# Samuel Rutherford: Arminians are no Protestants



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 19, 2014)

… _Arminians_ and _Socinians_ I disclaim, as no Protestants …

Samuel Rutherford, _Christ dying and drawing sinners to himself_ (London, 1647), p. 109.

Do we agree with this assertion of Samuel Rutherford? How common was this view of Arminians among the early Reformed?


----------



## lynnie (Jan 19, 2014)

Machen referred to it as "deficient" Christianity. They do know Jesus dying on the cross for our sin, justification by faith alone, and many other truths, but fail to understand and accept biblical teaching on sovereignty in salvation. (That is a huge deficiency.)


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2014)

Rutherford and Machen were likely viewing two different things. In its early days Arminianism shared affinities with numerous errors and heresies. Ames called the Arminian view of grace a dangerous error tending to heresy. Owen regarded their views concerning the salvation of those who had never heard the gospel a Pelagian, Socinian heresy. Some of them denied the classical Christian doctrine of divine knowledge. The evangelical Arminianism which arose after Wesley was a distinctively Protestant strain. Wesley's main influences, as seen in his Christian Library, were Puritan. Regrettably there was also a mystical strain which led him away from Puritan theology in some key areas.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 19, 2014)

Doesn't Arminiamism, properly defined, espouse the governmental theory of atonement? That was Dr. Robert Reymond's contention (with selected quotes to back it up). By contrast, most Evangelicals would more appropriately be defined as evangelical universalists.


----------



## ABrauny (Jan 19, 2014)

I suppose it depends on how 'Arminian' and 'Protestant' are being used. If Machen and Rutherford were speaking about Arminians in the same way I would agree with Machen. Maybe it's easy for me to say such things considering I don't really run into '5 point' Arminians very often.


----------



## ABrauny (Jan 19, 2014)

Wayne said:


> Doesn't Arminiamism, properly defined, espouse the governmental theory of atonement? That was Dr. Robert Reymond's contention (with selected quotes to back it up).


 I'll admit to not knowing much about the moral government theory of the atonement but I did read somewhere, someone saying that it was, "...also substitutionary...". Or something to that effect. That being said I really don't see how extending the intent of the atonement universally can be consistently substitutionary.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Jan 20, 2014)

Spurgeon said:


> What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ, – the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.





> I do not serve the God of the Arminians at all; I have nothing to do with him, and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up; he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence.





> "The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon



But he also said this


> Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley.



He also said and Arminian can't pray like an Arminian.

James White often says the only consistent Arminianism is open theism. 

further reading Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon? Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon?


----------



## jandrusk (Jan 20, 2014)

Wasn't Rutherford just taking the same position that the Synod of Dort concluded concerning the Remonstrants?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 21, 2014)

GloriousBoaz said:


> He also said and Arminian can't pray like an Arminian.


Spurgeon on this topic is instructive:

Free Will—A Slave


----------

