# Boettner's View of Arminianism



## reformedman (Apr 14, 2007)

> (THE FOLLOWING FROM REFORMED APOLOGIST LORAINE BOETTNER’S BOOK REFORMED THEOLOGY)
> Arminianism existed for centuries only as a heresy on the outskirts of true religion, and in fact it was not championed by an organized Christian church until the year 1784, at which time it was incorporated into the system of doctrine of the Methodist Church in England. (Reformed Doctrine by Loraine Boettner- Introduction)
> 
> It must be evident that there are just two theories which can be maintained by evangelical Christians upon this important subject; that all men who have made any study of it, and who have reached any settled conclusions regarding it, must be either Calvinists or Arminians . There is no other position which a "Christian" can take. Those who deny the sacrificial nature of Christ's death turn to a system of self salvation or naturalism, and cannot be called "Christians" in the historical and only proper sense of the term. (Reformed Doctrine by Loraine Boettner- Chapter 3)
> ...



Although I agree with Boettner on the logistics of this statement, and that what he stated is legally correct, I have to say that I believe that there are some defining terms that are missing and that by not explaining himself clearly that he inturn misrepresents the Arminianism and the application of the doctrine of grace on believers in this thought.

By blanketly saying that a person who believes in works-salvation is a heretic he is absolutely correct, but because he doesn't define what coorelation he derives from it in relation to *all*Arminians, there is then a supposition made that *all*Arminians are people who practice works-salvation.

It must be defined that although a person may not fully know how Calvinism works that this does not negate the fact that this person is in fact saved. In other words, a person could be regenerated by God so that he has a fervent desire to seek God and to do his will. He then, after learning a few doctrines here and there, think to himself that he believed and therefore, he was then saved, when in fact, he was converted thus leading to his belief. 

Although, the arminian doesn't realize correct ordo-salutis, I don't believe it is right to call this person a heretic. I was part of IFB(Independant Fundamental Baptist movement), and I believed God did all the saving. I didn't fully understand my totally depraved condition until reading scripture, but I don't believe that my confusion and misunderstanding negates the fact that I was converted by God to become a believer. Generally speaking, I don't believe a person can be a believer and perfectly know and understand the core-cardinal doctrines for salvation. If this be the case, then it similar to a demand that we must fully know the concept of the Trinity and fully know the 'why' of particular redemption and election. The bible itself leaves these things to 'mystery'. 

What do you think?


----------



## Chris (Apr 14, 2007)

> that all men who have made any study of it, and who have reached any settled conclusions regarding it, must be either Calvinists or Arminians .



On this I certainly agree. 'Middle ground' positions that seek to take parts of each framework and combine them are simply internally inconsistent, every time. That's what makes it so frustrating to be a modern-day baptist. People have taken the 'baptist bible buffet' approach to their theology, giving man all the credit of Arminianism, but holding on to the safety net of Calvinism....


----------

