can one be a paedocommunionist and a Christian? Of course. Witness G.I. Williamson. Can one be a paedocommunionist and not a Christian? Of course - witness most of Eastern Orthodoxy.

It was my impression that Dordt's purpose was to check the spread of erroneous (heretical) teachings that were disturbing the Church. I don't think (for example) that it declared Arminian a non-believer or an apostate. I could be wrong - this is not my strongest area of Church History. If so, let me know.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



Pelagianism denies justficiation by faith alone, and indeed denies that justification is even needed. It poses that all men are born in the same state as Adam, and that if they do not consciously sin, they have no need of salvation. It denies that the Fall had any affect on mankind. So in that sense Arminianism is not an offshoot of Pelagianism. Even Rome condemned Pelagianism at the Council of Orange, and the Papists continue to do so today. That should give some suggestion as to how far off the mark Pelagianism is.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

Fred,
Did Arminius deny justification by faith alone? From what I have read, all of the remonstrants were defrocked and run out of the country. Would the church defrock someone for less than heresy?

[Edited on 12-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

William Ames wrote that Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error." Robert Godfrey, Church History Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, writes that "the thoelogial differences between Calvinists and Arminians should not be overemphasized. Most Arminians have been and are evangelical Christians."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

Fred,
All heresy is damnable and all heresy makes one apostate. Paedo communion is not heretical. That would make the church heretical knowing that someone is taking the supper whom is not a true believer.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> William Ames wrote that Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error." Robert Godfrey, Church History Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, writes that "the thoelogial differences between Calvinists and Arminians should not be overemphasized. Most Arminians have been and are evangelical Christians."



Greg,
We're not talking of people whom are being misled. We are speaking of those whom practice and teach clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius. 

I agree with Godfrey. As I have said, I have never met an Arminian.


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> Is Arminianism an off-shoot of Pelagianism?



I'd say it's an unbiblical reaction against Calvinism, developed by a former Calvinist, rather than a sympathy with Pelagius. Though, it is rightly classified as semi-pelagian.



> Does Pelagianism deny justification by faith alone?



Clearly and absolutely.


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



Yes, and it is this clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius which Ames says is not heresy but error. And it is those whom practice and teach clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius whom Robert Godfrey states have mostly been and are evangelical Christians.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I agree with Godfrey.



I'm not quite sure you do.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 23, 2004)

This is why I like this place. I can ask a question and get a books worth of knowledge on the question.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> All heresy is damnable and all heresy makes one apostate. Paedo communion is not heretical. That would make the church heretical knowing that someone is taking the supper whom is not a true believer.



Scott,

I have always heard the distinction between error, heresy and damnable heresy. For the record, I believe Paedocommunion is a more pernicious and dangerous error than garden variety Arminianism. The former misleads men with respect to the sovereignty of God; the latter misleads men with respect to the neceesity of conversion.

Paedocommunion does not make the Church heretical, because every branch of Western Christendom rejects it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > Is Arminianism an off-shoot of Pelagianism?
> ...



Is Pelagianism heresy?


----------



## doulosChristou (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Is Pelagianism heresy?



Yes, emphatically. It is damnable heresy.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



From a present day venue. I believe you have misunderstood Ames. Unfortunately, I am not in my library. Can you give me the citing from Ames.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 23, 2004)

I just thought I would chip in with some links to revelant documents (thanks to our Webmaster and others):

Canons of Dordt: http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

Arminian Articles: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianArticles.htm

Critique of Arminius: 
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/JamesArminius/TeachingsOfJamesArminiusMainPage.htm

Critique of Arminianism: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/Arminianism.htm


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



Yes. One cannot deny the need for all men of justification and original sin and be a believer. Pelagianism does not just deny justification by faith alone (which is bad enough) but the doctrine of justfication completely.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Fred,
I didn't say that paedo communion made the church heretical. The reason the church at large rejects paedo communion is because of two reasons: 1) The child or infant cannot examine themselves for the table 2) they may not be true believers. My rationale is that if these are the reasons we reject the doctrine, and you say the doctrine is heretical, wouldn't we all be practicing heresy in the idea that 1) non believers are taking the supper and we allow for that, and 2) non believers do not examine themselves either.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

Is Arminianism a form of Pelagianism?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> I didn't say that paedo communion made the church heretical. The reason the church at large rejects paedo communion is because of two reasons: 1) The child or infant cannot examine themselves for the table 2) they may not be true believers. My rationale is that if these are the reasons we reject the doctrine, and you say the doctrine is heretical, wouldn't we all be practicing heresy in the idea that 1) non believers are taking the supper and we allow for that, and 2) non believers do not examine themselves either.



Ok, I understand you now. I would say that the heretical nature of paedocommunion is in that it makes full and complete membership (i.e. communing membership) no longer dependent on faith, regeneration, or even profession. The entire need for conversion is out the window. Everything is objective - if you are baptized, then you are a Christian. If a Christian, then commune and have full rights as a Christian. This leads quickly and easily to legalism, and a denial of the ordo salutis. Not in all paedocommunionists - but it leads in that direction. I have said it before, the Church should use all means at its disposal to combat this dangerous and aberrant teaching.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Is Arminianism a form of Pelagianism?



No. Not unless (not to my knowledge) Arminius denied original sin, the reality of the Fall and the need for salvation.

Article 3 of the Remonstrants from Matt's page is clearly and explicitly _anti-_Pelagian:



> That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, "œWithout me ye can do nothing."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2004)

> to combat this dangerous and aberrant teaching.



Fred,
Just to clearify, so paedocommunion is NOT then heretical? It is "aberrant and dangerous."

I am going out, I will post more later in regards to the subject of Arminianism....


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > to combat this dangerous and aberrant teaching.
> ...



If the only option w/r/t heresy is damnable (which is an unhistorical position) then paedocommunion is not heresy. If it is possible (as history bears out) to have heresy that is not damnable, than I believe it is a non-damnable heresy.


----------



## tdowns (Dec 23, 2004)

*Wow!*

Lots of great posts. I guess I can see why I was confused in regards to the thinking on Arminianism in regards to it being a different gospel. It seems there are different opinions. These responses are great (as are Matthews essays) in helping me sort out the severity of Arminian doctrines.

I personally, can't see how the doctrines of Arminians or modern Arminian type churches that leave the final choice up to man, can be Faith Alone, they may say that, but then as they go on to teach what it takes to be saved-- Mans fantastic, pure, righteous, great choice to choose God--and then what it takes to stay one of God's children: seems it nullifies their Faith Alone statement. 

One more thing, doesn't playing out the fact that man chooses--when did God know who would choose? Before he made them? After? If before, and he still made them, how does that help their cause?
Doesn't God WAITING to see man's decision at any level mess with God's essential attributes?

I'm anxious to read more.

TD

[Edited on 24-12-2004 by tdowns007]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 23, 2004)

Historically speaking (I keep saying that a lot) let's conider teh facts of the Reformed church of England, the Netherlands, France, Germany, et al.:


Puritan view of Heresy:

Thus, it may be described: *Heresy is an erroneous or false opinion, repugnant unto and subverting the doctrine of faith revealed in the Word as necessary unto salvation; and obstinately maintained and perniciously adhered unto by a professed Christian.*

To make an erroneous opinion amount to heresy, two things *must* occur: 1) The error must be about faith; matters of *divine faith*. 2) It must be against the faith. This type of error is heresy two fold: 1) When it is not *concordant* to every truth in Scripture, and 2) When it is *repugnant* to the truth, or any truth, which is necessary to salvation, and here, no doubt, the error against faith will prove to be heresy.

Of the Danger of Heresies:
1) The Scriptures charge sin, perniciousness, and *damnation* upon them. Paul reckons them among those works of the flesh which shut persons out of the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). Peter calls them pernicious and damnable, and such as bring swift destruction; and, speaking of the authors of them, he says that their damnation slumbers not (2 Peter 2:1-3).
2) Heresies are compared in Scripture sometimes to *gangrene or canker*, 2 Timothy 2:17, "Their word will eat as doth a canker." The canker is an invading ulcer, creeping from joint to joint, corrupting one part after another till, at length, it eats out the very heart and life.
3) Jesus Christ and His apostles give special charges and caveats against them, to take heed and beware of them, which they never would have done had they not been dangerous. Mark 8:15, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Matthew 7:15, "Beware of False Prophets." Philippians 3:2, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." 2 Peter 3:17, "Beware, lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness." 

The Greatness of the Danger of Heresies:
Every heretical opinion *buys a soul or stabs a soul*. Its stabs the soul of him who maintains it, and still trades it on to murder more souls. *Heresy turns the glory of God into a lie*. O sirs, what is God without truth? And what is all the goodness of the Gospel without truth? And what is the fabric of man's salvation without truth? Truth is, as it were, the pin, the clasp, the knot that ties all. And a church is never more close to dying when it gives up the truth. Heresy is like the circles in a pond; one begets another, the smaller to the greater. So one heresy begets another, a lesser to a greater. 

10 chief heresies:
1) The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do not bind us Christians.
2) That God never loved one man more than another before the world, and that all the decrees are conditional.
3) That there is no original sin.
4) *That the will of man is still free* *(Well there goes the Arminian neighborhood).*
5) That the saints may fall totally and finally from grace. *(and again)*
6) That Christ died alike for all, yea, that his salvific virtue of His death extends to all the reprobates as well as the elect, yea, to the very devils as well as unto men. *(oh my, and again)*
7) That Jesus Christ came into the world not for satisfaction, but for publication; not to procure for us and to us the love of God, but only to be a glorious Publisher of the Gospel. *(and again!)*
8) That God is not displeased at all if His children sin.
9) That the doctrine of repentance is a soul destroying doctrine.
10) That the souls of men are not immortal but mortal.


Take Heed:
Let everyone take heed lest he be carried away with any part of this flood of *heresy*. Be on guard that you are not light or proud Christians. Be on guard that you are not loose Christians. If ungodliness is in the heart, it will not be hard for error to get into the head. Take heed that you are not weak Christians. Take heed that you are not , worldly, nor hypocritical, nor unstable. Let everyone strengthen his soul that he may stand and withstand, and not be carried away. Take all in word: A judgment solidly principled, a heart sincerely renewed, a faith truly bottomed, truth and love of it cordially matched; profession and practice well joined, a fear of ourselves and dependence upon God still maintained, God's ordinances and the society of the humble and growing Christians still frequented, watchfulness and prayer still continued are the best directives that I can deliver to keep us in the truth, and the best preservatives that I know to keep us from error.


Well, that about sums it up for Arminians.


Dordt, histroically, says the same thing. After banishing all the Arminians for the pulpits, and then form the state, Dordt then wrote up an introduction to the points and condemened it as pernicious, and evil. They said Arminiansm as doctrine: smacks of Pelagius, is absurd, contradicts Scripture, give people the deadly poinson of Pelagianism, contradicts the apsotle, is entirely Pelagian, contrary to the Bible, "is an opiate of the flesh and *the devil*, and is a *stronghold of Satan* where *he lies in wait* for all people, wounds most of them, and fatally pierces many of them with the arrows of both despair and self-assurance...." and "and is nothing but a *refurbished Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, and Mohammedanism*". They call Arminians, "false accusers" and have the "judgment of God" against them. 

Dordt expelled the Arminians minsiters, and warned the public of their heresy. The state was to read over the Synod's decision, once every three years to remind them of the wicked errors and heresies of these men that they had banished. 

If that is not clear, then I am not sure what you all may be looking for.

Now in terms of "Arminians today", well that's just a mixture of Semi-Pelaginaism, Antinomianism, existentialism and liberalism in a neat little ball. You have to take those people case by case.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 23, 2004)

Matt,

Where is the first section quoted from? If any of the 10 chief heresies are enough to send one to hell, than almost the entire visible church is headed to hell.

Don't get me wrong, I think all these are errors and are dangerous. But it would appear to me that almost the entire visible Christian Church believes some of these errors, especially if you take into consideration new believers.

Here is another question: if the Puritans believed that someone who believed these things was a damnable heretic, why both to reform the Church of England? It was full of Laudinism (Arminianism).

[Edited on 12/24/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 24, 2004)

It is quoted from the preface to the document itself.

The heresy part is quoted from Obadiah Sedgwick on "The Danger and Nature of Heresy."

Scott's "Synod of Dordt" is a good book to get.

If your church was on its way down, would you abandon it, or try to fix it first before you left? Many separatists left. But most stayed and tried to fix it first. Then came Westminster and they settled it, then Cromwell messed things up. Then it went back to Catholicism, and then Presbyterianism. Political upheavel at its finest.

[Edited on 12-24-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## tdowns (Dec 24, 2004)

*Does Arminianism mess with essence of God?*

The arminian is trying to get around the fact that God elects certain people right?

If this is true, in their mind, God gives everyone a bit of grace, just enough to have the option to say yes to God, but only some say yes right?

Well if God knows all before all, and knows who will deny him, but makes them anyway, then he basically is predestining those people to hell anyway, right?

And if that's not true and God has to "see, watch, wait, have middle knowledge, whatever..." and creates the people before knowing, looking down the corridors of time, then at some point in God's time frame(no time/space with God) he had to wait to see what is going to happen, right?

Doesn't this mess with the very attributes of God?

So not only do the ARmins give lip service to Faith Alone, because it's Faith plus a Righteous choice, plus many good choices through life,

They give lip service to one of the very Natures of God, Omniscience.

Just seems that way to me, is that right?

TD


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> The arminian is trying to get around the fact that God elects certain people right?
> 
> If this is true, in their mind, God gives everyone a bit of grace, just enough to have the option to say yes to God, but only some say yes right?
> ...



I think your observations are right on target. Arminianism posits an impotent God.


----------

