# Some reasons for why we need Arminians



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

Why we need Arminians.

Most importantly, We need arminian churches because they are incubators for the reformed. Some of you grew up in reformed churches. You learned the confession at a young age. Your worldview was taught to you when you were developing your system of beliefs. Most of us however did not grow up in reformed churches. We were called in time while we were serving in a arminian church. The consequence of this is that for most of us , when the lights came on, the doctrines of grace were a refreshing fountain of blessing.

We need arminians to keep stressing the importance of evangelism. The reformed believe in outreach but it tends to take place as secondary to building doctrinal saints and covenantal children.

We need arminian churches because they try to live on milk and thereby create a great hunger for meat. When a congregant of an arminian church wants something besides milk the "˜shepherd´ responds with varieties of milk. Here is a milk shake, a chocolate milk, a condensed milk, a HOT FUDGE SUNDAE! Yum, couldn´t you live on sundaes. For a couple days maybe, but then you would need substance. You would yearn for a steak.
Spiritually this is what the arminian church does. It creates a hunger for the Word. Eventually the arminian will get tired of church hopping and think about what constitutes sound worship, doctrine and preaching and hunt to satisfy his hunger.

We need arminians to keep creating the dimness against which the light of the whole counsel of God can be set in contrast. To see the majesty and glory of our Sovereign Eternal King against the cartoonish, wimpy user-friendly demi-god that is preached by the arminian "˜shepherds´ causes us to cover our mouths and confess our ignorance. Our Sovereign says, "˜you thought I was altogether like you´.

Finally, we need arminians for the same reason God went out to look for laborers just one hour before quitting time. Those who were hired in the morning did a lot of hard work and showed much diligence. Those hired at noon put in a good half days worth of work. Why did God go out again and bring in workers who would do an hours worth and pay them the same as the others? Workers who lived on milk and lacked diligence. Because it was the will of the employer. At the end of the day they were all there because of God´s election and grace.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 4, 2006)

I see merit and validity in many of your points, Bob. I am, however, uncomfortable with your use of the term "need." Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by that? As I see it, God can and does use the negativity of the Arminian churches to good ends, including good ends through Reformed churches - but affirming that seems like a very different thing from saying we need Arminian churches in some way.

Of course, the same principle applies with essentially every error, sin and tragedy in this world - God uses it for good, but its eventual absence (even in this lifetime) does not detract from that good being brought about, but rather only adds to it all the more in God's timing. Thus, with those types of things in general, while God has ordained the existence of suffering and sin in this lifetime, any given particular sin or tragedy is not spoken of as being "needed" for His purposes.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 4, 2006)

I don't consider what most Arminian churches do as "evangelism," so I find it hard to agree with much if any of what you're saying.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I see merit and validity in many of your points, Bob. I am, however, uncomfortable with your use of the term "need." Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by that? As I see it, God can and does use the negativity of the Arminian churches to good ends, including good ends through Reformed churches - but affirming that seems like a very different thing from saying we need Arminian churches in some way.
> 
> Of course, the same principle applies with essentially every error, sin and tragedy in this world - God uses it for good, but its eventual absence (even in this lifetime) does not detract from that good being brought about, but rather only adds to it all the more in God's timing. Thus, with those types of things in general, while God has ordained the existence of suffering and sin in this lifetime, any given particular sin or tragedy is not spoken of as being "needed" for His purposes.




Said much better than I could have!


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

Bottom line is, the majority of us were called while in arminian churches. There is a point where consistent arminian teaching completely leaves the gospel behind.

I am trying to settle in my mind the place of the arminian church. Surely there are things we may appreciate about them. I see the average arminian as a person who is called but sitting under misguided preaching. I'm trying to settle many questions. Yes, 'need' was more of an attention getter than anything.

Are the arminians our brothers and sisters? Do they have a positive function in the Kingdom? How many of us here on the board came out of arminian churches?


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I don't consider what most Arminian churches do as "evangelism," so I find it hard to agree with much if any of what you're saying.



 Well stated


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

Let's start with this question. I have seen the phrase 'our arminian brothers' in the text of many reformed writers.

Are the arminians 'our brothers'?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Let's start with this question. I have seen the phrase 'our arminian brothers' in the text of many reformed writers.
> 
> Are the arminians 'our brothers'?



Yep!
John Wesley did more for the cause of Christ than (I'd guess) 75-80% of any of the Calvinists who have ever lived... this despite his theological errors and his terrible marraige.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

I would agree, I have long said, if we must have an arminian then let it be Wesley. Whitefield would have passionately agreed.


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> ...



I believe that there are lots of Arminians that are Christian, I also believe that there are many that are not.

Concerning Wesley:
I agree that he has done a lot for the cause of Christ. 
However, I think that he has also been that cause of many problems along the way.
I would not say that he has done more for Christ than 75-80% of Calvinists. (I suppose each of us is of our own opinion) I believe that Edwards, Brainard, Whitefield have done much more to the sake of Christ and His Kingdom than Wesley. Thus you may say; they are in the top 25%. I could say much more but I just wanted to get my  in on this for now.



[Edited on 4-4-2006 by MeanieCalvinist]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Let's start with this question. I have seen the phrase 'our arminian brothers' in the text of many reformed writers.
> 
> Are the arminians 'our brothers'?



A lot of this could potentially go back to what we mean by "Arminian," as discussed in the thread on Matt's paper a little while back and elsewhere. I certainly affirm that many or most "Arminian-esque" believers today are our brothers, and in that light agree with several of your initial points, such as it being a good thing that they at least feed people milk rather than nothing - and furthermore, as a result many of them will indeed then be driven to seek out meat.

Indeed, even just the amount of us here on the board who have come from Arminian-esque churches is a testimony to that. And in that light, our initial calling in those churches was a good thing - but it would still be even better if more and more of those churches started feeding people meat, for then more and more new Christians who would already be seeking would find that without having to live on milk for as unnecessarily* long a period of time.

*When I use this word, I am of course not using it in the most ultimate sense, any more than I would ever use the word "unfortunately" in that sense, in light of God's sovereign providence and His intentions as such, even as stated explicitly in Scripture (1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:12, 1 Peter 2:2), for ordaining that some live on milk for a time. But like any other temporal "tragedies," we are still to always be working to change them, and that includes hoping to eventually change more and more Arminian churches for the truth (Hebrews 5:13) - with which I think you agree, Bob.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

As always Chris the fruit of your thoughts contains the sweetest juice. Thank you for your meaningful and graciously expressed response.

As I've shared before, I preach in arminian churches. Why? Becasue they don't know better than to hire an un-ordained preacher but if I get the call I will never turn down the opportunity to preach the Gospel. Obviously I have a lot a dear friends in these churches. 

Here on the board we speak with a wide variety of responses regarding arminians. I am looking for practical language in describing our arminian brethren and how we work together (or don't) for the sake of the gospel.

[Edited on 4-4-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Why we need Arminians.
> 
> Most importantly, We need arminian churches because they are incubators for the reformed.



I disagree with this statement. Arminian churches are antithetical to the reformed idea. It is like saying that Antarctica would be a good incubator for young chicks.



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Some of you grew up in reformed churches. You learned the confession at a young age. Your worldview was taught to you when you were developing your system of beliefs. Most of us however did not grow up in reformed churches. We were called in time while we were serving in a arminian church. The consequence of this is that for most of us , when the lights came on, the doctrines of grace were a refreshing fountain of blessing.



This is true in that because we were so steeped in our error, that the truth is so much more valuable to us now. That being said, I do not think that this is a good reason to say that we "œneed" Arminian churches at all.



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> We need arminians to keep stressing the importance of evangelism. The reformed believe in outreach but it tends to take place as secondary to building doctrinal saints and covenantal children.



Bob! First of all, the reformed in my opinion do not in the least need Arminians for this reason. If you know church history, you know that the reformed or Calvinistic branch of Christianity was the first to press evangelism as an important task for the church. From Whitefield, to Edwards, Calvinism has produced the best evangelists in history. For a history of this, I recommend listening to the lecture: http://sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=83004153252&sourceID=mtolive
]Reformed Evangelism by Curt Daniel[/url].

If evangelism is lacking in today´s reformed churches, the last thing we need, is to look to the Arminian camp for direction. Perhaps a re-learning of the scriptures? The Arminians have not retained a healthy understanding of evangelism as you suggest, but have floated to a view of "œhyper-evangelism" (see Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel, Though A Mighty Power by John Kennedy ) where evangelism does not point to the "œChief end of Man", but instead is circular whereby I mean that they evangelize so that when people are "œsaved", they can evangelize to others and so on _ad infinitum_.



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> We need arminian churches because they try to live on milk and thereby create a great hunger for meat. When a congregant of an arminian church wants something besides milk the "˜shepherd´ responds with varieties of milk. Here is a milk shake, a chocolate milk, a condensed milk, a HOT FUDGE SUNDAE! Yum, couldn´t you live on sundaes. For a couple days maybe, but then you would need substance. You would yearn for a steak.
> Spiritually this is what the arminian church does. It creates a hunger for the Word. Eventually the arminian will get tired of church hopping and think about what constitutes sound worship, doctrine and preaching and hunt to satisfy his hunger.



Living by milk alone is sin (beside the fact that this assumes that what Arminians "œknow" truly is milk).

Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

Heb 5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.

Therefore, living on milk is a good reason to rid the world of Arminian churches, not why we "œneed" them. 

Also, this type of reasoning is faulty. It is tantamount to saying "œwe should sin that good may come." But this is contradicted by scripture:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Rom 6:2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> We need arminians to keep creating the dimness against which the light of the whole counsel of God can be set in contrast. To see the majesty and glory of our Sovereign Eternal King against the cartoonish, wimpy user-friendly demi-god that is preached by the arminian "˜shepherds´ causes us to cover our mouths and confess our ignorance. Our Sovereign says, "˜you thought I was altogether like you´.



Nothing new to add.



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Finally, we need arminians for the same reason God went out to look for laborers just one hour before quitting time. Those who were hired in the morning did a lot of hard work and showed much diligence. Those hired at noon put in a good half days worth of work. Why did God go out again and bring in workers who would do an hours worth and pay them the same as the others? Workers who lived on milk and lacked diligence. Because it was the will of the employer. At the end of the day they were all there because of God´s election and grace.



Again, this assumes what Arminians "œknow" is milk, but alas I do not accept this assumption.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> I would agree, I have long said, if we must have an arminian then let it be Wesley. Whitefield would have passionately agreed.



But Toplady would not.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 4, 2006)

> Arminian-esque



I like this term!


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > Arminian-esque
> ...



We have actually called Christians who do not affirm Arminianism, but yet do not endorse Calvinism (because of a lack of familiarity with the doctrines etc.) "œgospelites" because they affirm total depravity and the gospel of salvation by grace, through faith in Christ works alone, but yet do not have the knowledge of limited atonement etc. contra the Arminians.

These "œgospelites" are most definitely brothers in Christ.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 4, 2006)

Ok, two good terms that makes this debate easier in my opinion.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

Good Jeff, this is what I'm looking for. A biblical response without all the emotion. What passes for evangelism to the arminian is you do what ever you have to do to get the victim to pray 'the sinner's prayer'. The victim now enters into a self deluded assurance that he is eternally saved because he prayed or read a prayer.

But you must admit, it is very easy to find resources on evangelism (so-called) amongst the arminians and you will search long and hard to find 3 or 4 good books on presenting the WHOLE gospel. 

I feel we are like Priscilla and Aquila who come across a 'believer' who only knows John's baptism.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 4, 2006)

John Wesley converted thousands of people to Theistic paganism, not Christianity, where God is an impotent Creator and we as creatures are capable of our own perfection.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Good Jeff, this is what I'm looking for. A biblical response without all the emotion.



Good!...because that is what you'll get from me!  (at least the non-emotional aspect  )



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> What passes for evangelism to the arminian is you do what ever you have to do to get the victim to pray 'the sinner's prayer'. The victim now enters into a self deluded assurance that he is eternally saved because he prayed or read a prayer.







> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> But you must admit, it is very easy to find resources on evangelism (so-called) amongst the arminians and you will search long and hard to find 3 or 4 good books on presenting the WHOLE gospel.



My only question in regards to this comment would be "Does the amount  of books written by those in their perspective camps represent their dedication to evangelism?" 



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> I feel we are like Priscilla and Aquila who come across a 'believer' who only knows John's baptism.



If you mean this to be a parallel between Calvinists looking at Arminians as brethren who only know "milk", then I deny the analogy. This does not mean that I think one must be a Calvinist to be saved, for many people can have a good understanding of and assent to the gospel without a complete knowledge of Calvinism. See above post on "gospelites."


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

Gabe said



> John Wesley converted thousands of people to Theistic paganism, not Christianity, where God is an impotent Creator and we as creatures are capable of our own perfection.



That may be true Gabe but weren't most of us theistic pagans at some point in our sanctification. Our appreciation and understanding of the character of our incomprehensible God is subject to misunderstanding as we grow in Christ. We first understand as little children, seeing through a glass dimly. At some point we believe we understand well enough to be called orthodox.

[Edited on 4-4-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> That may be true Gabe but weren't most of us theistic pagans at some point in our sanctification. Our appreciation and understanding of the character of our incomprehensible God is subject to misunderstanding as we grow in Christ. We first understand as little children, seeing through a glass dimly. At some point we believe we understand well enough to be called orthodox.



How can you be a theistic pagan and be involved in the process of sanctification?


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> ...


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

Sorry, I'm making the point that Wesley's converts were not theistic pagans but were rather spiritual babes. I was borrowing your term but I disagree that your term best describes Wesley's converts.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 4, 2006)

Ben,
Im wondering what did John Wesley do that "Calvinists" did not do? I dontknow much about John Wesley so Im curious by your statement.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 4, 2006)

Arminian theology and Arminian churches are plain evidence that God uses mistake-prone people for his good ends.

It certainly is an interesting question Bob brings up. But I too think perhaps there is another way to word it. Ben also brought up Wesley. In all honesty, both Arminius and Wesley (and a good many others) would possibly recoil from modern evangelicalism if they saw it, repudiate it, and maybe their own errors if they could be shown that this was the natural result of the trajectory they championed.

Time. It takes time for many things to play themselves out to their bitter end. The "almost-gospel" of Arminius/semi-Pelagius has taken a long time to grow out to its final-fruit. And in the mean-while, God has used what is still good in it for his strategic advance.

It is true that a great deal of "calvinistic" faith also appears as "dead wood" upon the branches. What does this say, except that my very first sentence is still as true of *US* as it is of them. But the question remains--do we "need" Arminians?


My answer is a careful, "No." We don't need Arminian theology, or Arminian churches in the sense that we as calvinists are better off having them around, and even dominating the scene in most places. It is probably _better_ in some ways that mosts persons are _in_ a church than that they aren't in a church, regardless of the kind. But people don't need to start off in a weak church, and start getting built up in a skewed way. That just means dismantling so much more later on in order to get things plumb.

Would we say that we "need" papists in the same way? They certainly have more blatant errors than do the Arminians, but I look around here in NEOHIO, and especially in the urban centers I see a great mix of bad stuff, and both the papists and the EO put on a strong showing. Somehow we think its easier to work with a disaffected Arminian than a disillusioned Traditionalist. I really question that line of thinking.

Maybe we "need" the Arminian gospel in the same way the church "needed" the Medieval papacy: in order that God might show it for what counterfiet it is, and overthrow it.

One reason why there is a proliferation of Arminian churches is because so many people don't want _the hard liquor_ of Reformed theology. They want Christianity-Lite. They are turned off by a church like this one that has actually excommunicated people. (The same folks can be members the following week down the street someplace.)

We had a testimony last Sunday by a pastor from the "Bible belt," in a city dominated by Arminian fundamentalism, but who's population perfectly mirrors the national evangelical demographic--with a divorce rate exactly the same for Christians as non-Christians. But in the little Reformed church he pastored for 25 years, they had not a single one. Is that just "lucky breaks?" Or does the Reformed faith really offer the "best package" out there. Are your chances of "growing in grace" and seeing the fruits of sanctification really better in a Reformed church?

I say, Yes! It just wrong to say that people "get more" in an Arminian church. No they don't! Because they don't get what they need, and therefore whatever else they get (the props) are ultimately without lasting benefit. _And_ the Reformed church is weakened by facing dillution of power as people who could be _doing_ similar things (authorized things) under the Reformed banner are doing them to build up a church with a weak or non-existent foundation.

There are way more McD.'s out there than Cracker-Barrels. And that's not just a factor of time or business plan. The soy-burger and french-flops you get at the fast-food place are convenient, popular, and garbage. But stopping to eat at a Cracker-Barrel is more costly, more time consuming, and more nutritious. The latter doesn't need the former, as if "when you're sick of the cheap grease, stop in here!" Do you need to get "broken-in" to the restaurant experience before C-B is the best place for you?


And yes, part of it is leadership. Part of it is competent pastors, elders, and deacons. But most people right now--in these days of fattness and affluence--want the things that a solid Reformed church is not going to give them: entertainment, soft preaching, ego stroking, programs programs programs programs, an "experience".

Arminian churches are more and more going to go this way. Some will not. Some will resist the tide, the magnetic pull of pragmatism, in favor of history, roots, or just because the Bible is actually more valuable to them than popularity (praise God for it). But the majority will, because Arminian theology is at the core man-centered. And so will some Reformed churches go that way, and maybe even whole denominations--but at variance to their historical theology and ecclesiology.

The Reformed church faces the perrenial test--are we going to abide by the ordinary means of grace? Are we going to stick to our guns, even when so many people are telling us, "Out of date! Out of fashion! You folks are stuck in the dark ages. You aren't growing because you are hidebound." If we maintain a biblically defined course, then the day will come when God opens the eyes of the frustrated, and the miserable, whose dead-end religion has left them with no answers for people's questions, no reason to keep at "doing church", and no gospel. And we will be there, saying "We never left, thank you for coming back."

On the other hand, if we get on board the evangelical bandwagon, we will end up in the same compromised position, and we should not be surprised if God removes our lampstand--not because the people outside rejected the gospel, but because we exchanged it for a mess of potage. Will our churches be leaders in the next Reformation, or will the ragged remnants straggle along behind?


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Apr 4, 2006)

Rev. Bruce,

Thank you for sharing.. I really appreciate your thoughts on this difficult matter. You bring out a lot of great points. I will have to re-read what you wrote and digest it this evening. Thanks again!

[Edited on 4-4-2006 by MeanieCalvinist]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> John Wesley converted thousands of people to Theistic paganism, not Christianity, where God is an impotent Creator and we as creatures are capable of our own perfection.




Hogwash! 

John Wesley taught total depravity every bit as much as any Calvinist you ever met.

He just postulated the doctrine of "Universal Prevenient Grace" as being God's solution for the problem. 

It is certainly an erroneous doctrine, as I have argued here, and as Dr. Tom Schreiner has argued here.

If you haven't learned how to wrap your arms around an Arminian like Wesley, and welcome him as a brother in Christ, then you have not yet reached the maturity of great Calvinists like George Whitfield.

One of Whitfield´s followers (who obviously still held great animosity against Wesley) said to Whitfield, *"We won´t see John Wesley in the heaven, will we?"* Whitfield humbly replied *"Yes, you´re right, we won´t see him in heaven. He will be so close to the Throne of God and we will be so far away, that we won´t be able to see him!"*

( Source for the Whitfield quote: http://www.tonycooke.org/resources/wesley-whitfield.htm )


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> 
> Are the arminians 'our brothers'?




ABSOLUTELY! They are in error. But they are certainly our brothers.


[Edited on 4-4-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 4, 2006)

I do not deny that Whitefield made the comments regarding Wesley (as quoted above), but to say that because he said them, therefore it must be true, is faulty reasoning (the fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority).

One could just as easily argue that Arminians are not brethren because Augustus Toplady's comments to Mr. Wesley were to this effect.

Actually, if one knew the relationship that Wesley and Whitefield had, one could argue that Whitefield's motives for his comments were more personal, then theological.

Now if we want to appeal to authority, the great Jonathan Edwards invited George Whitefield to preach in his church, but it would be a facinating sight to see the great theolgian invite an Arminian such as Wesley!


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> ...



I do not believe that I could make such a bold statement concerning the Arminians as being our brothers or sisters in Christ. I believe that there are many Arminians that are not saved. We by our very nature are Arminian in a sense(self-centered). When we become religious it is by the very inclination of our will that we adopt a theology that has a man-centeredness to it ie"Arminianism". I will say this, there are those who are our Brothers and Sisters in Christ that are Arminian in their theology. However, there are also those within the Arminian camp that make a mockery of the atoning work of Christ. Ultimately, it is the Work of God that saves sinners. Therefore, God alone can judge the hearts of men since He is the Sovereign One.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 4, 2006)

Pastor Bruce, I am in awe that you would take the time to form such an extensive response. This is a topic that I really want to come up with some practical guidelines on. Your thoughts will give me a lot to meditate on. 

The rest of you, you don't have to be as lengthy in your propositions, just keep being profound.  Ya'll are the greatest.


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Pastor Bruce, I am in awe that you would take the time to form such an extensive response. This is a topic that I really want to come up with some practical guidelines on. Your thoughts will give me a lot to meditate on.
> 
> The rest of you, you don't have to be as lengthy in your propositions, just keep being profound.  Ya'll are the greatest.



 I really love the Spirit of the Board!!


----------

