# The Arminian "god" is not Worshippable



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 8, 2006)

*The Arminian "god" is not Worshippable*

The contemporary church today is not only accepting Arminiusâ€™ teaching, but running after it, selling it in their Christian bookstores (making a profit on heresy), teaching it in their seminaries (so that young and upcoming ministers affect the congregation they will one day pastor), and preaching it from their pulpits to the layman who trusts their pastorâ€™s every word. Arminius taught the secular manâ€™s religion â€“ a religion of works by personal merit â€“ and America is eating it up. Dr. John Owen called it the â€œbrain childâ€ of wickedness. Dr. Jonathan Edwards called it â€œdeep darkness.â€ Rev. Augustus Toplady called it the â€œRoad back to Roman Catholicismâ€. Westminster Divine Dr. Robert Leighton called it â€œthe last and greatest monster of the man of sinâ€. Rev. Christopher Ness called it an â€œabominationâ€ and â€œchambers of imageryâ€ (or fabrications). This writer, in like mind, calls it _heresy_. Suitably, the worship of this â€œother godâ€ that Arminius created is summarized biblically as idolatry.

More here...

*The god of Arminianism is Not Worshippable*


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 8, 2006)

I guess I'm not willing to label every _Christian_, other than 5-point Calvinists, as heretics.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 9, 2006)

I have no problem calling them heretics. It's not damnable heresy for all of them as the article states..



> Arminians are of different stripes. Some people in Arminian churches may be truly converted, ignorant of their church home, and ultimately the Lord will rescue them out of their ignorance for He promises He will not allow His little ones to perish (such a rescue can come from Scriptural truth used in a simple internet article!).


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 9, 2006)

Bravo Matt....*BRAVO!* this is easily my favorite article of yours and I am sending the link to it to every Arminian friend I know!



> They think that since Pastor "œso and so" is a godly man, what he teaches "œmust" be right. And this, unfortunately, has been the reason that the heresy of Arminianism has thrived so violently across the last two hundred years of the unsuspecting contemporary church.



 This was my problem the same as it remains the problem of many people I know. Just because a pastor, TV evangelist, best selling author, etc. claims something and says it comes from the bible is not reason enough to believe it.



> Arminius also taught that his "œgod" can be frustrated by the will of man because men choose their own destiny and that "œgod" allows them to do what they want to do without interfering.



Sadly I hear this all of the time from many who claim to be God fearing Christians. They can't even begin to see how those two things conflict. How can you be a God fearing Christian yet believe whole heartedly that God's will depends on the decisions of men? 



> Yet, at no time will "œgod" ever violate their free will to make them come to "œhim" or change their heart first without their consent to do so.



I hear this all of the time as well. It is said with pride even! God will not violate your free will!!!


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 9, 2006)

*Spurgeon's Rendition of the Arminian's Prayer*


> Fancy him praying, `Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not - that is the difference between me and them.'


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 9, 2006)




----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> *Spurgeon's Rendition of the Arminian's Prayer*
> 
> 
> > Fancy him praying, `Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not - that is the difference between me and them.'


WOW! That is a powerful quote.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I have no problem calling them heretics. It's not damnable heresy for all of them as the article states..
> 
> 
> ...



All heresy is damnable. By making a distinction between "damnable" heresy and "non-damnable" heresy, we simply show that we're not really sure of what heresy is... and it reveals that we're wielding a theological broadsword rather than a theolgoical scalpel. 

If anything but 5-point Calvinism is really heresy, then this means that those who hold to anything but 5-point Calvinism are damned.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 9, 2006)

I've not made up my mind but I think it is possible that those who do not see the error in it may be.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I've not made up my mind but I think it is possible that those who do not see the error in it may be.



May be what? Damned?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I've not made up my mind but I think it is possible that those who do not see the error in it may be.



May be what? Damned?
So Bruce Ware is a heretic?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 9, 2006)

I think this article would be more forceful if you included some actual quotes from Arminius and the Remonstrants on the key points.


----------



## non dignus (Feb 9, 2006)

Great piece, Dr. Matt!

Arminians simply do not worship the same God as we. Does anyone feel uncomfortable praying with an Arminian? I do! What should be our response when we find ourselves in that predicament?

I know this sort of speculation is fraught with pitfalls but I can't help wondering about the spiritual state of a life-long Arminian "super-teacher" ('Doctor' is too strong a word) who has been exposed to the doctrines of grace and rejects them.

"To whom much is given, much is required."


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



No idea who that is, but possibly yes. I believe I was all the years that I believed that nonsense as is everyone who taught it to me.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> I think this article would be more forceful if you included some actual quotes from Arminius and the Remonstrants on the key points.



You know, I really struggled _not_ to add those in. It would not be hard, but then, I want people to deal with Biblical ideas rather than a "scholarly" article that deals with all thier quotes and the refutation of those quotes.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

Arminianism is heresy; all who hold to it are heretics and rightfully will perish. However, as I have said before many times, I have never met a textbook Arminian. I don't believe they exist today. There are strains of people whose theology is in error. The extent of that error will determine where that person is salvifically. An eight year old whom is simply _trusting_ in Christ alone to bring about the ends described in scripture, but knows little about the forensiology of the atonement or is tangled up in the idea that saying a prayer to God at the moment the HS moves them may quite possibly be one of Christs elect. I would not call this person an Arminian but an uneducated person. The bible calls us to study; this implies that as we study, we learn. A person whom has studied and rejected the Calvinist truths in exchange for the Arminiast lies, is heretical and is perishing even now.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 9, 2006)

> A person whom has studied and rejected the Calvinist truths in exchange for the Arminiast lies, is heretical and is perishing even now.



That is pretty much how I feel and the point I wanted to make. There are many still learning, as I was and in many ways still am.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > A person whom has studied and rejected the Calvinist truths in exchange for the Arminiast lies, is heretical and is perishing even now.
> ...



The question remains, how much does a person need to know to be converted? Regeneration is a work of the HS and can occur whilst the person knows very little. Conversion however, requires certain ducks to be in a row.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 9, 2006)

But we can't know who has been converted until they show some signs of regeneration correct? I showed signs of conversion for YEARS but believed deeply in an Arminian god who allowed me to freely choose Him or not. I believed in the god who would never interfere in anyone's free will and wanted ALL to be saved.

I honestly do not believe I would have entered Heaven had I died believing that goofiness.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Arminianism is heresy; all who hold to it are heretics and rightfully will perish. However, as I have said before many times, I have never met a textbook Arminian. I don't believe they exist today.



Scott, please don't take offense, but this is a huge cop out on your part. I think you are saying this to escape the obvious logical conclusion of your view that Arminianism is damnable heresy. Just step up to the plate and say that Arminians are damned heretics. Now, if your experience leads you to question the wisdom of this understanding, perhaps you need to reevaluate your understanding of heresy.

I take great exception to you saying that you have never met a "textbook Arminian". I believe that synergism is the natural understanding of man and God, and that it permeates almost all religion. Furthermore, I have met many Arminians that well understand their theological system, and fully embrace it. I have no idea how many are regenerate, but I believe many are. Perhaps the problem is that the Church is assailed by the Pelagian heresy, and there is no ecclesiastical structure to deal with it. Perhaps many regenerate have been carried away by such heresy, but even more so the unregenerate have embraced it to the end of it hardening of their heart.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> But we can't know who has been converted until they show some signs of regeneration correct?



We can't know who has been _regenerated_ until they show signs of conversion, i.e. fruits. Even then our judgements can be skewed. The scriptures speak of _wolves_ in sheeps clothing. This means that there will be people that look like believers........


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> Scott, please don't take offense, but this is a huge cop out on your part. I think you are saying this to escape the obvious logical conclusion of your view that Arminianism is damnable heresy. Just step up to the plate and say that Arminians are damned heretics.



I clearly said that above in my initial post. Are you reading the posts?


> "Arminianism is heresy; all who hold to it are heretics and rightfully will perish."





> Now, if your experience leads you to question the wisdom of this understanding, perhaps you need to reevaluate your understanding of heresy.



My wisdom is based upon experience and study. I have never met a person whom holds to Arminianism like I hold to calvinism. We openly say, "I am a Calvinist". This equates to the fact that we understand what Calvin espoused about Gods word systematically. Have you ewver met someone whom said this about Arminius?



> I take great exception to you saying that you have never met a "textbook Arminian".



I haven't!



> I believe that synergism is the natural understanding of man and God, and that it permeates almost all religion.



True.



> Furthermore, I have met many Arminians that well understand their theological system, and fully embrace it.



These people are unregenerated. I'm not talking of these. Can one be reformed yet hold to only three points? No! Some might even go to the extent of saying that if one does not hold to all 5 points, they are yet unregenerated/converted. Ask some of these people you speak of to recite that which was penned by the Remonstrants. They may not even know who or what Remonstrants are. Does this remove them from the inert responsibility plaguing themselves, no! Men are responsible. However, what I am pressing here is that I was regenerated under Calvary Chapel preaching. I stepped up to the plate because I was told that "I" needed to. Was it interpreted as synergistic? Absolutely! Did I understand what synergism was, no. God still chose to use that day to bring me unto himself. I did not stay there long. I was obedient to study to show myself approved, a rightful workman of God. 



> *I have no idea how many are regenerate*, but I believe many are. Perhaps the problem is that the Church is assailed by the Pelagian heresy, and there is no ecclesiastical structure to deal with it. Perhaps many regenerate have been carried away by such heresy, but even more so the unregenerate have embraced it to the end of it hardening of their heart.



Brett, you are contradicting yourself here. You admit, men are regenerated under this premise? One cannot be regenerate and heretical at the same time.



[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

:restraining....restraining...to enter argument before me reads article:


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 9, 2006)

Matt - 
Well, you've consigned virtually all non 5-point Calvinists to the abyss.
What's next? A treatise demonstrating that all dispensationalists - even the ones like John MacArthur - are going to hell?
After that, perhaps you would care to finish the job by demonstrating that only those who adhere to the WCF w/o exception, as interpreted by the RPCGA, are saved.


----------



## Peter (Feb 9, 2006)

Would any Calvinistic Church allow an Arminian into church communion? If someone within a Calvinistic church was found to have arminian views wouldn't they be censured?

An Arminian is a heretic, and Calvinists are not to associate with them ecclesiastically. We are commanded to mark and avoid those who walk contrary to the doctrine we have received even if they are called "Brothers", ie, born again and saved by Jesus.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Peter]


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > Scott, please don't take offense, but this is a huge cop out on your part. I think you are saying this to escape the obvious logical conclusion of your view that Arminianism is damnable heresy. Just step up to the plate and say that Arminians are damned heretics.
> ...



But, then you posit Arminianism as a pure hypothetical and imaginary system. You haven't really met one. That sure is convenient. 



> > Now, if your experience leads you to question the wisdom of this understanding, perhaps you need to reevaluate your understanding of heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> My wisdom is based upon experience and study. I have never met a person whom holds to Arminianism like I hold to calvinism. We openly say, "I am a Calvinist". This equates to the fact that we understand what Calvin espoused about Gods word systematically. Have you ewver met someone whom said this about Arminius?



In fact, I have met several. In fact I have a friend that knows Calvinism about as well as most Calvinist that I know who happens to be Wesleyan. He holds dearly to everything about this theology. He believes that Dordt was unfairly tried, and believes that when the Church comes to its senses and holds to a higher ecclesiology, Dordt can be retried.



> > I take great exception to you saying that you have never met a "textbook Arminian".
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't!



Well, you really need to get out more, because they are all over the place. There are at least as many knowledgeable Arminians as Calvinists.



> > I believe that synergism is the natural understanding of man and God, and that it permeates almost all religion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, what you said sounds like an excuse for all Arminians. I just think the caveat that you haven´t met a real Arminian needs to be axed. Either, you need to meet one, or you just need to realize they are more numerous than this statement would indicate. Personally, I believe you are reducing these issues past absurdity as it requires something more that knowledge of the Gospel for justification. While the Arminian system clearly distorts the correct understanding of the Gospel, it is contained within the system of doctrine. 



> > Can one be reformed yet hold to only three points? No! Some might even go to the extent of saying that if one does not hold to all 5 points, they are yet unregenerated/converted. Ask some of these people you speak of to recite that which was penned by the Remonstrants. They may not even know who or what Remonstrants are. Does this remove them from the inert responsibility plaguing themselves, no! Men are responsible. However, what I am pressing here is that I was regenerated under Calvary Chapel preaching. I stepped up to the plate because I was told that "I" needed to. Was it interpreted as synergistic? Absolutely! Did I understand what synergism was, no. God still chose to use that day to bring me unto himself. I did not stay there long. I was obedient to study to show myself approved, a rightful workman of God.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...



I am not contradicting myself, but rather I refuse to put this issue in a modernistic reduction. Objectively, all forms of Pelagianism are heresy. What that means might not be as simple as you would have it. I think the implications of heresy are both ecclesiastical as well as soteriological. It is heresy because of how it divides the Church, and because it can lead one to put their trust in a false god. That doesn´t mean that everyone who logically embraces Arminianism is not trusting Christ alone. Unless we turst Christ with our intellect alone. I agree with Matthew that the Arminian god is a false one, but then again so is the god of any system that is in error. The god of someone that happens to hold to this heresy may or may not be the true God. Any error in theology is due to a misunderstanding of who God is, and therefore could be say to worship a false god. Arminians can have the right Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, can believe in justification by faith, and can even believe that salvation is from grace. The same cannot be said about Muslims, Mormons, and even some Presbyterians.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

Brett,
Am I misunderstanding you? Here's what you said:


> I have no idea how many are regenerate, but I believe many are.



When you refer to 'many', you are referring to what? Arminians? Or people that have an erred theology?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

Scott previosuly wrote:


> I clearly said that: "Arminianism is heresy; all who hold to it are heretics and rightfully will perish."



Brett responds:


> But, then you posit Arminianism as a pure hypothetical and imaginary system. You haven't really met one. That sure is convenient.



I never said that. Show me where I said that??? Arminianism is real. There are strains of error today, but none are pure bred/Remonstrant Arminians. Arminianism is heresy and those whom hold to it will perish. However, it would take exposure to both theological systems and then subsequent rejection of the correct system to rightly label someone Arminian. As I have clearly said, I was regenerated in a Calvary Chapel. My conversion was schizophrenically radical! The old Scott Bushey literally died that day. Was I Arminian? Well, lets just say I was ignorant of the total truth of Gods word. That did not make me a heretic or banish me to hades. God is longsuffering. infants whom God regenerates and convert at early ages does not perish, is not heretical for lack of understanding. 



> In fact, I have met several. In fact I have a friend that knows Calvinism about as well as most Calvinist that I know who happens to be Wesleyan. He holds dearly to everything about this theology. He believes that Dordt was unfairly tried, and believes that when the Church comes to its senses and holds to a higher ecclesiology, Dordt can be retried.



I have never met any of these types outside of Roman Catholics.

Brett previously wrote:


> I take great exception to you saying that you have never met a "textbook Arminian".



Scott responds in a gentlemanly type manner:


> I haven't!



Brett reduces the conversation to personal attacks:



> Well, you really need to get out more, because they are all over the place. There are at least as many knowledgeable Arminians as Calvinists.



Brett continues:


> Well, what you said sounds like an excuse for all Arminians.



Not an excuse. The benefit of the doubt for them whom have yet to learn Gods ways. The bible calls men to study. This mandate proves that knowledge is given to them that seek it and that knowledge is a building process. Neither you or I knew the things we know today. You had no idea of forensic justification when you were regenerated.



> I just think the caveat that you haven´t met a real Arminian needs to be axed. Either, you need to meet one, or you just need to realize they are more numerous than this statement would indicate.



I know what an Arminian is and i know what error is. There is a big difference between a practicing Arminian and someone whom is in error for lack of knowledge. There is as well a difference between error and heresy. I never met someone whom held to error once exposed to truth by Gods spirit. 



> Personally, I believe you are reducing these issues past absurdity as it requires something more that knowledge of the Gospel for justification.



Really? Is that what the bible says? I believe the scriptures say that if one will _believe_ they will be saved! Accept, receive, believe, repent............


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I honestly do not believe I would have entered Heaven had I died believing that goofiness.



 and


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Matt -
> Well, you've consigned virtually all non 5-point Calvinists to the abyss.
> What's next? A treatise demonstrating that all dispensationalists - even the ones like John MacArthur - are going to hell?
> After that, perhaps you would care to finish the job by demonstrating that only those who adhere to the WCF w/o exception, as interpreted by the RPCGA, are saved.



Arminians believe in works righteousness, and believing that they have saving faith contradicts not only scripture, but the WCF:

Westminster Confession of Faith
14:2 


> By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. *But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.*


 


Westminster Larger Catechism
Question 72: What is justifying faith?


> Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, _*and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*, _ not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I guess I'm not willing to label every _Christian_, other than 5-point Calvinists, as heretics.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Would any Calvinistic Church allow an Arminian into church communion? If someone within a Calvinistic church was found to have arminian views wouldn't they be censured?
> 
> An Arminian is a heretic, and Calvinists are not to associate with them ecclesiastically. We are commanded to mark and avoid those who walk contrary to the doctrine we have received even if they are called "Brothers", ie, born again and saved by Jesus.



A Display of Arminianism by John Owen:



> One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit,"”"œmors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJerolemon, [4] "œa holy war," to such enemies of God´s providence, Christ´s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters. [5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,"”"œthe depths and crafts of Satan;" we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,"”like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,"”give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> > I guess I'm not willing to label every _Christian_, other than 5-point Calvinists, as heretics.



I don't remember anyone doing that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...



Bruce Ware is a known critic of open theism. Four point Calvinist, though. Faith alone isn't good enough, evidently. I agree with Ben on this one.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Jeff,
If one is not a 5 pointer, the system falls apart at the seams. In that, the error left remaining would resemble a component of the Arminian system.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 9, 2006)

I will leave it up to God's judgment... Though, I grant sticking up for sound soteriology is no less important than upholding the fundamentals, the Trinity, the incarnation, and the Deity of Christ, et al.

However, I think we should be weary of the trap of thinking someone's failure to exegete Romans 9 properly is damnable. I've ran into those intellectual assent Calvinists, and I don't think it is prudent to embrace.

Arminianism is darkness, because it gives man a cause to boast. The legalists and the false teachers will face God's judgment. 

Yet I do think grace can abound all the more and Christ's blood can save regenerate man in spite of some dubious doctrines. God will give a great number of Christians a wake up call. Likewise, y'all might be surprised to find some Charismatics, Catholics and Orthodox as risen souls when we get to Heaven. Of course, they will find out we were right all along. Soli Deo Gloria!

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I will leave it up to God's judgment... Though, I grant sticking up for sound soteriology is no less important than upholding the fundamentals, the Trinity, the incarnation, and the Deity of Christ, et al.
> 
> However, I think we should be weary of the trap of thinking someone's failure to exegete Romans 9 properly is damnable. I've ran into those intellectual assent Calvinists, and I don't think it is prudent to embrace.
> ...



Ryan,
I believe the error would have to be corrected prior to their glorification.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Not necessarily. There is a difference between ignorance of a thing and believing a thing.

I agree that if anyone denies the five points, they are headed for destruction, but what if someone has never heard of them? If presented with them, and then he agrees, that is one thing, but if he is presented with them, and rejects them, that is another.

I think more helpful way of looking at "Arminians" is "Who believes that their free will saved them?" "Who believes that they in any way contributed to their salvation?"

The Arminians surely do believe they contribute (not only a little...) but make the ULTIMATE DECIDING FACTOR!

When judging a person's gospel, it must come down to faith vs. works / grace vs. merit. Saving faith is the former...the road to hell is the latter.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> Not necessarily. There is a difference between ignorance of a thing and believing a thing.



Jeff,
I agree. Thats why I used the term 'error' and 'resemble'.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I will leave it up to God's judgment... Though, I grant sticking up for sound soteriology is no less important than upholding the fundamentals, the Trinity, the incarnation, and the Deity of Christ, et al.
> 
> However, I think we should be weary of the trap of thinking someone's failure to exegete Romans 9 properly is damnable. I've ran into those intellectual assent Calvinists, and I don't think it is prudent to embrace.
> ...



Ryan...the gospel is something...and it must be believed to be saved. Remember....it is not our intellect that saves us, but God that gives us the faith in the TRUE gospel. 

Nobody is condeming the Arminians because "they are not as smart as us Calvinists." That's not it at all. It is because:

1) The bible says the gospel is one of free grace and by faith alone

2) That this gospel must be believed, and because Christ is the author of this faith, he cannot fail. He will give us faith in the true gospel.

3) Therefore, anyone believing a false gospel (one of works/merit) cannot be converted.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

*Arminians today are in some ways WORSE than Arminius himself!*

Arminus was a heretic to be sure, but today's "Arminianism" is not nearly as well thought out as the ancient idolater. One major difference is that Arminus did not deny predestination, but rather said that God predestined based upon forsight. Ask any "Joe" in the fundamentalist church what he thinks about predestination, and you'll get your head chopped off.

I think that Arminius (coming from a Calvinist background) _possibly_ had more sense of his guilt than modern arminians. The Arminians that I deal with on a day-to-day basis are so close to Pelagian that even Arminians might consider them not saved!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

I believe the key here is the difference between regeneration and conversion. Men CAN be regenerated and not yet understand all the component of Gods gospel clearly. Conversion follows the unwinding of all the components.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

*Not trying to hijack the thread, but this is a very relevant post I made in another thread*



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> In short, an Arminian is a person who believes in the doctrines of Arminianism, most commonly in the "five-points" of Arminianism, or the five-points of the Remonstrance.
> 
> Are Arminians regenerate? This must NOT be an exercise of condemnation, or "playing God," but at the same time, we are called to judge a saving faith from a NON-saving faith. This discussion should not be about a game of "heretic-hunting," but about serious matter of judging "What is the TRUE gospel?" Is the true gospel compatable with the 5pts. of Arminianism?
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I believe the key here is the difference between regeneration and conversion. Men CAN be regenerated and not yet understand all the component of Gods gospel clearly. Conversion follows the unwinding of all the components.



Scott,

With due respect, I think it dangerous to place a time difference between regeneration/conversion with adults. It might work with infants as they might not have the ability to understand yet, but that excuse doesn't work with people of "believing age" (if there is such a thing).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I fully disagree with you Jeff. There is no way for you to support this. In fact, Christ told Nicodemus the opposite thing and he was an adult.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God. 
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to Him, How is a man able to be generated, being old? He is not able to enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born? 
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. LITV

You understood all theological things right out of the shoot?

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I fully disagree with you Jeff. There is no way for you to support this. In fact, Christ told Nicodemus the opposite thing and he was an adult.
> 
> Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.
> ...



These verses support regeneration preceding faith (agreed) but not necessarily time wise. There is a difference between logical order and chronological order. 



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You understood all theological things right out of the shoot?



Not at all. But I believed the gospel"¦the true one "œright out of the shoot" (whatever that means!). As do all people who we judge to be saved. A regenerate person will no longer be deceived by a false gospel, but will be persuaded by the Spirit who regenerated him, of the truth of the only true gospel of salvation by grace, through faith in the righteousness of Christ alone.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Indeed. If more people had read other pieces of Matt's treatment on the subject as well, you would know that that is a pure straw-man of what he is saying, as shown by his statement at the beginning of the APM page on Arminianism *(not to mention the last few paragraphs of the current article as well)*:



> The system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heresy. It is an offshoot from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It has been adversely affecting the church and its doctrine for over 250 years. Men like Finney and Wesley, being the charismatic personalities they were, propagated the doctrine and resurrected the Pelagian error from the pit of hell once again to persecute the church of Christ. Today's Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological "soup". Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians. If we were to live in the days of old, when the caliber of theology for Arminianism reached its zenith in its contentions with the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, we would find men very much deceived and propagating doctrines of a different nature than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today, each case for an "Arminian" church must be taken on its own accord since much of 21st Century Christendom really has no idea what they theologically believe. It is not my purpose to condemn all men who hold a title of "Arminianism" since many do not know what the title means, much less believe all the historic aspects of the theological system. Walk into any church and ask the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism, and you will find a variety of answers. Yet, there are some today who do hold to historic Arminianism, and who do believe the depth of Arminian theology historically. There are even a variety of Arminian websites which propagate the doctrines. But for the most part, each "Arminian" must be dealt with individually in order to assess their understanding, or flavor, of theological soup. It may very well be that they are believing a damning heresy. It may very well be that they are simply confused and need help to understand the doctrines of God's grace, or their depravity. But in any case, the Calvinist ought always to be fair, gentle and loving in his approach to preaching the grace of God in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Jeff,
You understood the gospel in the same capacity as you do today?
I believe you and I are not on the same page with opur definitions. Regeneration allows _sight and understanding_. This vision does not come all at once, as in my case. I have no idea when I was converted.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Brett,
> Am I misunderstanding you? Here's what you said:
> 
> ...



Arminians.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



So you are saying that 'many' Arminians are regenerate?


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Scott previosuly wrote:
> I clearly said that: "Arminianism is heresy; all who hold to it are heretics and rightfully will perish."



Brett responds:


> But, then you posit Arminianism as a pure hypothetical and imaginary system. You haven't really met one. That sure is convenient.



I never said that. Show me where I said that??? Arminianism is real. There are strains of error today, but none are pure bred/Remonstrant Arminians. Arminianism is heresy and those whom hold to it will perish. However, it would take exposure to both theological systems and then subsequent rejection of the correct system to rightly label someone Arminian. As I have clearly said, I was regenerated in a Calvary Chapel. My conversion was schizophrenically radical! The old Scott Bushey literally died that day. Was I Arminian? Well, lets just say I was ignorant of the total truth of Gods word. That did not make me a heretic or banish me to hades. God is longsuffering. infants whom God regenerates and convert at early ages does not perish, is not heretical for lack of understanding. 

[/quote]

What I mean is that your saying that you have never met a true Arminian posits this hypothetical. That is the logical outcome of what you are saying. I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that you are just too sure that every Christian will have the same theological journey. I am not as convinced. In fact, if Arminianism is damning, then I don´t see how anyone could come to Christ through the preaching of an Arminian. On the other hand, if someone can come to Christ through Arminian preaching, maybe it is possible for true Arminians to be saved and remain as an Arminian. I just don´t think you are dealing with the logical consequences of your theory. I think it contradicts your experience, and you refuse to reconcile the two. I think under your system, you must consider yourself dead until you became a Calvinist. That is more consistent.



> > In fact, I have met several. In fact I have a friend that knows Calvinism about as well as most Calvinist that I know who happens to be Wesleyan. He holds dearly to everything about this theology. He believes that Dordt was unfairly tried, and believes that when the Church comes to its senses and holds to a higher ecclesiology, Dordt can be retried.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never met any of these types outside of Roman Catholics.



That is problematic, because the theological world is full of these. 


> Brett previously wrote:
> 
> 
> > I take great exception to you saying that you have never met a "textbook Arminian".
> ...



Scott, I don´t think I have gone to ad hominem here, I am just mortified that you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. I stand by what I said, and I don´t believe it is an attack on your person or your character. Rather it is an attack on what I perceive to be a very myopic view of the Christian world. If I have really attacked you, then please demonstrate this to me.



> Brett continues:
> 
> 
> > Well, what you said sounds like an excuse for all Arminians.
> ...



I´m not so sure as I believe that my understanding of the doctrines of grace may have been a mean to my conversion. I was a "œChristian" years before, but it wasn´t until I understood the doctrines of Grace that I began to show fruit. However, I do believe it is possible that many regenerate do not understand these important doctrines.



> > I just think the caveat that you haven´t met a real Arminian needs to be axed. Either, you need to meet one, or you just need to realize they are more numerous than this statement would indicate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, what do they have to believe?

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by raderag]

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by raderag]


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



I am not saying that as an objective fact, but I am saying that I believe this to be true. I base this on many that I know, the work of God in their life, and their overall doctrine.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



What I mean is that your saying that you have never met a true Arminian posits this hypothetical. That is the logical outcome of what you are saying. I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that you are just too sure that every Christian will have the same theological journey. I am not as convinced. In fact, if Arminianism is damning, then I don´t see how anyone could come to Christ through the preaching of an Arminian. On the other hand, if someone can come to Christ through Arminian preaching, maybe it is possible for true Arminians to be saved and remain as an Arminian. I just don´t think you are dealing with the logical consequences of your theory. I think it contradicts your experience, and you refuse to reconcile the two. I think under your system, you must consider yourself dead until you became a Calvinist. That is more consistent.



> > In fact, I have met several. In fact I have a friend that knows Calvinism about as well as most Calvinist that I know who happens to be Wesleyan. He holds dearly to everything about this theology. He believes that Dordt was unfairly tried, and believes that when the Church comes to its senses and holds to a higher ecclesiology, Dordt can be retried.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never met any of these types outside of Roman Catholics.



That is problematic, because the theological world is full of these. 


> Brett previously wrote:
> 
> 
> > I take great exception to you saying that you have never met a "textbook Arminian".
> ...



Scott, I don´t think I have gone to ad hominem here, I am just mortified that you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. I stand by what I said, and I don´t believe it is an attack on your person or your character. Rather it is an attack on what I perceive to be a very myopic view of the Christian world. If I have really attacked you, then please demonstrate this to me.



> Brett continues:
> 
> 
> > Well, what you said sounds like an excuse for all Arminians.
> ...



I´m not so sure as I believe that my understanding of the doctrines of grace may have been a mean to my conversion. I was a "œChristian" years before, but it wasn´t until I understood the doctrines of Grace that I began to show fruit. However, I do believe it is possible that many regenerate do not understand these important doctrines.



> > I just think the caveat that you haven´t met a real Arminian needs to be axed. Either, you need to meet one, or you just need to realize they are more numerous than this statement would indicate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, what do they have to believe?

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by raderag]

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by raderag] [/quote]

Joh 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 
Joh 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 
Joh 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 
Joh 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 
Joh 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. 
Joh 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 
Joh 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. 
Joh 9:8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 
Joh 9:9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. 
Joh 9:10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened? 
Joh 9:11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight. 
Joh 9:12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not. 
Joh 9:13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. 
Joh 9:14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. 
Joh 9:15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. 
Joh 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. 
Joh 9:17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet. 
Joh 9:18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. 
Joh 9:19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? 
Joh 9:20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: 
Joh 9:21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. 
Joh 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 
Joh 9:23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. 
Joh 9:24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. 
Joh 9:25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. 
Joh 9:26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 
Joh 9:27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? 
Joh 9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. 
Joh 9:29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. 
Joh 9:30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 
Joh 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 
Joh 9:32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 
Joh 9:33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. 
Joh 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. 
Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 
Joh 9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 
Joh 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 
Joh 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. 
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 
Joh 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 
Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. 

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 


Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Brett,
This is the contradiction. Heresy damns! If Arminianism is heresy then no Arminians can be saved, they are being damned. This is my opoint of contention. There is a difference bvetween error and heresy.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Is it possible for someone to be a semi-Pelagian, and yet confess the Lord Jesus? Is it possible that someone could know every soteriological arguement, believe that the Remonstrances were correct, and yet still confess Christ in their heart. It is up to you to demonstrate that is not possible or even normative.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I will leave it up to God's judgment... Though, I grant sticking up for sound soteriology is no less important than upholding the fundamentals, the Trinity, the incarnation, and the Deity of Christ, et al.
> 
> However, I think we should be weary of the trap of thinking someone's failure to exegete Romans 9 properly is damnable. I've ran into those intellectual assent Calvinists, and I don't think it is prudent to embrace.
> ...









I used to VERY strongly agree with Scott, Jeff, etc., that only Calvinists are saved. (Just read some of my posts from a few months ago!)

But I no longer believe that at all. Ironically, I believe that such a stringent "test of salvation" actually comes closer to denying the Gospel than Arminianism does.

. . . to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: "œTwo men went up to the temple to pray, one a Calvinist and the other an Arminian. The Calvinist stood and prayed thus with himself, "˜God, I thank You that I am not like other men"”extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Arminian. I hold to the WCF; I believe TULIP.´ And the Arminian, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, "˜God, be merciful to me a sinner!´ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."


I agree with Ben, Jacob, and Ryan. Salvation is TOTALLY of grace. Some of us may be surprised at the number of Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Methodists, and Roman Catholics who end up in Heaven, saved by grace through their faith in Jesus. *They knew that their sin made it impossible for them to deserve Heaven. And they knew that Jesus died on the cross to pay for their sin. And they trusted Jesus to forgive them of their sin. PERIOD. *

And we also may be surprised by the nearly-theologically-perfect 5-point Calvinists standing among the goats, saying, "But Lord, I memorized Calvin, Berkhof, Bavinck, and I confessed the WCF without even taking any exceptions!" But then Christ will say, "Depart from Me; I never knew you", because they were more impressed with their theological prowess than with Christ Himself. (Note: This comment is NOT directed to any person in particular. I just think we will find out on judgment day that some Calvinists fit this description.)


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Scott, I am very glad you don't think like a post-modern, but your modernism is showing here. This is redux theology at its best. 

What are the logical conclusions of this when applied to the ECFs?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



What exactly does the bible say is required to be saved? It is not as complicated as everyone is making it out to believe. It is not algebraic! The infant dying in utero has all that God requires. What did this blind man know? What will the elect child know that dies having only known the song, Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so.

Again, it is of my opinion that regeneration allows for assimilation of the information to convert. Assuredly elect men have died not understanding forensic justification. Their theological capacity, based upon the grace God grants, i.e. the soils: 30%, 60%, 100%, may _trust_ Christ, i.e. leaning upon his death, yet not really understanding how it all works theologically, to their glorification.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I used to VERY strongly agree with Scott, Jeff, etc., that only Calvinists are saved. (Just read some of my posts from a few months ago!)
> 
> But I no longer believe that at all. Ironically, I believe that such a stringent "test of salvation" actually comes closer to denying the Gospel than Arminianism does.
> ...



 That preaches!


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> Brett,
> This is the contradiction. Heresy damns! If Arminianism is heresy then no Arminians can be saved, they are being damned. This is my opoint of contention. There is a difference bvetween error and heresy.



Scott, I would be more likely to agree with you here if there was some sort of ecclesiastical binding. Most Arminians today aren't descended from, and aren't really bound to the reformed confessions any more than the ECFs were. Even those that have studied it see it as a historical oddity rather than something binding them as Christians. I think the splintering of the reformed church in the last 200 years gives some ammunition to their idea. I just don´t think a simple syllogism solves this problem.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)

To be blunt - Matt's article leads to one logical conclusion: 

A church that is not completely Calvinistic is not a true church, but a synagogue of Satan worshipping a false god. 

Thoughts from the article:

If you believe Jesus died for all men, you are worshipping a false god.
If you believe faith precedes regeneration you are worshipping a false god.
If you do not believe in unconditional election you are worshipping a false god.
If you believe you can lose your salvation you are worshipping a false god.
If you believe fallen man is able to trust Christ of his own free will you are worshipping a false god.

Hence if you believe any of these things you are an idolator and cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Where was the church before TULIP??? How was the gospel preached before Covenant Theology had been codified??? How was the gospel preached before the Great Reformation???

All who worship while not embracing the five points are damned.

This is a new narrow low on the PB. It makes Calvinism the means of grace. If you don't believe the 5 points you are a heretic, damned, worshipping an idol of your own imagination.

And those of you who support this theological bull should be ashamed of yourselves. One can be saved while not a Calvinist, and not being a Calvinist does not automatically mean one is an arminian. One can know Christ and be immature - I mean, they are newborns!! You don't teach kindergartners Calculus!! You teach babies to feed themselves (read the Word), you teach them to talk (prayer), and you teach them how to walk (obey what they read in the Word).

*And one can be a convinced Calvinist and STILL NOT KNOW Jesus!!*

_"depart from Me I never knew you"_

It is about knowing Jesus and trusting Jesus and turning from your sin to Jesus. Eternal life is knowing Jesus (John 17:3). We preach Jesus. And just because someone does not have a ThD or a PhD does not mean then that they CANNOT BE SAVED - for even children can KNOW Jesus. Is a child that knows Jesus damned because he cannot recite the Puritan Catechism and sign a statement of agreement with Dordt???

Peter stood up and preached "this Jesus" without a wit of the formality of the doctrines of grace and 3000 people believed and were baptized, added to the church because they were saved. Read Acts 2 and see how much of TULIP is covered. We preach Christ. 

I can hear it now - "come to Christ and be saved from your sin and the wrath of God. How? Well first admit that you are totally incapable of coming on your own unless the Spirit of God first regenerates you. This is faith in your own total depravity. Without it, you have no hope of salvation. Then admit that God unconditionally chose to save you in eternity past. Place your faith in this doctrine of unconditional election where you have no say in the choice, or you have no hope of salvation. Then admit that Jesus died only for those He chose. Without faith in His limited atonement there is no hope for your salvation. Then admit today that God's grace that might be working on your heart is irresistible, that you cannot refuse it. Without faith in this kind of grace, you have no hope of salvation. And finally, admit that once you are saved by God you will never fall away but will persevere. Without faith in this security, without this absolute assurance, you have no hope of salvation. For unless you place your faith in these things then you are worshipping a false god created in your own imagination for your own damnation to the darkness and blackness of hell forever."

No, Peter preached Christ. And so should we.

*The article should be pulled from the web and re-written in order to be more inline with Scripture and more out of sync with this notion that to neglect any of the 5 points even out of ignorance is to believe a lie that leads to hell.*

It is just more evidence of the doctrinal _imbalance_ that rules this forum.


Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Joseph,
Are you reading my posts? I am saying just the opposite. I am not cutting anyone off at the knee's. The ordo guarantee's that men whom are Christs will in fact bear the percentages of fruit he deems prior to their glorification. Those in error will in fact, by Gods word, the same word preached to the infant, rectify the error, prior to thier glorification. Men whom hold to illicit doctrine, i.e. clinical Arminianism, are heretics and will not find themselves in heaven, as the Spirit of truth has not, I repeat, has not spoken to those individuals. 

The blind man above, by Gods grace and his believing was regenerated to Gods glory. If he held to the old wineskin at that time, the spirit of God over time will via knowledge correct that error. Eventually, everyone in heaven ends up Calvinistic in their theology.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> What exactly does the bible say is required to be saved? It is not as complicated as everyone is making it out to believe. It is not algebraic! The infant dying in utero has all that God requires. What did this blind man know? What will the elect child know that dies having only known the song, Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so.



I think that is what I am trying to say. 



> Again, it is of my opinion that regeneration allows for assimilation of the information to convert. Assuredly elect men have died not understanding forensic justification. Their theological capacity, based upon the grace God grants, i.e. the soils: 30%, 60%, 100%, may _trust_ Christ, i.e. leaning upon his death, yet not really understanding how it all works theologically, to their glorification.



Once again, I am not sure that I agree with you here. Objectively, one must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is all one must believe. I don't think that is dependant upon ones IQ or education. The thing is that heresy tends to get in the way of one believing on Christ as Savior. On the other hand, many people believe contradictory things. That is why the anti-Trinitarian heresy is objectively damnable; it is not possible to possess the real Christ and yet believe that Jesus is not Lord. I am not sure that semi-Pelagianism is on the same level; in fact I am quite sure it is not.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> But I no longer believe that at all. Ironically, I believe that such a stringent "test of salvation" actually comes closer to denying the Gospel than Arminianism does.



It has nothing to do with a "test" so to speak, but with judging if the gospel they believe is a saving gospel or not. Remember, you are judging their gospel just as much as anyone else. To judge it to be saving is just as much a judgment as to judge it to be damning.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> . . . to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: "œTwo men went up to the temple to pray, one a Calvinist and the other an Arminian. The Calvinist stood and prayed thus with himself, "˜God, I thank You that I am not like other men"”extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Arminian. I hold to the WCF; I believe TULIP.´ And the Arminian, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, "˜God, be merciful to me a sinner!´ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."



Arminians are indeed inconsistent (if that is what this blurb is supposed to suggest), but I appeal to you that they are not inconsistent Calvinists, but rather inconsistent Pelagians. 



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I agree with Ben, Jacob, and Ryan. Salvation is TOTALLY of grace.



Yes, but not apart from faith. Faith in the true gospel. 



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Some of us may be surprised at the number of Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Methodists, and Roman Catholics who end up in Heaven, saved by grace through their faith in Jesus. *They knew that their sin made it impossible for them to deserve Heaven. And they knew that Jesus died on the cross to pay for their sin. And they trusted Jesus to forgive them of their sin. PERIOD. *



They may have "trusted Jesus" in their profession, but the crucial distinction which you forget my friend is that they do not trust Jesus ALONE! They trust in Jesus plus their free will, and Jesus plus their obedience, Jesus plus their good works. This is antithetical to the gospel, for the simple gospel of trusting Jesus ALONE is ruined by such mockery.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> And we also may be surprised by the nearly-theologically-perfect 5-point Calvinists standing among the goats, saying, "But Lord, I memorized Calvin, Berkhof, Bavinck, and I confessed the WCF without even taking any exceptions!" But then Christ will say, "Depart from Me; I never knew you", because they were more impressed with their theological prowess than with Christ Himself. (Note: This comment is NOT directed to any person in particular. I just think we will find out on judgment day that some Calvinists fit this description.)



Professing Calivinists maybe. People who believe their "smartness" gets them into heaven...sure. But a true believer in the gospel? 

Absolutely not.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> They may have "trusted Jesus" in their profession, but the crucial distinction which you forget my friend is that they do not trust Jesus ALONE! They trust in Jesus plus their free will, and Jesus plus their obedience, Jesus plus their good works. This is antithetical to the gospel, for the simple gospel of trusting Jesus ALONE is ruined by such mockery.



Congratulations for making gospel into law. I don't know if anyone is capable of fully trusting Christ alone. That is sanctification.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Are you reading my posts?



Yes, and I think Pastor Way responded very well. (See above.)



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Those in error will in fact, by Gods word, the same word preached to the infant, rectify the error, prior to thier glorification.



Prove this from Scripture. I totally disagree with you. Rather, the time of a person's glorification is the SAME time at which all of their theological error will be corrected. It won't necessarily be fixed beforehand. A person may be a 5-point Arminian and be saved. He may die a 5-point Arminian and still be saved. But at the moment of his glorification, all remaining sin is purged, and the guy will walk into Heaven as a Calvinist. 

But Scripture never says this will happen prior to death.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Men whom hold to illicit doctrine, i.e. clinical Arminianism, are heretics and will not find themselves in heaven, as the Spirit of truth has not, I repeat, has not spoken to those individuals.



What an arrogant thing to say! I used to be guilty of believing the same thing you do. But I have repented, and I hope you do too.

Is justification by faith alone, or by faith plus TULIP?

The Gospel is simple:
1) Believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
2) Believe that your sin makes you unworthy of Heaven.
3) Believe that Jesus died to pay for your sin.
4) Believe that your sin is paid for by his blood.
5) Believe that Jesus rose from the dead. 

THOSE are the only "5 points" that are necessary for salvation. And NONE of "TULIP" is in there anywhere.

Add anything to the 5 things listed above, and you turn away from the simple Gospel. 




> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Eventually, everyone in heaven ends up Calvinistic in their theology.





I agree with both you and Ryan on this point. Arminians are in error, so when any of them are glorified, they will be transformed into Calvinists. Heaven will be 100% populated with Calvinists. But that does NOT mean that they all became Calvinists prior to death, prior to glorification.



Like I said earlier:

Is justification by faith alone, or by faith plus TULIP?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Again Brett, we are not on the same page in terms of definitions. You're talking about regeneration and I'm talking about conversion.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)

I have a few questions for Matt.

Reread your article and answer this:

Do you state in the article that to reject any of TULIP is to worship a false god?

Do you state that churches that are not Calvinistic are worshipping a false god?

Can a church that is worshipping a false god be a true church of Jesus Christ?

Can a person who is worshipping a false god be saved?

Your article defeats itself. In it, if it is left intact, you state unequivocably that to reject the doctrines of grace in any way is to worship a false god, making one an idolator, and hence damned.

Think about it. 

Phillip

[Edited on 2-10-06 by pastorway]


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Scott, can you show me the chronological distinction? If you think there are Christ denying regenerate out there, we are going to disagree.



> CHAPTER X.
> Of Effectual Calling.
> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
> 
> ...


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ryan,
> I believe the error would have to be corrected prior to their glorification.



I don't doubt legalists and the works-righteousness crowd will face judgment. I just leave it up to God, and just contend for sound doctrine, and the free and unmerited grace of God. I do think we should contend for orthodoxy and the Reformed fundamentals and bring those trapped in errant churches out those abodes.

[Edited on 2-12-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> To be blunt - Matt's article leads to one logical conclusion:
> 
> A church that is not completely Calvinistic is not a true church, but a synagogue of Satan worshipping a false god.



I thought we destroyed that straw-man in an earlier post. 



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Thoughts from the article:
> 
> If you believe Jesus died for all men, you are worshipping a false god.
> ...



These are all straw-man arguments Phillip. Nowhere has anyone suggested that one must be a "five-pt." Calvinist to be saved. What they HAVE said is that one cannot be an ARMINIAN and be saved! There is a difference.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Where was the church before TULIP??? How was the gospel preached before Covenant Theology had been codified??? How was the gospel preached before the Great Reformation???



They preached Christ ALONE! That is the gospel, and Calvinism is the only logical conclusion of such a gospel!

But Arminianism is not Christ-ALONE. It is Christ+something else. 



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> All who worship while not embracing the five points are damned.



Straw Man once again. Please demonstrate where Matt said this.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> This is a new narrow low on the PB. It makes Calvinism the means of grace. If you don't believe the 5 points you are a heretic, damned, worshipping an idol of your own imagination.
> 
> And those of you who support this theological bull should be ashamed of yourselves. One can be saved while not a Calvinist, and not being a Calvinist does not automatically mean one is an arminian. One can know Christ and be immature - I mean, they are newborns!! You don't teach kindergartners Calculus!! You teach babies to feed themselves (read the Word), you teach them to talk (prayer), and you teach them how to walk (obey what they read in the Word).
> ...





> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> No, Peter preached Christ. And so should we.



No...Peter preached Christ ALONE as did Paul and the Lord Himself. This is something many in this debate seem to be leaving out.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> *The article should be pulled from the web and re-written in order to be more inline with Scripture and more out of sync with this notion that to neglect any of the 5 points even out of ignorance is to believe a lie that leads to hell.*
> 
> It is just more evidence of the doctrinal _imbalance_ that rules this forum.
> ...



All of the rest of the arguments are pretty much the same ol' straw-man arguments. 

Please refute this syllogism if you wish to make your point:

1) Arminians believe in Christ+something else for salvation (i.e. it is up to THEM to be saved)

2) A gospel of Christ+something else is not the gospel of the Scriptures, and is damning accordingly.

3) Believing the true gospel of Scripture (i.e. Christ alone) is the only way to heaven

Conclusion: Arminians are not saved.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 9, 2006)

You people are so intolerant.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




Jeff,

According to what you are saying, a person is damned if he is fuzzy on justification. You are suggesting that it's not enough to cast yourself upon the mercy of Christ, fully recognizing that you can't be saved except by His sacrifice.

If your thinking is correct, then NOBODY was a Christian between 100 A.D. and 1517.

If you disagree, then please be my guest: Show me all the clear "justificiation by faith alone" teaching prior to the Reformation. 

I just frankly don't think justification was as clearly understood for the 14 centuries prior to the Reformation. I myself have looked, and have not found clear _sola fide_ teaching prior to the Reformation. I even talked to Dr. John Hannah, church history professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, and asked him for evidence of "justification by faith alone" teaching prior to the Reformation. He flatly said that you cannot trace that teaching from the apostles to the Reformation. For 14 centuries, the church was confused on this doctrine.

It is a very very important doctrine. But if you have to clearly understand it in order to be saved, then everybody went to hell between 100 A.D. and 1517.

Are you willing to relegate the entire early church and medieval church to hell?


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I am offended by this charge. Apparently, you need to take heed to Scripture if this is what you think.

The Westminster Confession summerizes scripture on this:



> Chapter XIV Of Saving Faith
> II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein;[5] and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ *alone * for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. [9]
> 
> 5. II Peter 1:20-21; John 4:42; I Thess. 2:13; I John 5:9-10; Acts 24:14
> ...


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Please refute this syllogism if you wish to make your point:
> 
> ...



Jeff, I believe it refutes itself as it mixes law and Gospel, especially when you phrased it as not trusting Christ alone is damnable. If that is damnable, then one must perfectly resist idolotry to be saved. That is mixing law and gospel. Thus you have a major contradiction.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



And:


> CHAPTER XIV.
> Of Saving Faith.
> ...
> 
> III. This faith is *different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened*, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.




The problem is that you are positing some theory that anything that could possibly make your faith imperfect, such as Arminianism, is damning.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Please refute this syllogism if you wish to make your point:
> 
> ...




Please refute this syllogism if you wish to make your point:

1) Jeff believes in Christ+something else to be saved. (i.e. you also have to believe all 5 points of TULIP to be saved)

2) A gospel of Christ+something else is not the gospel of the Scriptures, and is damning accordingly.

3) Believing the true gospel of Scripture (i.e. Christ alone) is the only way to heaven

Conclusion: Jeff is not saved.



Jeff, I really do believe you are saved. I do believe you are a Christian.

This post is just meant to be a satirical _reductio ad absurdum_. Your same "logic" can be turned against you.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> This is a new narrow low on the PB. It makes Calvinism the means of grace. If you don't believe the 5 points you are a heretic, damned, worshipping an idol of your own imagination.
> 
> And those of you who support this theological bull should be ashamed of yourselves. One can be saved while not a Calvinist





You preach it, Pastor Way!!!


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



All hail to reductionism!!!


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> All of the rest of the arguments are pretty much the same ol' straw-man arguments.
> ...



BTW Jeff, a syllogism usually has a major and minor premise. Three premises are not a good syllogism as it is a logical jump. Anyway, I have made the same error myself.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by raderag]


----------



## non dignus (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Arminus was a heretic to be sure, but today's "Arminianism" is not nearly as well thought out as the ancient idolater. One major difference is that Arminus did not deny predestination, but rather said that God predestined based upon forsight. Ask any "Joe" in the fundamentalist church what he thinks about predestination, and you'll get your head chopped off.
> 
> I think that Arminius (coming from a Calvinist background) _possibly_ had more sense of his guilt than modern arminians. The Arminians that I deal with on a day-to-day basis are so close to Pelagian that even Arminians might consider them not saved!



 
Full denial of original sin is now common.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Jeff,
> 
> According to what you are saying, a person is damned if he is fuzzy on justification. You are suggesting that it's not enough to cast yourself upon the mercy of Christ, fully recognizing that you can't be saved except by His sacrifice.



Catholics believe that. Jehovah´s Witnesses believe that. Mormons believe that. They all recognize the necessity of Christ´s death for salvation. What they don´t understand, is that it is Christ ALONE who saves sinners. This is their damnable heresy.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> If your thinking is correct, then NOBODY was a Christian between 100 A.D. and 1517.



Are you suggesting that nobody believed in sola gratia or sola fide in that time period?



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> If you disagree, then please be my guest: Show me all the clear "justificiation by faith alone" teaching prior to the Reformation.



Wow. I would start in part 4 of John Gill´s The Cause of God and Truth where he gives MASSIVE amounts of quotes for just such a challenge. Here is the table of contents for that part of the book:



> PART 4.
> Introduction
> 
> 
> ...





> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I just frankly don't think justification was as clearly understood for the 14 centuries prior to the Reformation. I myself have looked, and have not found clear _sola fide_ teaching prior to the Reformation. I even talked to Dr. John Hannah, church history professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, and asked him for evidence of "justification by faith alone" teaching prior to the Reformation. He flatly said that you cannot trace that teaching from the apostles to the Reformation. For 14 centuries, the church was confused on this doctrine.
> 
> It is a very very important doctrine. But if you have to clearly understand it in order to be saved, then everybody went to hell between 100 A.D. and 1517.



Good question, but I would not dismiss the idea before 1517 as easily as you have done. An infant can believe solo christo. The reformation was exactly that"¦reforming the church to it´s proper state. They didn´t introduce anything new.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Are you willing to relegate the entire early church and medieval church to hell?



No"¦but we should be willing to condemn anyone who does not believe the true gospel of Christ Alone.

Phi 3:8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.

I for one count my "œconversion" as an Arminian as dung that I may gain Christ. All things are dung compared to Christ ALONE!


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> No"¦but we should be willing to condemn anyone who does not believe the true gospel of Christ Alone.



That's an anthrocentric twist on God's sovereignty.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> Scott, can you show me the chronological distinction? If you think there are Christ denying regenerate out there, we are going to disagree.



Brett,
Regeneration does not necessarily require anything other than Gods elective decree. 

Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 


Having said that, there are no 'Christ denying' regenerates out there.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 1) Jeff believes in Christ+something else to be saved. (i.e. you also have to believe all 5 points of TULIP to be saved)



I have never suggested any such thing. Please substantiate your claim, or recant.

You are mis-representing the position that Matt and I have been trying to make. It has nothing to do with "You must be a 5pter to be saved" but instead it has to do with "You must trust Christ ALONE to be saved." Arminians do not trust Christ alone. That is their charge.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > Scott, can you show me the chronological distinction? If you think there are Christ denying regenerate out there, we are going to disagree.
> ...



I wonder though... It seems as if the normative means of regeneration is through the preaching of the Gospel. That seems to be the Biblical understanding.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

Joseph writes:


> Yes, and I think Pastor Way responded very well. (See above.)



Pastor Way did not respond to anything I posted. So, I don't know where you got that. Believe it or not, Matt and I are two seperate people. We are not the PB siamese twins! 



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Those in error will in fact, by Gods word, the same word preached to the infant, rectify the error, prior to thier glorification.





> Prove this from Scripture. I totally disagree with you. Rather, the time of a person's glorification is the SAME time at which all of their theological error will be corrected. It won't necessarily be fixed beforehand. A person may be a 5-point Arminian and be saved. He may die a 5-point Arminian and still be saved. But at the moment of his glorification, all remaining sin is purged, and the guy will walk into Heaven as a Calvinist.



.........and as well, the buddhist, the Moslem, the devil worshipper may die a devilworshipper and still be saved???? Arminianism is heresy. Heretics perish. Buddhism is heresy, buddhists perish. Hinduism is heresy, hindu's perish. What you are saying is that God possibly regenerates and converts these individuals on their deathbed to His glory. Wrong!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Again, definitions. Regeneration is fully of the spirit blowing where he wills and conversion is under Gods preached word.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Joseph writes:
> 
> 
> ...



Oh yeah! Islam and Arminianism. That is a fair comparison. LOL.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



I agree, but I don't believe scripture teaches that God regenerates apart from the preaching of the word. Otherwise, inclusivism would be true.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



It is a fair comparison. Both are works driven theologies.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



John 3 is clear. It says that regeneration allows for sight. The HS regenerates, likened to a wind..........Rom 10 says that faith comes by hearing.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Sir, I believe that is blasphemous to relegate some of those in God's church to the heathen. Christ has purchased those outside of TULIP also.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Brett,
Again, definitions. Arminianism is heresy, and those whom hold to it perish rightly. I have never met a clinical Arminian. Those holding to error is another issue, but I am not speaking of them at this point. We are talking Arminians.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I'll add: You being Presbyterian should know that there are 'heathens' in Christs church.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Well, you should know that I mean the invisible Church.

If you think that Arminianism is the same as Islam or eastern theology...

I think I have had enough of this thread.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by raderag]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 9, 2006)

A problem arises when we apply the term "Arminian" to anyone who is not a Calvinist or who does not know what either term means.

A Hindu believes that they are saved by something other than Christ. They believe it and will profess such.

A Muslim believes that they are saved by something other than Christ. They believe it and will profess such.

Likewise an Arminian believes that they are saved by something other than Christ (that is, Christ plus works). They believe it and will profess such.

Be careful in labeling a non-Calvinist as an Arminian. The people I know who attend non-reformed churches and know nothing of Calvinism are not Remonstrant believing Arminians either. They are ignorant, immature Calvinists as far as belief goes. 

Ask *those people* who they are saved by and they will profess that they believe they are saved by Christ alone. They believe it and will profess such.

Take those same people and explain the 5 points of Calvinism an they may bulk and fight and scratch their heads at first, but they still believe they are saved by Christ alone, they just don't understand how it all works out yet.

So, with that said, I agree that a true Arminian who believes and professes that they are saved by anything other than Christ alone is anathema. But I do not believe all non-calvinists are thus remonstrant professing Arminians


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Heresy is heresy. Whats the difference? All heresy condemns! Whether Islamic theology or illicit forms of Christianity, i.e. Jehovahs Witnesses, it's all the same.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> A problem arises when we apply the term "Arminian" to anyone who is not a Calvinist or who does not know what either term means.
> 
> A Hindu believes that they are saved by something other than Christ. They believe it and will profess such.
> ...



I think ANY Arminian including Jacob himself would say he was saved by Christ alone. This is another straw man phoney baloney example that attempts to make the logical consequences of TULIP onlyism not seem so ridiculous.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> A problem arises when we apply the term "Arminian" to anyone who is not a Calvinist or who does not know what either term means.
> 
> A Hindu believes that they are saved by something other than Christ. They believe it and will profess such.
> ...



I agree. That has been my point all along.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Once again, you are reducing this to a level of absurdity. How many here don't believe that Mary is the mother of God? Many from my estimation. To not believe this is a certain heresy, yet I don't think these folks are damned.


----------



## non dignus (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



No. We are saying that the Christian is responsible for what God has revealed at this point in redemptive history and what He is calling him to personally vis a vis doctrine. A child is different than an adult, and the post-modern era is different than the pre-reformation era.

"I will build my church." It is a process.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



Brett,
Can I make a suggestion. Do not use the term 'arminian' on theological discussions unless the person is a clinical Arminian. It would help the conversation if we kept our ducks in the correct row. What Jacob was referring to was not a person whom holds to Arminian theology, but someone whom is not Calvinist and is in error, for whatever reason. Maybe they are new to the faith. The church where they reside is poorly taught, etc. This does not make them by default, _practicing_ Arminians. They are just in error.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Most non-Calvinist Christians in my circle are well developed Arminians. What I get here is that I need to tell them to repent or perish. I object to this notion that most Arminians are just baby Christians in need of meat. I think that is patronizing, unrealistic, and just plain false. 

When I say Arminian, I mean to say someone that understands and embraces the error.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



The defining difference is based upon ignorance. Heretics _know_ the difference, yet hold to their heresy and this is what damns them. That is why i am saying that there is a difference between heresy and error.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> The defining difference is based upon ignorance. Heretics _know_ the difference, yet hold to their heresy and this is what damns them. That is why i am saying that there is a difference between heresy and error.



So, you think heretics know they are in error?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> Most non-Calvinist Christians in my circle are well developed Arminians. What I get here is that I need to tell them to repent or perish. I object to this notion that most Arminians are just baby Christians in need of meat. I think that is patronizing, unrealistic, and just plain false.
> 
> When I say Arminian, I mean to say someone that understands and embraces the error.



Ask *those people* if they are saved by Christ alone. Even if they are "well developed" in their non-Calvinistic views they will hesitate to proclaim that they are saved by Christ plus anything if they truly believe the gospel. What do you think?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I believe they know that there _are differences_ in what they believe and what the orthodox hold to. For example, Arminius knew what Calvin believed. Roman Catholic priests know that protestants hold to justification by faith alone.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Yes, I think you are right, and this demonstrates the absurdity of your example. In reality, there are no Arminians as all will proclaim they are saved by Christ alone.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



So has Scott met any?


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Ok, then it is time that you admit that Arminians actually know their theology and embrace it. That is what I find troubling, that you seem to imply that this animal doesn't exists. If you think they are damned by their error, I can respect that, but just pretending they are a rare breed of pigmies seems a bit odd.

On the other hand, for you to say that someone embracing Arminianism can't hold to salvific faith is problematic to the Gospel itself. Unless you hold that salvation in Christ alone is by intellect alone, and that one must perfectly trust Christ alone. I dare say that a valid criticism of many of the Puritans is that too much emphasis is given to works. I read Pilgrams Progress, and I see almost no mention of justification. I am quite sure that some puritans had too much faith in their own works. Yet their imperfect mustard seed faith was enough to justify them despite there heresy. I would say the same for an Arminian as they hold to the right Christ.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I don't know where you've studied logic, but a syllogism can have as many premises as it takes. The point is if the syllogism is valid and sound, which mine is.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Hmmm. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> Ok, then it is time that you admit that Arminians actually know their theology and embrace it. That is what I find troubling, that you seem to imply that this animal doesn't exists. If you think they are damned by their error, I can respect that, but just pretending they are a rare breed of pigmies seems a bit odd.



I have to agree with you on this point. There are many people out there today who are "four-point" Arminians...the exact same as degree as the Remonstrance condemned by Dort.



> _Originally posted by raderag_
> On the other hand, for you to say that someone embracing Arminianism can't hold to salvific faith is problematic to the Gospel itself. Unless you hold that salvation in Christ alone is by intellect alone, and that one must perfectly trust Christ alone. I dare say that a valid criticism of many of the Puritans is that too much emphasis is given to works. I read Pilgrams Progress, and I see almost no mention of justification. I am quite sure that some puritans had too much faith in their own works. Yet their imperfect mustard seed faith was enough to justify them despite there heresy. I would say the same for an Arminian as they hold to the right Christ.



You act as if resting on Christ Alone is a hard thing to comprehend. It is simple enough for a child to understand, but the implications can be so deep that theologians can study it forever.

That being said, it is not our own striving that causes us to rest on Christ Alone, but the it is Christ himself who is the author and finisher of our faith. He gives us the eyes to see that He is the ONLY way to Heaven (not just a helper).

Christ alone is the gospel.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Jeff, do you believe that you ever violate the first commandment?


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Where does it state that only two premises may be used to build a sound argument?


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Absolutely, but if you mean by that I am denying the gospel, then it is you who is mixing law with gospel.

Q104: What are the duties required in the first commandment?
A104: The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God;[1] and to worship and glorify him accordingly,[2] by thinking,[3] meditating,[4] remembering,[5] highly esteeming,[6] honoring,[7] adoring,[8] choosing,[9] loving,[10] desiring,[11] fearing of him;[12] believing him;[13] trusting,[14] hoping,[15] delighting,[16] rejoicing in him;[17] being zealous for him;[18] calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks,[19] and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man;[20] being careful in all things to please him,[21] and sorrowful when in anything he is offended;[22] and walking humbly with him.[23]

1. I Chr. 28:9; Deut 26:17; Isa. 43:10; Jer. 14:22
2. Psa. 29:2; 95:6-7; Matt. 4:10
3. Mal. 3:16
4. Psa. 63:6
5. Eccl. 12:1
6. Psa. 71:19
7. Mal. 1:6
8. Isa. 45:28
9. Josh. 24:15, 22
10. Deut. 6:5
11. Psa. 73:25
12. Isa. 8:13
13. Exod. 14:31
14. Isa. 26:4
15. Psa. 130:7
16. Psa. 37:4
17. Psa. 32:11
18. Rom. 12:11; Num. 25:11
19. Phil. 4:6
20. Jer. 7:28; James 4:7
21. I John 3:22
22. Jer. 31:18; Psa. 119:136
23. Micah 6:8

Q105: What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment? 
A105: The sins forbidden in the first commandment are, atheism, in denying or not having a God;[1] Idolatry, in having or worshipping more gods than one, or any with or instead of the true God;[2] the not having and avouching him for God, and our God;[3] the omission or neglect of anything due to him, required in this commandment;[4] ignorance,[5] forgetfulness,[6] misapprehensions,[7] false opinions,[8] unworthy and wicked thoughts of him;[9] bold and curious searching into his secrets;[10] all profaneness,[11] hatred of God;[12] self-love,[13] self-seeking,[14] and all other inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will, or affections upon other things, and taking them off from him in whole or in part;[15] vain credulity,[16] unbelief,[17] heresy,[18] misbelief,[19] distrust,[20] despair,[21] incorrigibleness,[22] and insensibleness under judgments,[23] hardness of heart,[24] pride,[25] presumption,[26] carnal security,[27] tempting of God;[28] using unlawful means,[29] and trusting in unlawful means;[30] carnal delights and joys;[31] corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal;[32] lukewarmness,[33] and deadness in the things of God;[34] estranging ourselves, and apostatizing from God;[35] praying, or giving any religious worship, to saints, angels, or any other creatures;[36] all compacts and consulting with the devil,[37] and hearkening to his suggestions;[38] making men the lords of our faith and conscience;[39] slighting and despising God and his commands;[40] resisting and grieving of his Spirit,[41] discontent and impatience at his dispensations, charging him foolishly for the evils he inflicts on us;[42] and ascribing the praise of any good we either are, have, or can do, to fortune,[43] idols,[44] ourselves,[45] or any other creature.[46]

1. Psa. 14:1; Eph. 2:12
2. Jer. 2:27-28; I Thess. 1:9
3. Psa. 81:11
4. Isa. 43:22-24
5. Jer. 4:22; Hosea 4:1, 6
6. Jer. 2:32
7. Acts 17:23, 29
8. Isa. 40:18
9. Psa. 1:21
10. Deut. 29:29
11. Titus 1:16; Heb. 12:16
12. Rom. 1:30
13. II Tim. 3:2
14. Phil. 2:21
15. I John 2:15-16; I Sam. 2:29; Col. 3:2, 5
16. I John 4:1
17. Heb. 3:12
18. Gal. 5:20; Titus 3:10
19. Acts 26:9
20. Psa. 78:22
21. Gen. 4:13
22. Jer. 5:3
23. Isa. 42:25
24. Rom. 2:5
25. Jer. 13:15
26. Psa. 19:13
27. Zeph. 1:12
28. Matt. 4:7
29. Rom. 3:8
30. Jer. 17:5
31. II Tim. 3:4
32. Gal. 4:17; John 16:2; Rom. 10:2; Luke 9:54-55

33. Rev. 3:16
34. Rev. 3:1
35. Ezek. 14:5; Isa. 1:4-5
36. Rom. 1:25, 10:13-14; Hosea 4:12; Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; Matt. 4:10; Col. 2:18
37. Lev. 20:6; I Sam. 28:7, 11; I Chr. 10:13-14
38. Acts 5:3
39. II Cor. 1:24; Matt. 23:9
40. Deut. 32:15; II Sam. 12:9; Prov. 13:13
41. Acts 7:51; Eph. 4:30
42. Psa. 73:2-3, 13-15, 22; Job 1:22
43. I Sam. 6:7-9
44. Dan. 5:23
45. Deut. 8:17; Dan. 4:30
46. Hab. 1:16


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



It says there are three articles, a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. I have never heard of a syllogism with more than 2 premises.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



No, I mean by that you are not trusting in Christ alone. What I am saying is that the implication that ARminians trust in Christ + free will can be leveled at every Christian to some degree. I know that I trust in my own works far too much. The Gospel is that by trusting in Christ, we are forgiven for even this wicked heresy.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> Ok, then it is time that you admit that Arminians actually know their theology and embrace it.



Thats exactly what I have asserted. However, I have never met an Arminian.



> That is what I find troubling, that you seem to imply that this animal doesn't exists.



I never said that! I said, "I have never met an Arminian".



> If you think they are damned by their error, I can respect that, but just pretending they are a rare breed of pigmies seems a bit odd.



I never implied that either. If they are out there, I have never met one. I have met people whom are not Calvinist and whom have tendencies that resemble Arminianism in singular components, but a full fledged Arminian- nope!



> On the other hand, for you to say that someone embracing Arminianism can't hold to salvific faith is problematic to the Gospel itself.



The problem is that Arminius held to a works based salvation, to name one of his errors.



> Unless you hold that salvation in Christ alone is by intellect alone, and that one must perfectly trust Christ alone.



I hold to the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. The regenerate man may not yet understand that principle, but he will eventually.



> I dare say that a valid criticism of many of the Puritans is that too much emphasis is given to works. I read Pilgrams Progress, and I see almost no mention of justification. I am quite sure that some puritans had too much faith in their own works. Yet their imperfect mustard seed faith was enough to justify them despite there heresy.



The book of James is clear. Show me a man with no works and I will show you a man with dead faith! Are you saying Bunyan was a heretic?




> I would say the same for an Arminian as they hold to the right Christ.



Arminianism is at odds with God as they believe the God of the scriptures is weak and cannot guarantee any of His sheep.


----------



## raderag (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > Ok, then it is time that you admit that Arminians actually know their theology and embrace it.
> ...



Ok, have your cake and eat it. ïŠ




> > On the other hand, for you to say that someone embracing Arminianism can't hold to salvific faith is problematic to the Gospel itself.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that Arminius held to a works based salvation, to name one of his errors.



Agreed, and that is why his theology was nixed by Dordt. On the other hand, if we ever violate the first commandment, we are guilty of this heresy to some degree. I believe everyone is guilty of not trusting Christ alone. The lynchpin for reformed theology is that we are justified by the object rather than the quality of our faith. To make the quality of our faith the means of justification is to mix law with gospel. May it never be! Someone holding to Arminianism should be warned that their theology is sinful in that it places salvation in Christ + free will, but that doesn´t mean one cannot hold to this and be saved. 



> > Unless you hold that salvation in Christ alone is by intellect alone, and that one must perfectly trust Christ alone.
> 
> 
> 
> I hold to the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. The regenerate man may not yet understand that principle, but he will eventually.



Well, it took almost 1500 years for the Church to *properly* understand this doctrine, and I believe the perversion of the Gospel led to the damnation of many souls, but still many held to a wrong view of justification and yet trusted Christ.


> > I dare say that a valid criticism of many of the Puritans is that too much emphasis is given to works. I read Pilgrams Progress, and I see almost no mention of justification. I am quite sure that some puritans had too much faith in their own works. Yet their imperfect mustard seed faith was enough to justify them despite there heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> The book of James is clear. Show me a man with no works and I will show you a man with dead faith! Are you saying Bunyan was a heretic?



No, I am saying that sometimes the puritans theology tended to be centered more in fruit than it should have been. I am just saying by your standard, we are all damned, because your standard for the Gospel is Law (1rst commandment). If we much have perfect trust in Christ (Christ + nothing), I confess to being a rabid heretic. All I have is an imperfect faith in a perfect Christ.


> > I would say the same for an Arminian as they hold to the right Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Arminianism is at odds with God as they believe the God of the scriptures is weak and cannot guarantee any of His sheep.


 [/quote]

Yes, you are right that it is a sinful theology, but the object of their faith is indeed the right Christ. Also, if you really examine your own theology, you may find that you have not put your trust in Christ alone. That is law. Please don´t mix it with Gospel. That is also heresy.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

*Wisdom from the Great Hymns*

From "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" by Martin Luther:



> Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;



From "Rock of Ages" by Augustus Toplady:



> Not the labor of my hands
> Can fulfill Thy law´s demands;
> Could my zeal no respite know,
> Could my tears forever flow,
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Yes, you are right that it is a sinful theology, but the object of their faith is indeed the right Christ. Also, if you really examine your own theology, you may find that you have not put your trust in Christ alone. That is law. Please don´t mix it with Gospel. That is also heresy. [/quote]

Brett,
The god of the Jews is not the God of the scriptures. The god of the JW's is not the God of the scriptures. The god of Arminius, is not the God of the scriptures. 

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 


Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 


Joh 5:39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; 
Joh 5:40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. 

As far as my trusting in Christ:

Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing. 

Joh 19:10 Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee? 
Joh 19:11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.

You write:


> Well, it took almost 1500 years for the Church to properly understand this doctrine, and I believe the perversion of the Gospel led to the damnation of many souls, but still many held to a wrong view of justification and yet trusted Christ.



This is wrong. Rome tried screwing with it, but Christs church, which has been in place since Adam, which the gates of hell will not prevail against, has always understood this doctrine. The elect have always held to this. I can't imagine where you got that information???



[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)

> > > > I will refrain from addressing the topic but did want to make one observation - I think this thread wins the award for the most posts that quote other posts within posts around posts including quotes from other posts.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 9, 2006)

yuk yuk yuk. We're getting good at that! I was trying to see if I could thin the previous posts down to one word columns!


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 9, 2006)

From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 18-19


> The "good news" of the New Testament includes not only an announcement of the person of Christ and his work on our behalf, but a declaration of how the benefits of Christ's work are appropriated by, in, and for the believer.
> 
> The issue of how justification and salvation are received became the paramount point of debate. Luther's insistence on sola fide was based on the conviction that the "how" of justification is integral and essential to the gospel itself. He viewed justification by faith alone as necessary and essential to the gospel and to salvation.



From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 36



> The Reformers insisted that the righteousness of Christ is the sole grounds of our justification. For Martin Luther justification by faith alone means that justification is by the righteousness of Christ alone, and his righteousness is appropriated by faith alone.



From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 39


> The chief point of contact is that both Rome and Mormonism reject an essential truth for salvation. THis statement assumes two things. One is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth for salvation, and the other is that the Roman Catholic Church rejects justification by faith alone. If these assumptions are accurate, then the point of similarity between Rome and Mormonism is that =both deny an essential truth of Christianity. SOme may argue that justification by faith alone is not essential or that it is not as essential as the deity of Christ, and therefore they take umbrage at the comparison.
> 
> It is questionable to debate degrees of essentiality. If a doctrine is essential, it is of the essence and cannot be rejected without departing from essential Christianity. Most Christians, I suppose, would agree that the nature of the gospel is essential to Christianity, but in all probability most would as readily agree to this as would agree that the deity of Christ is essential. That is why I state the argument in conditional terms. I said that if justification by faith alone is essential for salvation and if Rome rejects justification by faith alone, then the conclusion follows by resistless logic that Rome rejects an essential truth of Christianity.
> 
> When I use the word if here, I do it for the sake of the present argument. In my mind there is no IF about it. I am convinced, as were the Reformers, that justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel and that Rome clearly rejects it.



From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 46



> The New Testament makes it clear that there is only one gospel. An "inadequate" gospel is not the gospel. A "gospel" that falls short of its essence is not the true gospel and must be vigorously rejected.
> 
> ...
> 
> I am convinced that any Christian who belongs to a communion that rejects an essential truth of Christianity is duy-bound to leave that communion and break fellowship with it.



From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 67



> Luther said of justification: "The article of justification is the master and prince, the lord, the ruler, and the judge over all kinds of doctrines; it preserves and governs all church doctrine and raises up our conscience before God. Without this article the world is utter death and darkness."
> 
> Elsewhere Luther wrote: "If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time."
> 
> Luther was not alone in regarding justification by faith alone with such singular importance. John Calvin likewise attached crucial importance to it: "The doctrine of Justification...is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment [is] which he passes to you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared."



From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 186



> Can a person be saved if he has faith in Christ and in his own works and merit? ...We can say yes only if sola fide is not essential to the gospel but is merely fine print. If sola fide is essential to the gospel, however, then we must answer with a resounding no.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > > > > I will refrain from addressing the topic but did want to make one observation - I think this thread wins the award for the most posts that quote other posts within posts around posts including quotes from other posts.



Can I quote you on that??


----------



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



if you must!!!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 9, 2006)

The quotes within quotes thing is funny.

My goodness! I looked at this last night and this morning it's 5 pages long! I don't remember seeing a thread grow so quickly (but I've only been here a few months).

A few observations:

1. I think we need to be a bit more charitable to Matt's intentions. He's talking about a system of doctrine and not people. I know this really rubs people the wrong way and many of you know that I'm not the type to cast a ton of people beyond the pale. How many people have you met in Reformed Churches and elsewhere that have a faulty view of the Trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ? I can even grant that some of those people are saved until they fully embrace a Trinitarian error. Don't push what he's trying to say too far. It probably wouldn't float too well in most Evangelical circles because they can't read between the lines but I was trying to do so and give him the benefit of the doubt.

2. As most serious errors go (heresies if you like), not all people influenced by the errors are heretics or damned but the error pushes people in the wrong direction. I attend a Southern Baptist Church right now where elements of Arminiaism are present and constantly pushing people away from Christ even as the Scriptures are pulling them toward him. Every week after the Gospel is preached, there is an altar call that is not just for those who want to give their lives to Christ but also for those that want to "...rededicate their lives to Christ." I've known people that came up under such systems that were rededicated or re-baptized several times.

What does this re-dedication represent? For the person coming forward I suppose it represents to the congregation and the individual that the person is not doing enough to be saved and by coming forward he is getting back on the path. He is not being righteous enough in his daily walk and so he's promising to do a better job. What does it represent to the person not coming forward? I've been doing a good job of walking with the Lord and don't need to come forward at all or until I start faltering in my commitment to Christ.

So the consequence of the doctrine is to create a man-created sacrament that points people in the direction of a system of works righteousness and away from resting in Christ. Are those that do this damned heretics? I don't worship with damned heretics. It simply saddens me that a false doctrine has penetrated the Church and makes it harder for people to see and rest on Christ.

3. Some proponents of portions of the doctrine downright scare me as to their Eternal State. Who has read the book that Dave Hunt co-wrote with James White called _Debating Calvinism_? James is a friend and sent me a copy a couple of years ago. I almost cried when I read some of the things that Dave Hunt wrote. Without any real historical knowledge or understanding of the spirit he was about, Dave Hunt literally writes some things that seem to be straight from the pen of Pelagius. Is Dave Hunt saved? I hope so but the doctrine that we associate with Arminius has infected his writing and poisons his understanding of the depravity of man and his need for the Gospel. It is not a safe place for him to be.

4. My own family are Roman Catholics. They do not know enough to be able to fully embrace the entire teaching of Rome. Like most Western Roman Catholics they don't worship Mary and idols with the wholesale abandon that those in Latin America do. Because of the charismatic movement within the RC Church, the Church they attend has folks that believe there is no substantive difference between Protestant and RC theology. They read their Bibles regularly and generally understand Biblical ideas of salvation and have had them preached from the pulpit (in a confused manner). Preaching has occurred by Priests in their Church that is anathema to the RC Church. So might they be saved? I have my doubts but I don't rule it completely out as they stick around the RC Church out of a sense of strong Irish loyalty. 

I frankly don't have a problem calling the Roman Catholic system heresy while recognizing there might be believers within the system IN SPITE OF THE SYSTEM. So, thus, let's not be so quick to cast away the idea that a system of doctrine can be heresy and call it what it is while recognizing that not all people subscribe fully to it or understand its consequences. I believe one of the ways Christ prevents the gates of hell from prevailing against His Church is by limiting the effect of false teaching and He is doing so even with the teaching of Arminius.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## non dignus (Feb 9, 2006)

There are many elect sitting in Arminian pews. Arminian pulpits are another matter. We don't give quarter to men like George Bryson, and Dave Hunt, men-

_"..holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power therefore. From these also turn away. 
6. For of these are they that creep into houses, and take captive silly women laden with sins, led away by divers lusts, 
7. * ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. *
8. And even as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth. Men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith."_ 2 Tim 3 

Pastorway, 
Please think a second time.


----------



## non dignus (Feb 9, 2006)

"_ For of these are they that creep into houses, and take captive silly women laden with sins, led away by divers lusts, _"

Do you think I am overstating it a bit?

I once visited a friend's lady friend at her home. The living room looked like a library- three solid walls of book shelves, full. 

Upon closer inspection I could see they were not books at all.
They were binders containing hundreds of audio cassettes with the teachings of Chuck Missler.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 9, 2006)

I have read the article 6 times in the last 2 days, more slowly each time. And I stand by what I have already written and think maybe I was not bold enough in my stance.

Sure, you can quote sections that seem to allow for converted people in arminian churches - but this does not fit with the tone or content of the rest of the piece. Some may claim to never have met a true arminian, but the article sure is full of them and their churches as it labels anyone who denies one of the 5 points as an arminian heretic. Again, according to what was written, all that reject any of the 5 points are idolatrous and worshipping a false god, not the God of the Bible.

The logical conclusion that must be drawn from this article is to deny that a church that rejects any of the 5 points is a true church, because surely we would never say that a church that worships a false god is a Christian church. And that consigns all non-calvinists to hell. 

For a piece fighting against adding works to the gospel, it goes to the other extreme and makes the gospel a message of faith + theologically understanding the 5 points. 

Both add to the gospel. That is why I labelled it _imbalanced_.

I'd like Matt to respond to my questions from earlier if he has the time and can find them amidst the sea of quoted quotes.

Phillip


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I have read the article 6 times in the last 2 days, more slowly each time. And I stand by what I have already written and think maybe I was not bold enough in my stance.
> 
> Sure, you can quote sections that seem to allow for converted people in arminian churches - but this does not fit with the tone or content of the rest of the piece. Some may claim to never have met a true arminian, but the article sure is full of them and their churches as it labels anyone who denies one of the 5 points as an arminian heretic. Again, according to what was written, all that reject any of the 5 points are idolatrous and worshipping a false god, not the God of the Bible.
> ...


Respectfully, I don't read him as saying "...Believe on Christ and the 5 points and ye shall be saved...."

Here is how I view the structure:
1. Jesus warns about false teachers
2. A brief history of who Arminius was.
3. A critical examination of Arminius' five points and demonstrating that the Scriptures teach otherwise.
4. A conclusion that Arminianism is heretical based on all these ideas taken together because the god of Arminius is an idol and not a true God.

I think what is missing, for your claim to be true, is for him to _positively_ argue that one must believe the 5 points in order to be saved. I see his assault as being an argument by _negation_ - God isn't this, this, this, this, or this - therefore, the system is false.

I am unsure of the value of adding, after all his criticism of Arminius teaching, the heretic/idol worship bombshell to the introductory Arminian reader. I think we might be in agreement on that. There is probably sufficient weight in the points made before that to get them to draw their own conclusion rather than parking the elephant in their living room. We all agree that Mohammed is a false prophet but beginning a dialogue with a Muslim by saying that Mohammed is a prophet of Satan does not lend itself to a receptive hearer after that statement.

Nevertheless, I think the issue of presenting the conclusion in the way he did is debatable. It's a matter of approach in my estimation. Perhaps the bold statement is what some people need. I'm not sure. What I do know is that Arminius' five points, that Matt negates Scripturally, undermine the Gospel message and have serious soteriological consequences for millions.

I believe Matt is best to answer the real questions you pose.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 9, 2006)

Ok, what's funny to me about all of this is that I get an e-mail ripping Matt for not being against Arminianism enough!! This e-mail demands that he answer how he could so strongly support those within Arminian churches! Yet others here feel he is damning them all to hell.

Here is the e-mail I recieved...

Is the "god" of Arminianism the God of the Bible? No.

Worshippers of a different "god" and different "gospel" are not going to be slapped on the wrist and sent to their room in heaven. Rather, they are going to be sent to hell for being idolaters. Idolaters do not enter heaven, as Paul said in Galatians 5:19_21.

It may be that you are an Arminian. I am very saddened that you have been caught up in thinking that Arminius´ "god" is the real God. However, you have been duped. Satan has used his false teacher to dupe you, along with much of the church today.

If you continue in your idolatry following after Arminius´ deformed "god", and you do not repent, God will judge you on the day of your death for your idolatry. The Scriptures say idolaters do not go to heaven. Thus, according to the Scriptures, you will be damned.

If that is not a scary thought for you, dear reader, I do not know what is more frightful. Not only are you believing a lie, God has sent it to you that you may be blinded and condemned in unrighteousness!

My response: The five paragraphs above were written by Matthew McMahon and are taken from his article "The "god" of Arminianism is not Worshippable".

McMahon says in these paragraphs that 1) Arminians believe a false gospel and 2) All who believe in a false gospel are unregenerate.

Therefore, McMahon must believe that all Arminians are unregenerate, right?

WRONG!

McMahon actually believes that some Arminians are regenerate.

This is simply incredible. Even one of McMahon´s friend´s could see the logical conclusions of Matthew´s statements that Arminianism is a false gospel and all who believe in a false gospel are damned. The name of Matthew´s friend is Ben Duncan and is a student at SBTS. Duncan writes,

"All heresy is damnable. ... If anything but 5_point Calvinism is really heresy, then this means that those who hold to anything but 5_point Calvinism are damned."

My comment: Is damnable heresy damnable or not?? Duncan is right. IF Arminians is heresy, then ALL Arminians will go to hell (unless they are converted to the truth before they die).

Yet, McMahon and Duncan still believe that some Arminians are saved. Neither of these men believe that damnable heresy is damnable.

In the text below McMahon states that some Arminian are saved. McMahon denies that damnable heresy is damnable. He writes,

"Arminians are of different stripes. Some people in Arminian churches may be truly converted, ignorant of their church home, and ultimately the Lord will rescue them out of their ignorance for He promises. .... Secondly, there is the Arminian who knows "enough to be dangerous" and is wrestling with understanding the differences between the "god" of Arminianism and the God of the Bible. If you have just read through this article, and were an Arminian of the first flavor, now you are an Arminianism of the second camp. ...Thirdly, it may be that you are a staunch Arminian. ... Repentance for you is even harder since you have been serving and worshipping an idol for so long. You have been sorely deceived in your idolatry! ... Sure God was right when He rebuked His people for being "destroyed for a lack of knowledge.""



My comment: Clearly, McMahon asserts that God´s people CAN and DO believe in false gospels.

His last words in the paragraph above are very significant. He says that, "...God was right when He rebuked His people for being "destroyed for a lack of knowledge.""

What McMahon is saying is that God´s people can lack the knowledge of the gospel and believe in damnable heresy. This is ever clearer from the following quote when he writes,

"Throughout the Old Testament God warns His church that false shepherds are under His judgment and condemnation. They lead the flock of God astray and teach false doctrines that are "empowered" by demonic lies and satanic ploys to tear people away from God, and rely on their own works for salvation."

My comment: Here McMahon teaches that false teachers can lead the flock of God astray. Next McMahon says that,

"...oftentimes Christians succumb to being children of their age, and the disciples of those that teach them even if they are heretical teachers. They think that since Pastor "so and so" is a godly man, what he teaches "must" be right. ... God´s people have been prone to idolatry as a result of ignorance and accepting the teaching of the "gods" of neighboring cities and peoples."

My comment: Above McMahon says that Christians can accept the teachings of other religions. He also says that the traditions and the reputations of false teachers can lead believers into damnable heresy. This is NOT what the Bible teaches. I challenge McMahon to refute these 10 Biblical arguments.



10 BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS PROVING THAT ALL ARMINIANS ARE UNREGENERATE.

1) John 10:5 says that believers will NEVER follow a false shepherd. But Arminians follow false shepherds. Therefore, Arminians are not believers.

"the sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will not follow a stranger, never! But they will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of the strangers." (Jn 10:4-5).



2) Isaiah 45:20 says that those who pray to a God that cannot save know nothing. Arminians believe that men have free will and the god they pray to cannot save. Arminians know nothing of the Just God and Savior.

"Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, escaped ones of the nations; the ones who set up the wood of their carved image, and the ones who pray to a god who cannot save; they know nothing. Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; who has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none except Me." (Isa 45:20-21)



3) 2 John 9 says that those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ have not God. No Arminian is abiding in the doctrine of Christ since all Arminians believe in a false gospel of salvation by works. Arminians have not God. Of course, if God later converts an Arminian to the true Gospel of salvation SOLELY by Christ´s BARE WORK then it would mean that this Arminian is not reprobate. However, all Arminians who die believing in any of the five points of Arminianism go to hell.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bear this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and do not speak a greeting to him. For the one speaking a greeting shares in his evil works." (2 Jn 9-11).



4) Romans 10 says that the Jews were ignorant of the righteousness of God and went about to establish their own righteousness. Likewise, no Arminian is submitted to the righteousness of God because they do NOT believe the gospel of imputed righteousness. If Paul was alive today he would pray for Arminians to be saved for they have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge.



"Brothers, truly my heart's pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of Israel is for it to be saved. For I testify to them that they have zeal to God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God." (Rom 10:1-3)



5) In Acts 8:20 Peter judged Simon Magnus to be unregenerate because Simon thought salvation could come by human efforts. Arminians are no better than Simon in their beliefs concerning salvation. Both Simon and Arminians believe that man has a role to play in justification. Therefore, Arminians are in perdition, a bond of iniquity and a gall of bitterness.

"But Simon having seen that the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of the hands of the apostles, he offered them money, saying, Give to me also this authority that to whomever I may lay on the hands he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said to him, May your silver be with you into perdition, because you thought to get the gift of God through money. There is neither part nor lot to you in this matter, for your heart is not upright before the face of God. Repent, then, from this wickedness of yours, and petition God if perhaps you will be forgiven the thought of your heart. For I see you being in the gall of bitterness and a bundle of unrighteousness." (Acts 8:18-23)



6) John 4:14 says that believers never thirst for the waters of eternal life. Now, Arminians find their assurance not in the finished work of Christ but Arminians drink from the well of salvation by works (e.g. saving yourself by the work of their "free will"). Therefore, Arminians are not believers.



"but whoever may drink of the water which I will give him will not thirst, never! But the water which I will give to him will become a fountain of water in him, springing up into everlasting life." (Jn 4:14)



7) 1 John 5:10-12 says those not believing God´s testimony have called Him a liar. It also says that those who call God a liar have not the Son and have not life. Arminians do not believe God´s testimony, i.e. that the Father is perfectly well pleased with the work of the Son and that all believers have been given everlasting life. Arminians say that God is a liar and effectively treat Satan as a truth-teller.



"The one believing in the Son of God has the witness in himself. The one not believing God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has witnessed concerning His Son. And this is the witness: that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son. The one having the Son has life. The one not having the Son of God does not have life." (1 Jn 5:10-12)



8) James 1:6-7 says that those who "pray" doubting can expect nothing from God. Arminians do not believe that God controls everything, therefore they cannot pray with faith. Arminians can therefore expect nothing from God (this includes salvation).

"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask from God, who gives to all freely and with no reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, doubting nothing. For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, being driven by wind and being tossed; for do not let that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double_soiled man, not dependable in all his ways." (Jam 1:5-8)

9) (a) 2 Corinthians 13:5 says that people who are not sure whether or not Christ is in them are unregenerate. Arminians cannot know that Christ is in them (by believing in a false Christ they are ignorant of who the real Christ is). Arminians base their assurance on their works and are unregenerate. Of course, if God converts an Arminian to believe that Christ lay down His life for the sheep and fulfilled the Law, then that Arminian is no longer an Arminian. He is now a Christian and will deduce his election from his belief in the bare truth of the gospel.

"Or do you not yourselves perceive that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (2 Cor 13:5)

(b) Paul addressed his letter to the Ephesians with "to the saints and faithful at Ephesus". Paul assumed that the Ephesians knew they were saints and faithful (otherwise, they would not have known the epistle was for them). Arminians do not have the assurance of salvation of the Ephesians because Arminians do not know that the work of salvation is finished. Arminians are ignorant of the fact that NOTHING is required for justification but the imputed righteousness and atoning blood of Christ. By thinking that man has to contribute to justification, Arminians can NEVER be assured of salvation by Christ´s bare work alone. Only those who believe that man is TOTALLY PASSIVE in justification can be assured that Christ COMPLETELY FULFILLED THE LAW. All who believe in the true gospel of imputed righteousness will deduce that they are elect from their assent to the propositions of the gospel.

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, to the saints being in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus." (Eph 1:1)

(c) Peter wrote only to those of "EQUALLY PRECIOUS" to the Apostles (2 Peter 1:1). Arminians do not have the faith of the Apostles, however, because they deny "IT IS FINISHED". By believing that man must do x, y or z to be justified Christ profits them nothing. Of course, if God later on converts an Arminian to the True Gospel (the doctrines of the Finished Atonement and Imputed Righteousness) then that Arminian has BECOME a Christian (the moment he believed the True Gospel) and must be elect.

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like equally precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Pet 1:1)

10) 2 John 9-11 says that those who speak peace to outward heretics share in the heretic´s evil deeds. Matthew McMahon speaks peace to Arminians. You are unregenerate, Matthew McMahon.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bear this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and do not speak a greeting to him. For the one speaking a greeting shares in his evil works." (2 Jn 9-11).

I challenge you Matthew McMahon "“ and every other tolerant and doubting Calvinist in the world "“ to refute the 10 Biblical arguments above.



Andrew C. Bain
Sydney, Australia


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 9, 2006)

I'm sorry, did Mr. Bain say something? I couldn't hear him with that loud clanging cymbal sound overpowering everything...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 9, 2006)

lol....but my point was that someone believe MAtt wasn't against Arminianism enough yet others here feel he was way too strong.....


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I'm sorry, did Mr. Bain say something? I couldn't hear him with that loud clanging cymbal sound overpowering everything...



Ha ha!!
I received that same email... I wonder how many folks received it. I even started a new thread with the contents of the email as the body... and then I saw that Adam beat me to the punch. 

Mr. Bain appears to be a real brainiac. Seriously.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

Read his Xanga site if you want some cheap entertainment. I believe his calculations have around 17 people entering Heaven! That may be too liberal of a number too!!!


----------



## satz (Feb 10, 2006)

I think we run into trouble when we try to say there is a specific set of things someone must believe in order to be saved. Even if we say someone must believe 'the gospel', what exactly is the gospel? The bible never defines the gospel specifically in quite the way people are trying to use it - a minimum set of things one must believe in to be saved.

Isn't turning from and repenting of sin part of believing the gospel? How many of us are perfect in that respect? Does that mean we do not FULLY believe the gospel yet?

Any false doctrine held to, or sin not fully forsaken will weaken a man's profession of faith before others. But every word of God is pure, and we get into trouble when we start to say that is ok to get things like EP, musical instruments in worship etc wrong, but its not ok to get predestination wrong. Where does the bible distinguish issues quite like that? 

Again, the fact that a christian is arminian cast doubts on his outward profession of salvation. But if Lot can be saved, and Samson can be saved ( go read Judges, he never repents, not really) if Corinthian christians killed for mocking the Lord's Supper can be saved ( and since a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree bad fruit, what do you think are the chances these same people who dared to turn the Lord's supper into a revel were involved in at least some of the other abuses in corinth Paul was trying to correct) than i have no trouble believing that some arminians, even those who know and reject calvinism can be saved.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 10, 2006)

> _from the Article_
> 
> The "œgod" of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible. For Arminius´ "œgod" loves everyone equally, and sent his "œSon" to die for all men equally. This "œgod" did not decree the salvation of anyone in particular, and "œthe Christ" of Arminianism did not die for anyone in particular. Instead Arminius´ "œgod" decreed and his "œchrist" died for making a "œway" of salvation.



If you believe God loves everyone equally you worshipping a false god. If you believe Jesus died for all men, you are worshipping a false god. If you deny particular redemption (limited atonement) then you are worshipping a false god. If you deny God's elective decree then you are worshipping a false god.



> Arminius´ "œgod" relies on man to come to Him, and find salvation.
> 
> Arminius also taught that his "œgod" can be frustrated by the will of man because men choose their own destiny and that "œgod" allows them to do what they want to do without interfering.
> 
> ...



If you believe you came to God on your own, of your own free will, and that you can refuse or frustrate the grace of God, then you are worshipping a false god. 



> Arminius taught hypothetical universalism. This meant that Jesus Christ died on the cross for every individual person making it possible for them to have salvation, and for every person to be saved. However, Arminius affirmed that in Christ´s death no one was actually saved. Christ only made salvation possible through the universal atonement for each man.



Again, reject limited atonement (even if you are a 4 point calvinist) and you are worshipping a false god. Miss the *L* and you are a Loser.



> Arminius also taught that his "œgod" cannot secure salvation for anyone, and thus, those sinners that choose "œhim" may also subsequently fall away from grace after they have taken hold of it. In this way, Arminius´ "œgod" loses people to the devil and to eternal torment, due to their decision to "œstop following" "œhim." These wayward souls simply give up and reject their faith. Thus, salvation can be lost at any time.



Speaking of being a Loser, if you for one moment believe that you can lose your salvation, then you are worshipping a false god.



> Worshippers of a different "œgod" and different "œgospel" are not going to be slapped on the wrist and sent to their room in heaven. Rather, they are going to be sent to hell for being idolaters. Idolaters do not enter heaven



Now we are getting somewhere. Hot. Because if you worship a false god you are an idolater and are going to hell.



> The contemporary church today is not only accepting Arminius´ teaching, but running after it, selling it in their Christian bookstores (making a profit on heresy), teaching it in their seminaries (so that young and upcoming ministers affect the congregation they will one day pastor), and preaching it from their pulpits to the layman who trusts their pastor´s every word. Arminius taught the secular man´s religion "“ a religion of works by personal merit "“ and America is eating it up.



If you believe anything Arminius taught then you are, with the rest of the contemporary church today in America, going to hell.



> This writer, in like mind, calls it heresy. Suitably, the worship of this "œother god" that Arminius created is summarized biblically as idolatry.



Matt McMahon says to you, if you die an Arminian to any degree you die a heretic and an idolater, and idolaters don't go to heaven. They go to hell.



> Idolatry is committed when God´s people have wrong thoughts about Him.



Uh Oh. Look Out Now. If you ever had a wrong thought about God in your life then you are worshipping a false God and are going to hell for your idolatry. Only those with a competely perfect vision of who God is will go to heaven.



> Even though Arminianism is a theological idea, that idea has filtered down into the "œgod" most people worship throughout Christendom today.



Most of "Christendom" today is worshipping a false god and going to hell. 



> For the thinking Christian who has had even the most minimal contact with the biblical God and Creator of the universe, the Arminian "œgod" is not worshippable for him. Christians should simply not be able to worship such a gross misrepresentation of the God of the Bible. Many people are ignorantly spending week after week, and worship service after worship service in serving an idol, and the True God of the Bible is angry with them. Does ignorance excuse them? God says "œNo." As a matter of fact, God promises to reject, forsake and finally destroy those who are ignorant about Him.



If you are indeed a Christian and have a brain, you cannot worship this false god, and if you do so in ignorance you have no excuse and you will be rejected and destroyed. 



> Not only will God forget the one worshipping in ignorance something that ought not to be worshipped, but He will even forget their children and visit the iniquity of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.



And if you hold to any form of arminianism (aka, not all of calvinism) then you are damned and so are your kids for 3 to 4 generations. 



> God equates idolatry with hating him. Arminius´ doctrine demonstrates that he and his followers hate God. By their ignorance, or willful disobedience in following after an idolatrous "œgod", the Lord Himself says they hate Him.



If you reject any of the 5 points, even out of ignorance, God hates you.



> I am very saddened that you have been caught up in thinking that Arminius´ "œgod" is the real God. However, you have been duped. Satan has used his false teacher to dupe you, along with much of the church today.



If you reject any of the 5 points, you and most the rest of the "church" are under Satan's thumb and will be damned.



> If you continue in your idolatry following after Arminius´ deformed "œgod", and you do not repent, God will judge you on the day of your death for your idolatry. The Scriptures say idolaters do not go to heaven. Thus, according to the Scriptures, you will be damned. You must recognize the fact now that you are serving a "œgod" that cannot be worshipped, no, that ought not to be worshipped.



Not a Calvinist ? (And there is only one kind, you know, and that is a 5 pointer. There is no such thing as a 3 or 4 pointer). Then sorry, but you are damned, damned, damned.



> If you worship the "œgod" of Arminianism, of even the "œchrist" of Arminianism, you must repent and acknowledge the reality that you do not worship the God and Christ of Scripture. You have been sorely deceived in your idolatry!



You deceived idiot. You ignorant fool. Embrace the Five Points or go to hell and take your kids and grandkids and great grankids with you!



Knowing Christ is not enough. You must embrace the 5 points and if you do not that is proof that you were not His sheep, His elect, or His people. If you hear His voice you will be a 5 pointer. Because if you hold to any false doctrine at all, anything that denies the 5 points, then you are worshipping a false god, an idol, and cannot enter heaven.

Oh, one more thing, remember that if you ever think a wrong thought about God you are an idolater and there is no hope, so go eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die and go to hell. Only those with perfect knowledge of God go to heaven.





[Edited on 2-10-06 by pastorway]


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 10, 2006)

Mark 1:15. *'"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Gospel."'*
Acts 16:30-31. *'"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved....."'*
Rom 10:9. *'...If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.'*
Rom 10:13.*'For "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."'*
1John 2:3. *Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.'*
1John 5:1. *Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.'*

I do quite a bit of preaching in Brethren Gospel Halls and in other non-Reformed churches, so I meet a fair number of Arminians. I always preach, as well as God enables me, Christ crucified. If I asked these people if they are trusting in Christ alone for salvation, they would reply, "Of course!" If I asked them if they were trusting in their own works, they would say, "Not at all!" They believe in Prevenient Grace; they just have a faulty understanding of it. At least they are not trusting in their blood-line or their baptism for salvation! I do not hold back on the Doctrines of Grace in my preaching, but neither do I make an issue of it. *'Him we preach!'* (Col 1:28 ). We preach Christ first and foremost, not a system of theology.

God forbid that we should say that these people are not the Lord's! *'Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own Master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand* (Rom 14:4 ). I am a firm 5 point Calvinist, but I'm not going to make my theology the standard for salvation.

The weakest Christian who sees himself as a sinner and throws himself on the mercy of God, trusting in the blood of Christ for salvation will be saved. The gate is strait enough. Let us not narrow it still further lest the condemnation of Matt 23:13 come upon us.

Arminianism _is_ an error, and errors have consequences. Arminaian churches are very open to other forms of error and liberalism as Church history proves. John Wesley's preaching was blessed by God for the salvation of thousands, yet his faulty theology left an unhappy legacy to the Wesleyan churches. But surely it is possible to point out the doctrinal errors of others in love, without committing them to hell?

Matt's article is a good illustration of why I voted that the PB is a poor example of Reformed theology. It was narrow, sectarian and cultic, in the worst sense of that word.

Martin


----------



## non dignus (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Mark 1:15. *'"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Gospel."'*
> Acts 16:30-31. *'"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved....."'*
> Rom 10:9. *'...If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.'*
> ...


 Hi Martin, when I was an Arminian I paid lip service to Grace alone etc. because that was the language of the Bible, but in my heart I "knew" that I was inherently different from unbelievers- I was a notch better which is why I "found" Christ, and they did not.


> They believe in Prevenient Grace; they just have a faulty understanding of it.


 Very faulty. They believe they have the human power to resist the Almighty God. Out of their pride they turn God into a wimpy idol and feel they are ultimately justified by their decision for Christ. This is insidious and repugnant to the gospel.


> At least they are not trusting in their blood-line or their baptism for salvation! I do not hold back on the Doctrines of Grace in my preaching, but neither do I make an issue of it. *'Him we preach!'* (Col 1:28 ). We preach Christ first and foremost, not a system of theology.
> 
> God forbid that we should say that these people are not the Lord's! *'Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own Master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand* (Rom 14:4 ). I am a firm 5 point Calvinist, but I'm not going to make my theology the standard for salvation.
> 
> The weakest Christian who sees himself as a sinner and throws himself on the mercy of God, trusting in the blood of Christ for salvation will be saved. The gate is strait enough. Let us not narrow it still further lest the condemnation of Matt 23:13 come upon us.


 Dr. McMahon is defending the gospel, you are defending heresy, and you give the example of the Pharisees?


> Arminianism _is_ an error, and errors have consequences. Arminaian churches are very open to other forms of error and liberalism as Church history proves. John Wesley's preaching was blessed by God for the salvation of thousands, yet his faulty theology left an unhappy legacy to the Wesleyan churches. But surely it is possible to point out the doctrinal errors of others in love, without committing them to hell?
> 
> Matt's article is a good illustration of why I voted that the PB is a poor example of Reformed theology. It was narrow, sectarian and cultic, in the worst sense of that word.
> 
> Martin



Pastorway,
There is no need for hyperbole. I think we can all agree that as we grow, we are responsible for what God has called us to so far. If you are a mature believer, confronted point by point with scripture against a doctrine of works righteousness, and do not yield, the Holy Spirit cannot be in you.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 10, 2006)

Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader. 



Question for those who consider Dr. McMahon's article as good:

Does this mean that when I visit my sister, and she invites me to attend services with her at her Fundamental Baptist Church, that I should refuse, lest I worship with those who are worshipping a "false god" and partake in their idolatry?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 10, 2006)

There are practical questions that should be asked regarding how do we apply such a view; however, do not sidestep the overarching question: is Arminianism truth? Does Arminiansim describe the God of Holy Scripture? If not, then why join in one accord in worshipping a god that is not revealed to us through Holy Scripture?

If a church and any person consistently teaches what their non-reformed view concludes, then they will confidently proclaim from the pulpit, that God is not all-knowing, and/or that man is saved not by Christ alone, but by Christ plus some goodness inside ourselves.

Most churches, will run far away from such a proclamation even though it is the necessary inference of their non-calvinistic stance. 

All professing Christians and churches are Calvinist by faith even if they do not understand why or how. We should anathemize the necessary conclusions but not those people who out of shear ignorance do not bother to understand a perplexing; confounding; bewildering; complex doctrine.


----------



## non dignus (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, by all means go. 
Just attend as you would a rotary club meeting or a Roman Catholic mass. When it's time to pray, ask the true God if He is being honored in this assembly and what your response ought to be.


----------



## raderag (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader.
> 
> 
> ...



I lean towards historicism amillennial. I wonder if I should beware the god of post-millennialism?


----------



## raderag (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ...



How can you say this and then as your signature have a quote by CS Lewis, a damned heretic?


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Pastorway,
> There is no need for hyperbole. I think we can all agree that as we grow, we are responsible for what God has called us to so far. If you are a mature believer, confronted point by point with scripture against a doctrine of works righteousness, and do not yield, the Holy Spirit cannot be in you.



First of all, this is a misattribution: Phillip Way did not write the text you quote.

Second, if you are publicly accusing an ordained minister of the gospel in good standing of not being a believer because of this issue you will recant and apologize right now, or you will be banned.

I await your prompt response.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2006)

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

It seems to me that those who dismiss the idea that Matt is portraying as ridiculous or "cultic" do not understand the historic reformation/puritan stance on Arminians (if today's Arminians are "better" or "worse" than the Arminians in those days is another issue).

Calvin did not treat them as brethren. Dort condemned them and kicked them ministers out of the pulpits, and drove them out of the country. The Puritans wrote viciously against them.

Would those who react against Matt's article react the same against the like of John Owen? If so, they are consistent, if not...they should rethink their position.

I find it all too often that reformed folk find no fault in the reformers/puritans for their zeal in defending the gospel against the heretics of their day, but in today's society, sterness for the sake of the gospel is looked upon as unloving and uncalled for. 



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> A Display of Arminianism by John Owen:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## non dignus (Feb 10, 2006)

Fred,

I was wrong in using the hypothetical 'you'. I should have said, "if _one_ is a mature believer, confronted point by point with scripture against a doctrine of works righteousness, and do not yield, the Holy Spirit cannot be in _him_." My point being that mature Arminian believers have got to step up to the plate when the time comes. 

Additionally, I was wrong in not using a separate quote for Pastorway in my response to him. 

My apologies to the PB for a garbled communique.

Pastoryway, have I offended you?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

Speaking as a once passionate but uneducated Arminian what I believe many here fail to realize is that our Churches are full of people who have no idea how to read the bible in context. However, many of these people *THINK* they do know how mainly because the pastors and leaders they listen to are also reading and teaching it out of context. The question is, who is to blame? The learner and the teacher, or just the teacher?

I was once a learned sitting under false teachers and I take full responsability for myself. While several of you are trying to be loving and understanding I humbly submit that you are wrong. Many are in error because of their pride and stubborness as I was once amongst them. In fact, it wasn't even a strong desire tolearn more that brought me to reformed theology, it was a disgust at those in mycamp who questioned Lordship Salvation. To me, Lordship Salvation seemed like common sense. Why were my brothers in Christ not willing to accept it? I was hurt and puzzled.

As I dove into this issue I discovered that many did not submit their lives to the Lordship of Christ because they were not really saved. They wanted to go to Heaven, have a comfortable life, not drink, smoke, and curse, but when it came to any expectations placed upon them you could just forget it! The law was nailed on the cross with Christ! Do not ever hold me accountable.

What caused all this????

*ARMINIANISM*

Be it the real 100% Arminianism, or the many different flavors scooped from the same bin, it's the idea that we chose Christ, that we invited Him into our hearts, that we sought to be saved because we realized that we needed to be with our own insight and realization.

Then we were so desperate to "save others" that we run around like crazy just trying to get others to say the sinners prayer. They may be a "carnal Christian" but we got them to confess with their mouth and claim to believe in ther heart that Jesus is Lord! What an amazing job we are doing showing people their need of salvation!!!!! We'll just forget all that fruit stuff...I mean they confess Jesus as Lord He just isn't Lord of all their life just yet...give them time...maybe even on their death bed (or during the 7 year Tribulation before they die from God's wrath).

Arminianism is selfish evil embedded in a persons heart spoken of as if it is lovingly Godly and evangelistic! What a crock! I know because I lived it for 23 years. How many of you who rage against Matts article lived the Arminian life for over 20 years? How many of you were motivated by it's teachings for that long? I was and I know I was wrong, lost, and confused. Oh I meant well.....was that enough to get me to Heaven when I died? Meaning well? If so then I know many Jahovah Witnesses, Mormans, and Moonies that are going to be in Heaven because they certainly mean well!

Can I equate Arminian ideas with cults?

*ABSOLUTELY!*

Here are just a few things I not only believed but proudly stated, taught, and defended for years.

1) Jesus loves everyone! If everyone does not have a chance to be saved then God isn't a God I would serve!

2) There is never a chance God would send a still born baby to Hell, if He did He would be evil and not any kind of God I would align myself with!

3) Carnal Christians will go to Heaven and no one has ANY place to even suggest other wise.

4) I am not bound by the law, it passed away when Christ died on the cross. Anyone who speaks of the law is a Pharasee.

5) Saying the sinners prayer is all that is ever needed to enter Heaven, anyone who says other wise is a false teacher!

6) Only Satan will ever interfere with a persons free will. God never would do that! To say that He would is to call Him Satan.

7) God will not and does not control us in any way. He allows us to live as we please and will only come into our life when we invite Him.

8) If you are not saved you can never blame God or go to Him about your problems. Your life is not His! 

9) You have to surrender to God before He will involve Himself in your life in any way.

10) Satan is the god of the earth

I could go on, but please understand that most if not all of those I used to attent Church and Bible study with still believe all of that. Many believe it as I did out of ignorance. I was actually angry that I had not heard reformed theology before finding this place! Yet many have heard of reformed theology and Calvinism yet reject it for the ideas I used to believe. I believe that I did not actually and truely know Christ when I believed those things and did not get a "pass" because I was taught incorrectly. I find it difficult to give those I know in those beliefs a pass either. I do pray for them and believe God will reach those in those beliefs who are His elect.

Again, I say BRAVO Matt! I wish someone would have approached me with that article years ago!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2006)

Ben,



> All heresy is damnable.



Right. All form of it and all deviancy from orthodoxy on non-negotiable points of doctrine are damnable.



> If anything but 5-point Calvinism is really heresy, then this means that those who hold to anything but 5-point Calvinism are damned.



I don´t think I ever said anything about "œCalvinism", or "œfive points" or anything like that. I think what tears us up here is that we have to decide whether we believe the Gospel or not. The Gospel is true, everything else is a lie.

Scott said:



> Regeneration is a work of the HS and can occur whilst the person knows very little. Conversion however, requires certain ducks to be in a row.



Quite right.

Ben,



> Well, you've consigned virtually all non 5-point Calvinists to the abyss.
> What's next? A treatise demonstrating that all dispensationalists - even the ones like John MacArthur - are going to hell?
> After that, perhaps you would care to finish the job by demonstrating that only those who adhere to the WCF w/o exception, as interpreted by the RPCGA, are saved.



Actually, what I did say was that there are really 3 types of those affected by Arminianism at different degrees and different levels. I was converted under Arminian preaching, but I fear for the Arminian preacher that preached!

I think your other points on dispensationalism, etc., are simply ranting and raving. I don´t think those have anything to do with what I said, or what the article was about, or even helps in this thread.

Jeff is right "“ 



> Arminians believe in works righteousness, and believing that they have saving faith contradicts not only scripture, but the WCF: Westminster Confession of Faith 14:2



Again, this goes back to the Gospel you believe.

Jeff quotes the Puritans, those who were VERY persuaded that a right Gospel is important. I concur with Owen:



> One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit,"”"œmors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJerolemon, [4] "œa holy war," to such enemies of God´s providence, Christ´s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters. [5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,"”"œthe depths and crafts of Satan;" we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,"”like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,"”give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed.



SolaScriptura said



> I guess I'm not willing to label every Christian, other than 5-point Calvinists, as heretics.



Who said this?? I don´t think I said that in the article, and I don´t think anyone means that.

Practically, I think Jeff is on the right track when he says:



> With due respect, I think it dangerous to place a time difference between regeneration/conversion with adults. It might work with infants as they might not have the ability to understand yet, but that excuse doesn't work with people of "believing age" (if there is such a thing).



We are not talking about infants here, and the article is written for those who are READING it. We are dealing with, essentially, what "œgod" people serve and worship.

Chris Blum is very right when he says:



> Indeed. If more people had read other pieces of Matt's treatment on the subject as well, you would know that that is a pure straw-man of what he is saying, as shown by his statement at the beginning of the APM page on Arminianism (not to mention the last few paragraphs of the current article as well):



Joseph said:



> I agree with Ben, Jacob, and Ryan. Salvation is TOTALLY of grace.



We are all agreed!

Phillip said:



> A church that is not completely Calvinistic is not a true church, but a synagogue of Satan worshipping a false god.



Again, I don´t think I mentioned anything about being "œCalvinistic." So far as I remember, I simply quoted the Scriptures.



> Where was the church before TULIP???



This is a completely different question than what the article is trying to weed out.
But if I have to answer this, one would have to ask if you believe TULIP, or the doctrines behind it, are the Gospel. If "œno", then TULIP represents things that are completely non-essential to Christian doctrine. If "œyes" then you have answered your question.



> And just because someone does not have a ThD or a PhD does not mean then that they CANNOT BE SAVED - for even children can KNOW Jesus. Is a child that knows Jesus damned because he cannot recite the Puritan Catechism and sign a statement of agreement with Dordt???


I don´t think I said anything about a PhD, ThD or any other "œD". I believe all I did was quote the Scriptures. Children will be converted by and learn the same Gosdpel adults will be converted by and learn. As far as I know, there is only one Gospel for all men.



> I can hear it now "“



Need you say more?



> No, Peter preached Christ. And so should we.



He sure did. He spent 3 years with him in the flesh, knew the Old Testament better than any of us, and certainly preached that Christ. Which Christ? THAT Christ. See, we agree.



> It is just more evidence of the doctrinal imbalance that rules this forum.



Though this has *nothing* to do with the article, I´ll ask it anyway "“ which points of the 5 points should we get rid of, or are non-essentials to the Gospel? Anyone can answer.

Joseph said:



> The Gospel is simple:
> 1) Believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
> 2) Believe that your sin makes you unworthy of Heaven.
> 3) Believe that Jesus died to pay for your sin.
> ...



Statements like these make me shudder because what you are doing is overlaying your ideas of what those things "œare" INTO those things. In other words, when you say "œJesus is fully God and man" those terms are PACKED with information that you read in it. You say "œJesus" I ask "œJesus who?" You say "œSin" I say "œwhat´s that? You say "œGod" I say explain God to me. You say "œpay for your sin" I say you are equivocating! Stop that. You have to be honest with what you are saying. In fact, if we go with what you said above, you are saying the exact same thing I am saying. "œWhat Jesus?"


Phillp asked:



> Do you state in the article that to reject any of TULIP is to worship a false god?



I don´t think I mentioned TULIP anywhere in the article "“ rather I simply exaplined some of the key Scriptures that we preach on to communicate the Gospel. Were any of those Scripture or ideas offensive to you?



> Do you state that churches that are not Calvinistic are worshipping a false god?



I said that everyone who worships a false idea or a false god is guilty of idolatry. Can you find where I "œstated" what you are asking?



> Can a church that is worshipping a false god be a true church of Jesus Christ?


Not at all. If a church is worshipping a false god, then they by fact, not a Christian church.



> Can a person who is worshipping a false god be saved?



If you mean chronologically, sure. Some who was a worshipper of a false god can come into contact with the Truth of the Scripture, believe that truth, and be saved by the true God. Someone who worships a false god will not go to heaven. Christ, Paul, the prophets all call that idolatry, and idolaters do not enter heaven.



> Your article defeats itself. In it, if it is left intact, you state unequivocably that to reject the doctrines of grace in any way is to worship a false god, making one an idolator, and hence damned.



I don´t think the article was about the doctrines of grace. I believe I wrote the article to deal with the "œgod" behind what people believe. Either the One True Living God, or a false "œgod."

Joseph,

I don´t think the article uses any fuzzy language. The Scriptures demonstrate one truth and the One True God behind that truth. What I think people are having a problem with is they are confusing regeneration and conversion. The article, I believe, was kept very simply. Which is why I think so many are upset about it. Believing and really trusting in ONE Gospel and ONE God is REALLY hard for some to accept.

I´ll let Scott and Brett keep dueling it out! 

Christopher Reeder said:



> A problem arises when we apply the term "Arminian" to anyone who is not a Calvinist or who does not know what either term means.



We are VERY agreed here!

David said:



> We are saying that the Christian is responsible for what God has revealed at this point in redemptive history and what He is calling him to personally vis a vis doctrine. A child is different than an adult, and the post-modern era is different than the pre-reformation era.



Agreed!!

Then you said:



> Ask *those people* if they are saved by Christ alone. Even if they are "well developed" in their non-Calvinistic views they will hesitate to proclaim that they are saved by Christ plus anything if they truly believe the gospel. What do you think?



Exactly. Each must be dealt with individually. See Chris Blum´s post.

Phillip began to converse with David and said:



> I have read the article 6 times in the last 2 days, more slowly each time.



I don´t think you are understanding it. I think you are a product of the age sometimes. Not all the times, but sometimes. We all are to some extent. But this is one of them that I see you trying to be too nice to something that has stood condemned by all good pastors and theologians before us. Why would you want to "œprotect" in ANY way, Arminianism? (I said that thoughtfully.) I know what you mean, and I know what your tension is with the piece. But your tension is on the wrong side of the fence on this one. Replace Arminianism with "œMormonism in the article. Would you have problem with it then? Of course not. Replace it with Islam "“ then? I don´t think you would. Remember, a false teaching, a false teacher, a false system of thought is idolatry. I know you would have a problem with idolatry. The question actually stems down into "œpeople" because you don´t like labeling people with a blanket. I understand that too "“ which is why I said you are misunderstanding the article.


Houseparent received an email from Bain. Ah, best thing to do with anything Bain writes, contemplates or emails is trash it. He not the worth the bytes it took to get the email much less read it. Answer along with Willie Wonka "“ "œI can´t hear you when you mumble!"

Phillip then did a disservice to himself "“ he posted a rant: this one: posted on 2-10-2006 at 04:54 AM

I´m not even going to deal with it. That is just you being angry without thinking through this in light of everything to be considered.

Martin said:



> I am a firm 5 point Calvinist, but I'm not going to make my theology the standard for salvation.



Then your theology doesn´t matter.

Dan said:



> Does this mean that when I visit my sister, and she invites me to attend services with her at her Fundamental Baptist Church, that I should refuse, lest I worship with those who are worshipping a "false god" and partake in their idolatry?



This is a blanket statement, of which I am sure I made no blanket statements in the article in this way. All must be scrutinized where they are at. See the "œWarning to the Reader"

Jeff said:



> It seems to me that those who dismiss the idea that Matt is portraying as ridiculous or "cultic" do not understand the historic reformation/puritan stance on Arminians (if today's Arminians are "better" or "worse" than the Arminians in those days is another issue).



Ain´t it da truth! How I wish people would heed Owen's rebuke that Pastors and Theologians should take up their pens and preach against this heresy! (One of many!)


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

Again, some here are confusing what their Arminian friends claim and say, to what it really is they serve and worship. For some reason we don't make this mistake with Mormans and JW's. I find that odd....

Arminians I know (Full fledged or partial, uneducated Arminians) "say" they are saved by grace *ALONE* and they think they believe that. What they don't realize is that by believing that they sought salvation of their own free will they are believing in salvation by works. While that seems obvious to all of us here, most Arminians I know honestly don't realize this and will be offended if you tell them.

My question is, does this damn them?

I believe it does because they are refusing to believe the gospel, they are refusing to submit to the truth, and they arrogantly hold onto a God they have created. I did this for years and years. You could have pointed to any scripture you wanted. All I knew was the God loved me and proof of that love was His refusal to interfere with my free will. *PERIOD*

My mother believes I was saved and sort of growls me for saying that I wasn't. My friends think I was one of the most "godly" men they ever knew! Former pastors were impressed with my dedication and love toward others. Christian book stores in my area remained in business because of me! The contemporary Christian music scene recieved thousands of dollars from me as well. I cried when I listened to Carman songs!

Yet I am telling you that I believed in a false god who needed me to choose him. I believed in a Jesus who pleaded with people to come to Him. A Christ who stood with tears in His eyes asking, nearly begging for people to hear his message lest they perish.

The last thing I needed was anyone who knew the truth asking those trying to reach me to be nicer, or more understanding because I was going to Heaven "just as I was".


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

Adam,

I appreciate your posts, and can relate as my experience is very similar to yours. I give a big ditto when you say that Arminians PROFESS sola fide/sola gratia/solo christo etc. etc., but the outworkings of their theology and everything else they do prove that they are merely redefining these terms to fit their theology (I know, because I was taught to, and did that very thing). I know mega-churches in my area that claim solo christo but in the same breath add their decision as the ultimate deciding factor to their salvation.

Tit 1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

Solo christo means that Christ ALONE makes the difference between if I go to heaven, or if I go to hell. "œFree Will" is the antithesis of this. It makes the sinner the difference between if the sinner goes to heaven or hell, which is nothing less than salvation by works.

God will not share his glory with any man, nor will he give a man a "œsaving faith" that gives some of the glory to the sinner.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 10, 2006)

Matt, my "rant" was only an example, a list of many actually, that shows in your article that you have stated that to believe any single minute particle of Arminian thought (and hence reject any single minute particle of Calvinism) is to be worshipping a false god. 

You make the case for every single doctrinal error you name. That is the root of the problem with this article. 

You take a series of errors and instead of dealing with a whole system of thought you go to great lengths to make the each individual error into its own damnable heresy.

So you do state in no uncertain terms that to deny any single point of Calvinism is to worship a false god. And as you do rightly state, you cannot worship a false god and be saved or go to heaven.

My "rant" takes it point by point. For you to leave this article as is on the web is a diservice to the PB and the church. It is a blatant example of why the PB has become so much more narrow than the gospel. 

It seems my arguments are not to be dealt with. The logical conclusions that jump off the page will be swept aside as an angry rant or hyperbole. The questions posed will be attributed to one influenced by the spirit of the age who is defending arminianism at all costs, being too nice to damn anybody for their ignorance and errors. 

But what do you expect from one who is not _really_ reformed?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

Pastor Way

You are much more educated than I in scripture, I admire and respect you. I believe I would even enjoy your church! That said, does it not matter what I ( or anyone formally in error) has to say about our condition at that time?

I have a friend who was "saved" when he as 12-13. He lived a decent Christian life for the next few years only to go off to College and pary, do drugs, have sex, and other such things. I defended such actions time and again as "back sliding". Yet when I asked him what he believes would have happened had he died in his college years he in no uncertain terms told me "Oh there is no doubt I would have gone straight to Hell."

Now we can argue that God was with him and bringing him to the truth, same with my situation. I believe I was not "saved" while believing the Arminian junk I once believed yet I did not die and God has lead me to the truth. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are those who die in those states. Do you believe that if they "accepted Christ" yet died in such sin that they will inherit Heaven based on a confession at one time? Or because they mean well and are only mistaken in their sinful state?

I mean you no disrespect and I hope I do not sound foolish with my questions. It just SEEMS to me that you are defending those who many amongst us once were and are telling you that we are confident had we died in our unlearned state we would not have entered Heaven, and that we needed an alarm such as Matt's article to awaken us. 

I sent the article to every Arminian friend I have. I pray they see it as gospel truth and repent as the Lord graciously lead me to do.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Ironically, this is the main point made by Andrew Bain in his email that is being slammed on another thread. But, Andrew and Pastor Way are making a good point. If Arminianism teaches a false gospel, worships a false god, then how can Arminians be saved? To use a popular metaphor, we are ignoring the elephant in the living room.

I agree with much of Dr. McMahon's article. But everyone from Andrew Bain to Pastor Way has come to the obvious logical conclusion (the elephant) that no one wants to deal with - except Andrew  . As long as Andrew is willing to deal with it, he will have an audience and an advantage.


_(P.S. I noticed that Dr. McMahon has posted some responses that I missed - so if he as already shot the elephant ...  )_


[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

I've been pointing and shouting at the elephant.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I've been pointing and shouting at the elephant.






Oh look....there it is!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

Matt,

The theological confusion you demonstrate above is so fraught with problems that it would probably take me an hour or two just to untwist all of it.

Thus, instead of responding to the whole thing, I'll just hone in to something you specifically said to me:




> Joseph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, in the context in which I wrote, those terms are most certainly NOT "packed with information that you read in it."

They are packed with information if you are talking about Christians doing theology proper, in seminary for example, probing deeper into the mysteries of God.

But as far as bare salvation is concerned, there is _very little_ information "packed" into all those terms that is necessary for salvation.

For example, consider the phrase, "Jesus is fully God and fully man." Of course theologians can study the meaning and implications of this phrase for a lifetime, and still just scratch the surface. But *for salvation*, how much does a *little child* have to understand in this phrase? All that has to be believed is that God is the Creator of the universe, and that He came to earth as a man. You don't have to understand the Trinity or the hypostatic union. All you have to believe is that "Jesus is God" and that "Jesus is man". You don't have to understand HOW those two facts fit together; you just have to believe THAT they are both true, and that they do fit together somehow. For goodness sakes . . . it took the early church centuries to hammer out the doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union. But I tend to believe that many people were saved prior to the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, etc. . . .



> You say "œJesus" I ask "œJesus who?"



Jesus is God. Jesus is man. Those 6 words just about sum it up, as far as salvation-knowledge is concerned. You don't have to know the extensive details of his genealogy, the doctrine of the hypostatic union, or anything about Covenant Theology. All of those are very important doctrines for a new Christian to learn. But none of them is necessary to *become* a Christian. If you know that Jesus is God, and you know that Jesus is man, then you know all you need to know about the identity of Christ in order to be saved.



> You say "œSin" I say "œwhat´s that?



Sin is "doing something God says is wrong". It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. You don't need a degree in hamartiology to be saved. Just know that you have done things God says are wrong. Realized that one sin against God deserves eternal punishment. Understand that you cannot do anything to pay for your own sin. In other words, you are lost without hope, unless God Himself does something about your sin.



> You say "œGod" I say explain God to me.



Everybody already knows who God is (cf. Rom. 1). If He regenerates a heart, then that suppression of God-knowledge melts away.

Who is God? He is the Creator of all that exists, and He is the Ruler of the universe He created. Why does the definition have to be any more complex that this? Who says a person has to have a deep knowledge of God's identity in order to trust Him and be saved? Just identify Him as Creator and Ruler. What else do you think a new convert must know about God in order to be saved? Is a detailed Chalcedonian-compliant understanding of Trinitarianism necessary for salvation? Perish the thought!




> You say "œpay for your sin" I say you are equivocating! Stop that. You have to be honest with what you are saying.



"Equivocating" means "To avoid making an explicit statement".

What are you considering so non-explicit about the statement that Jesus "pays for your sin"? Why does this have to be made difficult for a new convert? Certainly the doctrine of the atonement is important. But if we have to believe specifically in the penal-substitutionary atonement in order to be saved, then was anyone saved prior to Anselm? It took the church over 1000 years to come to a good understanding of the penal-substitutionary atonement. And truth be told, even Anselm didn't quite get the doctrine "polished" like the Reformers finally did a few centuries later.

Of course there are some inherently heretical theories of the atonement. For example, I believe the Governmental theory of the atonement is utterly anathema. But then again, that theory of the atonement doesn't even really fit with the phrase, "Jesus paid for my sin." This atonement theory is ruled out. I don't believe Grotius and J. Edwards Jr. were saved. 

But is it damning to believe in the Ransom theory of the atonement? If so, then not only do you consign C.S. Lewis to hell, but you condemn a bunch of early church fathers, too. How about the Priestly-Sacrificial theory? Is that damning?

Certainly you and I agree that the Penal-Substitutionary theory of the atonement is correct. 

And I agree that the phrase, "Jesus paid for my sins on the cross" does leave some wiggle-room for atonement theories. So good theologians should definitely get more specific . . . just like Anselm finally did.

But it is just nonsense to require deep theological knowledge from a new convert. To be saved, a person simply needs to know that they can't pay for their own sin, and that Jesus can. And not only could Jesus do it, but He did do it by dying on the cross. By shedding His blood, he paid for sin. Why does a baby Christian need any deeper knowledge than this for initial salvation?



Matt, you cannot preach the true Gospel, while simultaneously adding requirements to salvation that are not Biblical requirements.

Salvation is by faith alone, not by faith plus extensively deep knowledge about the Trinity, hypostatic union, penal-substitutionary atonement, hamartiology, etc.

Ironically, this doctrine of "faith + deep theological knowlege" comes dangerously close to denying the Gospel itself, because the Gospel is a doctrine of "faith alone", not "faith + seminary training". Does there have to be an object of that faith? Yes. Must that faith have a content? Certainly. But the object (God) cannot be exhaustively known, and the content (soteriology proper) need not be exhaustively known. Quite to the contrary, a very simple childlike faith will do. And the simple _understanding_ of a child fits very well with the _faith_ of a child.

Instead, you seem to be arguing that the knowledge of an adult theologian is a necessary prerequisite to having the faith of a child. And THAT type of thinking is certainly nonsense!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> For you to leave this article as is on the web is a diservice to the PB and the church. It is a blatant example of why the PB has become so much more narrow than the gospel.







Ironically, it is this hyper-Calvinistic "narrow Gospel" that truly comes very close to denying the Gospel itself.

I repent of believing such things myself. God please forgive me for the similar "narrow Gospel" statements I made on the Puritanboard several months ago. I was wrong! I was sinning!

The Gospel is SIMPLE. Take away its child-like simplicity, and you destroy it.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

Where are you guys getting the idea that Matt has said the level of your Christian/biblical education determines your salvation? Seriously, maybe I aint as learned as you fella's but I aint seein it!

Arminianism is indeed error, and many professing it will not understand most of the "big words" used here, but you know what? I don't always understand all dem dere big words either yet I agree with Matt!

I was in error, I would have been offended if you told me that I was lost and going to Hell when I was in error so lets not approach an Arminian and just flatly state that (and no, I don't think Matt did so in that article). 

But please don't patronize me either. If I am in error please point it out as a brother in Christ and let the chips fall where they may. For some reason NONE of you seem to have trouble doing that when it come to baptism yet let anyone suggest an Arminian dying in that error may not enter the Kingdom and you're up in arms.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



LOL...so he's a dancing Arminian too?!


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



Not that one! The yellow one with the poka-dots.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

Joseph,

Can a person believe that they have the ability to rescue themselves from their lost condition and still have saving faith?

What about believing in your righteousness to save yourself?



> Q72: What is justifying faith?
> A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]
> 
> 1. Heb. 10:39
> ...


Arminians believe that they have the ability to rescue themselves by the almighty power of their free-will.

They also believe that their righteousness is ultimately the deciding factor on if they go to heaven or hell.

An you are saying that these beliefs are compatable with the simple gospel/saving faith?

Since when did trusting Christ Alone become such a deep theological idea?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

We have dealt with the idea of Arminians dying in their sin. Both Jeff and I have stated that we believe to remain in that error (sin) never coming into repentance for it leads one to eternal damnation.

What is beginning to frustrate me are those who want to coddle those in error (or seem to want to) by not being too "mean" or too confrontational just so long as the practicing Arminian professes to believe the truth.

Arminians do NOT believe the truth. Just because they think they do, and profess to, does not make it so. All would agree with that about Mromons or JW's but Arminians get a pass for some reason. Being in error and remaining in error are two different things of course, but I sense some are defending those who forever remain in error and maybe even those who teach it!

Now there is a diservice in my opinion.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> What is beginning to frustrate me are those who want to coddle those in error (or seem to want to) by not being too "mean" or too confrontational just so long as the practicing Arminian professes to believe the truth.



I don't have any problem with being confrontational. I confront Arminians VERY strongly concerning the error of their beliefs. But they are not in error about anything that will send them to hell.

I also confront baptists VERY strongly concerning the error of their beliefs. But does their anti-paedobaptism send them to hell? Of course not. 

My point is this: One can be very confrontational regarding error, WITHOUT necessarily jumping off the deep end and saying that such-and-such an error necessarily condemns a person to hell.

There is a BIG distance between "error" and "condemnation". An Arminian is certainly in error, but not in damnable error.




> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> Arminians do NOT believe the truth. Just because they think they do, and profess to, does not make it so.



On the contrary, I've never heard an Arminian prayer. They all pray like Calvinists! "Oh Lord, please open the heart of my uncle so that he will repent any believe in You . . ." --- They may not consciously "get it", but when they put down their theology books and just simply pray to God, a better belief comes to the surface.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> All would agree with that about Mromons or JW's but Arminians get a pass for some reason.



You are not just comparing apples and oranges . . . you are comparing apples and bunions.

Mormons reject monotheism. This is damning.

JW's reject the deity of Christ. This is damning.


Arminians affirm monotheism.
Arminians affirm the deity of Christ.
Arminians agree that our sin merits eternal punishment.
Arminians agree that we can do nothing to wash away our own sin.
Arminians believe that only Jesus can pay for sin.
Arminians believe that Jesus did pay for sin by His death on Calvary.

Arminians believe enough of the Gospel to be saved. Do they understand it perfectly? No. But then again, we don't understand it perfectly either.

A simple belief in the Gospel is enough.




[Edited on 2-10-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> You are not just comparing apples and oranges . . . you are comparing apples and bunions.
> 
> Mormons reject monotheism. This is damning.
> ...



Nay.

Works righteousness is damning as well.

Rom 11:5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.  

Rom 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

Isn't works righteousness the anathema used by Paul to condemn the Judiazers?

How much works can a person believe get them in before they are damned under your system? 

1% like Billy Graham?

10%?

50%?

99%?

Why do you draw the line where you draw the line? Why not draw the line where scripture does? If a person believes that they save themselves in any way, they do not believe the gospel, and therefore are under the anathema of God.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Nay.
> 
> ...




This is what Dr. R. C. Sproul calls the "blessed inconsistency" of Arminianism. 

If they consciously professed to believe in works salvation, then we would have a real problem.

But everywhere they recognize works salvation, they weed it out, because they agree with us that works salvation is evil doctrine.

They are just unwittingly inconsistent. If they once understood that a piece of their doctrine implies works salvation, then I believe they would abandon it and become Calvinists. In fact, that is just what happens a lot of times!

Arminians do not believe in works salvation. Anywhere they are inconsistent is just a place they haven't been sanctified yet. But that will be taken care of eventually, whether on this side of glory, or at the point of glorification itself.


Again, I challenge you to show me CLEAR _sola fide_ teaching prior to the Reformation. Second hand references from Gill aren't going to cut it. Just because Gill named someone doesn't prove anything. I want you to show me some original quotes, tracing the doctrine of _sola fide_ throughout church history, right up until the Reformation. I have looked for such a thing, and have found it nowhere.

Like I said, Dr. John Hannah of Westminster Theological Seminary flatly told me that a clear doctrine of _sola fide_ did not exist prior to the Reformation. It took the church years to gain clarity on this doctrine, just like it took the church years to gain clarity on the Trinity, hypostatic union, etc.


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 10, 2006)

> Dan said:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...



I'll leave my sister's church out of this and deal only with the "hypothetical fundamental baptist church". That having been said:

No blanket statement necessary. This is the logical conclusion of statements in your article.

In your article you said:



> What does Arminianism teach? Is the "œgod" of Arminianism the God of the Bible? No. Arminius did not plagiarize the bible; instead, he fabricated a brand new deity, or idol, for men to worship. The "œgod" of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible. For Arminius´ "œgod" loves everyone equally, and sent his "œSon" to die for all men equally.....
> 
> Arminius also taught that his "œgod" will not regenerate a sinner who does not first choose "œhim" with his inherent "free will." With Pelagius, Arminius said that all men are inherently free, and have a "free will". The fall of Adam has not rendered them incapable of doing good things. With this will they can either follow "œgod" or not follow "œgod." Yet, at no time will "œgod" ever violate their free will to make them come to "œhim" or change their heart first without their consent to do so. Arminius´ "œgod", then, is at the beck and call of sinners when it comes to their eternal destiny.



Let's say that our "hypothetical" Fundamental Baptist church has a statement of faith, as the official dogma of the church, which states that, "_We believe that faith logically procedes regeneration. God does not regenerate anyone who does not first, out of free will, choose to embrace him._"

Per the quote from your article above, the "god" of any who teach that "will not regenerate a sinner who does not first choose him" is not the God of the Bible.

Hence, the God of said church is not the God of the Bible. Syllogism:

1. Any who teach X, their God is not the God of the Bible.
2. Said church teaches X
*Therefore:* Said church's God is not the God of the Bible.


Next point: In your article you said,


> Worshippers of a different "œgod" and different "œgospel" are not going to be slapped on the wrist and sent to their room in heaven. Rather, they are going to be sent to hell for being idolaters.



Per the above syllogism and this quote, it must follow that those who worship at said church are "going to be sent to hell for being idolaters." Syllogism:

1. "Worshippers of a different "œgod" and different "œgospel" are not going to be slapped on the wrist and sent to their room in heaven. Rather, they are going to be sent to hell for being idolaters."
2. Worshippers at said church are of a different "god" (previous syllogism)
*Therefore:*
Worshippers at said church are "going to be sent to hell for being idolaters."

Next point:
As per Rev 18:4, those who partake with idolators receive of the same plagues as the idolaters, hence:

1. those who partake with idolaters receive of the same plagues as the idolaters
2. To worship at said church with idolaters is to partake with idolaters.
*Therefore* All who would worship in said church will receive the same plagues as the "idolaters" therein.

Sounds to me that we'd better not worship at our "hypothetical" church lest we be in dire straights.

By the way, I have no problem while I am travelling with worshipping with the saints at a Fundamental Baptist Church, but anyone who does agree with the conclusions of Dr McMahon's article should have a problem with worshipping with such a church.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

As I feel at this moment, I would have a problem in that curch.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> This is what Dr. R. C. Sproul calls the "blessed inconsistency" of Arminianism.



I agree! It is inconsistent Pelagianism, not inconsistent Christianity!



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> If they consciously professed to believe in works salvation, then we would have a real problem.



Oh...so if I SAY I believe that 2+2=4, but everytime I add 2+2 I put down 9, it's ok simply because I SAY I believe it? 



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> But everywhere they recognize works salvation, they weed it out, because they agree with us that works salvation is evil doctrine.



They do not. They do not weed out their "free will" do they? If ever there were a more merit based system, it would only be Rome. But then again, Rome is more consistent. At least they suggest salvation is worth alot by saying you have to work really really hard to get it. The Arminians do works salvation a dis-service by suggesting that with the flip of a switch, they can get it.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> They are just unwittingly inconsistent. If they once understood that a piece of their doctrine implies works salvation, then I believe they would abandon it and become Calvinists. In fact, that is just what happens a lot of times!



Just because they believe in salvation by works ignorantly does not excuse their false gospel. I dare you to give me any scriptural evidence that ignorance excuses ANYONE. Joseph, MILLIONS of people will die and go to a real place called HELL for ETERNITY because they are ignorant of God's one true gospel. It does no service to say these people are saved....they need the gospel.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Arminians do not believe in works salvation. Anywhere they are inconsistent is just a place they haven't been sanctified yet. But that will be taken care of eventually, whether on this side of glory, or at the point of glorification itself.



You have no evidence to support this. If you have ever been an arminian, you KNOW that it was ultimately up to you to get yourself into heaven. If you call this act of free will "grace", "works" or a "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" makes no difference, because in the end, you are equivicating, and still believe that your action justifies you....not the righteousness of Christ alone.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Again, I challenge you to show me CLEAR _sola fide_ teaching prior to the Reformation. Second hand references from Gill aren't going to cut it. Just because Gill named someone doesn't prove anything. I want you to show me some original quotes, tracing the doctrine of _sola fide_ throughout church history, right up until the Reformation. I have looked for such a thing, and have found it nowhere.



I linked the entire chapter of Gill's volume where he provides volumes of quotes for you. If you wish me to post them ALL here...let's start a new thread. But this is a side issue anyway.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Like I said, Dr. John Hannah of Westminster Theological Seminary flatly told me that a clear doctrine of _sola fide_ did not exist prior to the Reformation. It took the church years to gain clarity on this doctrine, just like it took the church years to gain clarity on the Trinity, hypostatic union, etc.



Don't believe everything you hear.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't believe everything I hear. That's why I don't believe you.

Dr. Hannah is a renowned scholar in church history, and a committed Calvinist. --- What are your credentials? Why should I take your word on church history over his?


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Don't take my word! Read the people for yourself! Again...I LINKED THE CHAPTER so you can read ALL of the quotes from the Church fathers until your heart's content.

The ball is in your court.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

Joseph,

I have a question. Do you agree with Luther's statement that Justification by Faith Alone is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls is correct?

Did Luther think that the church before his time was non-existent?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 10, 2006)

"What must I do to be saved?"

"Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."


Do I have to know where that faith comes from? 

No.

Do I have to know that I was regenerated before I could have this faith?

No.

Do I have to know the doctrines of grace?

No.

Do I have to know who Jesus died for?

No. Only that He died for you!

Do I have to know that I will never lose my salvation?

No.

Do I have to know I don't have a free will?

No.

Do I have to know how God saves me (eternal decrees, etc)?

No.

Do I have to know that it was not my choice to be saved?

No.

Do I have to know everything there is to know about God?

No.

Do I have to know systematic theology?

No.

Do I have to know church history?

No.

Then what do I have to know?

Jesus. (John 17:3, etc)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

Pastor Way,

It looks to me like you understand the Gospel better than a lot of people on the Puritanboard!



[Edited on 2-10-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 10, 2006)

I have by no means read all the posts in this thread, nor have I yet to read Dr. McMahon's article. But I would say that this is causing more heat than light, and I would suggest that those who are upset by these posts should back off for a bit.

I also do not think it is helpful to talk about who is or who isn't a Christian based upon their knowledge of the gospel. Children have a pretty limited knowledge of the gospel and I believe that God has saved them even at their young age. Just because John the Baptist was regenerate from the womb does not mean he came down to the river at age 5 and started preaching his baptism of repentance.

That said, I think we should turn the discussion away from who is or who isn't a Christian and discuss how much knowledge of the gospel one has to have in order to worship God. And I'm with Pastor Way on this. One has to know they're a sinner and that Christ has come to save sinners. That's a pretty basic thing, but as we are shown in Scripture, there were many who believed at their first hearing of a very basic gospel message, they believed, and then they worshiped. We cannot say that they worshiped a false God because they didn't fully understand the doctrines of grace.

Hoping to add something, instead of detract,

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

Must you believe that you cannot save yourself?

Yes.

Q72: What is justifying faith?
A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]

1. Heb. 10:39
2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
3. Rom. 10:14, 17
4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
5. Eph. 1:13
6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2006)

I think some on the PB have a hard time pinning down what they think the Gospel means, but have emptied it of its content and are confusing certain parts of what makes grace and faith exist or separate. As I said before, I think many are confusing regeneration (sovereign grace that regenerates the heart apart from exercising anything on your behalf) and conversion (knowing a content filled understanding of the Gospel and exercising that assensus, notitia and fiducia).

Again, I still see people trying to pit the straw man of "The Five Points" vs "The Contemporary Church" where I never went there in the article. 

I'm with Adam at this point on what many of you are arguing against on this one - I just ain't seein it!

You cannot have faith in anything devoid of essential meaning, no matter how small in degree. It must have content. Not a Ph.D. You need Gospel CONTENT. As a matter of fact, you need the LAW, a knowledge of GOD the Father, a knowledge of the work of the Son, Sin, the cross, - CONTENT.

Think about this - are you agitated or angry at this paragraph?:

*If I write a an article on the heresy of anti-trinitarianism, and follow Chalcedon, Ephesus and Nicea, would people have a rough time with that? I mean, can you be a Christian and deny the Trinity? How can you know God without knowing Christ without knowing the Trinity? Impossible. Again, to deny it is to fall into a TRINITARIAN heresy. But that seems basic enough. Are you agitated that people must know God, must know the Trinity, must know Jesus (God's Son) to be saved? Those who deny the Trinity are lost. What if you do not know the Father? Well, Jesus says that to know God the Father is to know and vice versa. If one does not know the Trinity, they cannot know God. If they cannot know God, they can't be saved. (Don't get mad at me get mad at Christ, He said it). Those who deny those things or are ignorant of those things in their system of "salvation" are lost. They don't know God. But wait - are you agitated that I said that?* 

If the above bothered you, _then you are simply missing the point of the article I wrote, and you missing the point in that paragraph as well._ You are confusing regeneration (being born again and saved) and conversion. My article was not about regeneration or how that works. My article was about an invalid system of idolatry, and whether one *believes* it or not. Some do. 

The Gospel matters and what Gospel you believe matters. John's Gospel alone uses the term "believe" so many times it unfathomable that one should "know" the Gospel without "believing" it (remember we are talking about faith and conversion, not regeneration - stop confusing your categories.)

Someone said to me today: 

_I can't even believe what your boys are arguing about on the Puritanboard. I mean, its the PURITANboard, and they are angry that you called Arminianism heresy? What is that all about??_

He is a wonderful, loving Southern Baptist brother who believes the doctrines of grace. I'm as confounded as he is on this thread.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> (remember we are talking about faith and conversion, not regeneration - stop confusing your categories.)



There has been no confusion of categories.

The simple Gospel is quite sufficient for both *faith* and *conversion*. 

Arminians affirm monotheism.
Arminians affirm the deity of Christ.
Arminians agree that our sin merits eternal punishment.
Arminians agree that we can do nothing to wash away our own sin.
Arminians believe that only Jesus can pay for sin.
Arminians believe that Jesus did pay for their sin by His death on Calvary.

Arminians believe the Gospel well enough to be saved. Do they understand it perfectly? No. But then again, we don't understand it perfectly either.

A simple belief in the simple Gospel is quite enough for salvation.




By the way, Matt, you are way off-base if you require Chalcedonian-compliant belief in the Trinity in order for someone to be saved. It took the church centuries to work out the doctrine of the Trinity. It is NOT a requirement for salvation.

Early Christians knew that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. But did they really have a clue how it all fit together? Not really. I do not believe that the very early church had a handle on Chalcedonian Trinitarianism. And frankly, most Christians today don't have a handle on it either.

In fact, as I think back on my own thoughts regarding the Trinity a few years ago, I would now say that I used to be a modalist. I used to say, "God is one, but sometimes He shows Himself to us as the Father; sometimes He shows Himself to us as the Son, and sometimes He shows Himself to us as the Holy Spirit." I was certainly in error. But was I therefore unregenerate? Not by a long shot. In my case, God cleared up my Arminian error before He bothered to clear up my Trinitarian error. And I thank Him for rescuing me from both errors! I am now Chalcedonian compliant, as well as TULIP friendly. But neither of those things are what make me a Christian.




I am a Christian for very simple reasons:

1) I believe in monotheism.
2) I believe Jesus is God.
3) I believe I naturally stand condemned by my sin, and that I cannot atone for my own sin.
4) I believe Jesus paid the debt for my sin on the cross.
5) I believe Jesus rose from death.

That's all there is to it. That is a Gospel message that even a little child can understand. And it is perfectly sufficient to save an adult, as well.

*If you believe these simple truths, then you are not only regenerate, but you also have faith, and you have been converted.*


----------



## non dignus (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by non dignus_
> ...



Common grace.

Dr. Matt you are on the right side of history! 

A word of advice to those on the wrong side: 
If Pelagianism is heresy and Arminianism is semi-Pelagianism, you will be on record as compromising with semi-heresy.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 10, 2006)

Matt,

I am not surprised that you do not see it. This is not the first time you have anathemized part of the Body of Christ based on Reformed Theology and the Westminster Confession. Perhaps that is why this is generating so much heat. It has become a noticeable and recurring plank in your belief system. 

If people do not believe your full definition of the gospel then they are damned, even if they are just ignorant and have never been taught. 

That is what is most disturbing though. That you actually thought this out and wrote it and don't see what you said!

The words you chose to communicate your thoughts may reveal more about your own heart than you understand. The way the article is built and framed, it is logically clear that you have said that to deny any part of the Doctrines of Grace is to deny the whole content of the gospel and to worship a false god as an idolater. 

I cannot put it more simply than this. Your article makes belief in TULIP as a whole unit of doctrine necessary to worship the true God and be saved. It replaces Jesus Christ (who is Himself the content of the gospel) with TULIP.

And don't play this smoke and mirror game that is so popular of late - "you are confusing regeneration and conversion." It won't fly. You have made statements in this article that are clear in condemning people to hell who are ignorant of the doctrines of grace. 

KC is right when he writes: "We cannot say that they worshiped a false God because they didn't fully understand the doctrines of grace."

But that is exactly what you have stated in your attack against arminianism. You have gone beyond attacking heresy and have launched a strike against members of the Body of Christ. We do not need any more friendly fire casualties in the battle for the gospel.

Whether you or others see it or not I am saying that this article is an attack on the church and the gospel. Otherwise I would not have given it a second thought.

I am praying that God opens your eyes and that you see what you have written, and repent.


Phillip


----------



## raderag (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> I think some on the PB have a hard time pinning down what they think the Gospel means, but have emptied it of its content and are confusing certain parts of what makes grace and faith exist or separate. As I said before, I think many are confusing regeneration (sovereign grace that regenerates the heart apart from exercising anything on your behalf) and conversion (knowing a content filled understanding of the Gospel and exercising that assensus, notitia and fiducia).



Matthew, I am having a difficult time seeing this as chronologically separated by any significant amount of time. Pehaps I could see this in infancy, but I don't see that there are regenerate Gospel deniers. That just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...



I don't think that is what Matt is suggesting. I think what he means is that the attacks on his article are aimed at defending regeneration (an immediate act of God that requires nothing on our part) while Matt's article is about conversion (mainly the content of faith). 

Even though they most likely happen at the same time for adults, they are still distinct doctrines.

Am I making sense?


----------



## raderag (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...




Sure, I understand that, but the only way we are confusing them is if there are regenerate out there that deny the Gospel.

I think Matthew and Scott are saying that Arminians can be regenerate but usually not converted. Perhaps I misunderstood though...


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> Sure, I understand that, but the only way we are confusing them is if there are regenerate out there that deny the Gospel.
> 
> I think Matthew and Scott are saying that Arminians can be regenerate but usually not converted. Perhaps I misunderstood though...



Depends on how you define "Gospel" doesn't it.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 10, 2006)

> _posted by Jeff_
> I don't think that is what Matt is suggesting. I think what he means is that the attacks on his article are aimed at defending regeneration (an immediate act of God that requires nothing on our part) while Matt's article is about conversion (mainly the content of faith).



So you think Matt is saying that to be converted you have to have as the content of your faith the doctrines of grace?

[Edited on 2-10-06 by pastorway]


----------



## raderag (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



No.


----------



## non dignus (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

> I am a Christian for very simple reasons:
> 
> 1) I believe in monotheism.
> 2) I believe Jesus is God.
> ...



Ok, so there is NO problem if I make my list look like this..(see #3 and #4)

I am a Christian for very simple reasons:

1) I believe in monotheism.
2) I believe Jesus is God.
3) I believe I naturally stand condemned by my sin, and I must act in order to obtain salvation from my sins that Christ awaits for me (and all) to accept
4) I believe Jesus paid the debt for the sins of all who seek Him on the cross.
5) I believe Jesus rose from death.
6) I need never to believe anything else nor is anything else ever required of me.

That's how I once believed. The problem with that was not only #3 but the fact that I went about looking to get others to simply confess the same because of #4 & #6.

Jesus was sort of "out there" with a big stick poking people. Everyone (or most) felt conviction for some sin and all I had to do was point that out and tell the convicted person to "say this prayer". I learned this method from many pastors who preached conviction messages followed by a slow sad song at an alter call and boy was it often effective! I lead many astray I fear I've convinced many that they are saved from their sins who are not.

Some of you are saying I was only in error but truely saved. I have a hard time believing that.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> So you think Matt is saying that to be converted you have to have as the content of your faith the doctrines of grace?



I didn't even want to really enter this discussion beyond reading it, which is why I only posted one brief comment very early-on in the thread in hopes of clearing up a then-potential misunderstanding, which clearly did not work. I honestly can't even believe this thread has gotten as long as it has - mainly because it really seems to me that what is at the heart of at least a lot or most (though maybe not all) of the disagreement is a _very_ basic misunderstanding:

That misunderstanding is, namely, that the above-quoted statement is something supported or suggested by Matt's article, or anything him or most of the other people have said in this thread. Both he and many others here have said repeatedly that what is being referred to as heresy is _the full system of historic Arminianism_, and that if someone's beliefs are truly consistent with _that_ system, they do not understand the Gospel and hence are not converted - but they have also (unsuccesfully, it seems) tried to make it _abundantly_ clear _many_ times that they are not accusing all (or even most) non-Calvinists (even the many who call themselves "Arminians" today) of being in such a state, namely because most of them fortunately do not fully or consistently understand or embrace the whole, actual system of historic Arminianism.

If nothing else, I think everyone needs to at least sit back, cool down and make an increased effort to understand what other people are saying before just typing another umpteenth post.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2006)

Phillip, on this board, you take the prize and are the KING of putting words into people's mouth's that just aren't there.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I am not surprised that you do not see it. This is *not the first time you have anathemized part of the Body of Christ* based on Reformed Theology and the Westminster Confession.



Quote me another. Where did I *anthematize* others that should not be eternally damned?



> If people do not believe your full definition of the gospel then they are damned, even if they are just ignorant and have never been taught.



If you think this, I can't see how you read the article 6 times. Did you have your eyes opened when you read it? I specifically designated three kinds of people that may be under Arminian teaching, and three designations of where people may be at. The Arminians you are trying to protect, don't need your protecting - its a straw man you are belaboring.



> That is what is most disturbing though. That you actually thought this out and wrote it and don't see what you said!



I know exactly what I said, and that is why Chris Blum, for example, our young but very estute brother, saw immediately that I was not saying what you seem to be putting into my mouth. He called it, rightlyfully, a "straw man". Go read his post.



> The words you chose to communicate your thoughts may reveal more about your own heart than you understand. The way the article is built and framed, it is logically clear that you have said that to deny any part of the Doctrines of Grace is to deny the whole content of the gospel and to worship a false god as an idolater.



The Scriptures I quoted, tell me, which ones don't apply to the Gospel? Phillip, I can't even believe you are defending Arminianism. Really. Its amazing. I'm amazed.



> I cannot put it more simply than this. Your article makes belief in TULIP as a whole unit of doctrine necessary to worship the true God and be saved. It replaces Jesus Christ (who is Himself the content of the gospel) with TULIP.



This is what seems to be a problem, 1) I never mentioned TULIP, I simply mentioned and explained aspects of the Gospel that people seem to think are not the Gospel. Those who think so need to turn into real redation critics and they needs to cut out of thier bibles those things that don't apply to the Gospel. i'd like to see your bible's when they are finsihed. 2) You are DIS-equating the Gospel with TULIP. I can't see how a Christian who believes the doctrines of Grace could do that. (Although that has no bearing on the article at all).



> And don't play this smoke and mirror game that is so popular of late - "you are confusing regeneration and conversion." It won't fly. You have made statements in this article that are clear in condemning people to hell who are ignorant of the doctrines of grace.



You are confusing them and you are mistaking what sovereign grace is for what people actually hold in belief. They are not the same. Its not smoke an dmirrors, its BASIC STUFF that Dordt already outlined.



> KC is right when he writes: "We cannot say that they worshiped a false God because they didn't fully understand the doctrines of grace."



Where did I say or not say this anywhere in the article?



> But that is exactly what you have stated in your attack against arminianism.



Quote me exactly.



> You have gone beyond attacking heresy and have launched a strike against members of the Body of Christ.



No, actually, I said exactly what Ness said, what Leighton said, what Edwards said, what Owen said, what the Synod fo Dordt said....do I really need to remimnd the naysayers in this thread that they are going against everything the church has said about heresy for 500 years? Are you guys really going to jump on THAT side of the fence? Huh? 



> I am saying that this article is an attack on the church and the gospel. Otherwise I would not have given it a second thought.



So you are saying that the Reformed Faith has basically attacked the church and the Gospel in reguarding Arminianism as heresy for the last 500 years, and Pelagianism as heresy for the last 1800 years? Are you _really_ saying that?

I'm not shocked easily. I am shocked in reading through this whole thread again. How ANYONE Christian could wink at heresy is beyond me. Please, read through the Synod of Dordt and thier descriptions of Arminianism. If you repudiate the artile, you repudiate the Synod's conclusions as well, and the very reason the Gospel was protected at that time FROM heresy.

Do you think this is the Gospel or not:

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ´s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: "œHe that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, "œFor God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: "œAnd he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article 3

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, incli9nation, 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."

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neiÂther think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasÂmuch as it is written conÂcerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elseÂwhere in many places.

Article 5

That those who are inÂcorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well unÂderstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ´s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: "œNeither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivÂered them, of losing a good conscience, of beÂcoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, beÂfore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

If you think these are "OK" then you fit right in with these guys.

Are there any others hwo think Arminianism is heresy? Thankfully:

From the Apologetics Group
http://apologeticsgroup.com
A Display of Arminianism by John Owen - This was Owen's first publication (1642) and immediately brought him into notice. It contains numerous useful charts contrasting Arminian doctrines, from some of their major teachers, with those of Scripture (Calvinism) in a side-by-side format. *Owen leaves no room for compromise with Arminianism as he shows why this is, when sincerely believed, a dangerous, devilish and damnable heresy!*

Monergism has the same thing on thier site.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/displayarninian.html

The Highway
http://www.the-highway.com/arminianismTOC_Ness.html
An easy to read, but totally devastating attack against the heresy of Arminianism.
Recommended reading by John Owen, John Gill, and Augustus Toplady

Crown Rights
http://crownrights.com/store/produc...id=45&osCsid=39a3f4b49d264ab3698db048b6291697
Of the seventeenth-century Puritans, John Owen was by far the most influential. His defences of the Reformed faith were so articulate and precise that they stand unrefuted even to this day. In this volume, Owen meticulously exposes from the Scriptures the heresy of Arminianism, or Semi-Pelagianism, and shows that its doctrine of free will stands opposed to the biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

Reformednet.org
http://reformednet.org/refnet/admin/refnet.htm
The Reformed Churches have Already rejected some of the now prevalent Heresies and Mis-Guided Teachings.
The Heresy of Arminianism: the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) where the largest Reformed church synod, composed of members from various countries, declared Arminianism to be heresy,

Is Arminianism a damnable heresy?
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/pribble/damnable.html
OPC pastor Stephen Pribble says, along with Dordt...
"Having been condemned by the Synod of Dordrecht (Dort) in 1618-1619, Arminianism is indeed a heresy,..."

At the Spurgeon Archives, Spurgeon says:
"And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer?"
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
James White quotes Spurgeon against Arminianism with this same sermon here: http://www.aomin.org/huntvsspurgeon.html

The PRCA website has it numerous times in relation to the Synod of Dordt"
This is the old heresy of Arminianism.
http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/chapter4.html

Herman Hanko says:
At the time when (and up to the time of the meeting of the Synod of Dordt) the State was in the hands of men who favored Arminianism, or at least did not think the entire matter of Arminius' heresy was sufficiently important to create trouble about it in the Church. The result was that Arminius was appointed with the blessing of the State.
http://spindleworks.com/library/brj/brj_nov_99_dort.htm

Gilbertus Voetis
http://vbru.club.fr/src/theologiens/voetius.htm
But the Reformed faith was being threatened by a growing attachment of many ministers and leaders to the evil heresy of Arminianism.

Christian Doctrine
http://www.christiandoctrine.net/about/beliefs_web.htm
"This belief is based on the fact that charismaticism is rooted in the heresy of Arminianism, which directly contradicts God's stated plan of salvation..."

There are so many sites that say this, I can't imagine that you would think I said anything contrary to what even Spurgeon said.

I mean, do I have to list all the greats of church history here? Are you fathoming who openly declared Arminianism as heresy? Entire Confessional documents were written against it. 

Please, ask me to make a list for you and I will......


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > I am a Christian for very simple reasons:
> ...




Adam,

Actually the #3 and #4 you added are _true_!

It is true that you must act in order to obtain salvation from your sins.
It is true that the outward call is given to all --- Everyone who hears the Gospel is outwardly called to accept.
It is true that Jesus paid the debt for the sins of all who seek Him on the cross.

But there is _more_ knowledge needed to explain these truths in a Calvinistic way:

1) A person must learn that their initial act was a _result_ of regeneration, not the cause of it.

2) A person must learn that there is an inward call, not just an outward call.

3) A person must learn that they never would have sought Jesus on the cross, without first being regenerated.


All of these things are important, but none of them is a critical part of the Gospel . . . a person can be saved without knowing these things.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



THANK YOU BROTHER! Maybe they will hear you(?)!


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> I mean, do I have to list all the greats of church history here? Are you fathoming who openly declared Arminianism as heresy? Entire Confessional documents were written against it.
> 
> Please, ask me to make a list for you and I will......



Write a book! I'd buy it in a heartbeat! 

It seems the church needs constant reminders of where we have been, and the battles we have alread fought...and won (or at least we thought we won).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 10, 2006)

Adam, I'll ultimately let Matt speak for himself on this, but frankly, I think you're going beyond what he intended to say in the current article or anywhere else - and you're _certainly_ going beyond what the vast majority of historic Calvinists have said on this issue.

As Jeff noted well above, the Westminster Standards (being one of the representative documents of historic Reformed belief), in defining saving faith do indeed posit a required knowledge that one does not possess the complete ability to wholly redeem himself, and thus that a works-based Gospel cannot save. But you seem to be suggesting that any form of a persistent belief in _anything_ less than historic Calvinism is one-and-the-same with works-righteousness Gospel, which simply does not hold water logically or biblically, and is _certainly_ not supported by the great majority of historic Reformed confessions and theologians.

Remember that George Whitefield replied to his pupils who asked him if he thought he would see Wesley in Heaven by saying no, because Wesley would be too close to the throne of God! And Whitefield is but one example of the like-minded pastors and teachers throughout Reformed history.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

> 1) A person must learn that their initial act was a result of regeneration, not the cause of it.
> 
> 2) A person must learn that there is an inward call, not just an outward call.
> 
> ...



Ok, a person has been "saved" lets say for 50 years. Upon his death bed he's heard these things but rejected them. He still believes

1) That he sought out Christ for salvation because God would never interfere with his free will.

2) He believes he had an "inward" call because he decided to hear/accept it while others simply do not.

3) He believes that he sought Christ because he was smart enough to realize he needed to heed the Spirits call instead of reject or fight it.

A person who dies in that state...was he ever saved?


----------



## raderag (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > 1) A person must learn that their initial act was a result of regeneration, not the cause of it.
> ...



I have said it before, but reductionism and theology are a very bad mix. Furthermore, odd examples do not make good systematic theology.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

It's not an odd example to me. I know *MANY* who believe this way. If not for the grace of God I still would.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 10, 2006)

Chris,

First, I just want to say I appreciate the posts you have made on this thread in trying to recognize fallacious reasoning. I just happened to see a couple of things in your last post that I wanted to comment on.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> As Jeff noted well above, the Westminster Standards (being one of the representative documents of historic Reformed belief), in defining saving faith do indeed posit a required knowledge that one does not possess the *complete * ability to *wholly * redeem himself, and thus that a works-based Gospel cannot save.



This may be just nit-picking, but for clarifications sake I wanted to comment on the underlined portion of your quote (and especially the bolded words). Interpreting the WLC in these words seem to allow for a synergistic view point that the WLC explicitly does not allow for. The answer says that a belief in the "*disability*" of himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition. As a part of justifying faith, this necitates a belief in total depravity as prerequisite (or part of even) the gospel. I am not saying that a person must believe all five points to be a christian. Not at all. But I am suggesting that they must believe this one, and I think the catechism agrees with this line of thinking.

Here is just one substantiating point to defend what I have said:

See A Puritan Quiz. Here's the relevant question:



> 4. The Puritans would agree that a person could be saved without believing and apprehending the Doctrine of Total Depravity. TRUE FALSE



What answer is given?



> 4. The Puritans would agree that a person could be saved without believing and apprehending the Doctrine of Total Depravity. *FALSE*





> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But you seem to be suggesting that any form of a persistent belief in _anything_ less than historic Calvinism is one-and-the-same with works-righteousness Gospel, which simply does not hold water logically or biblically, and is _certainly_ not supported by the great majority of historic Reformed confessions and theologians.



Like you said, I will let Adam speak for himself, but I do not see him saying that. What I do see him saying is that Arminians (who reject total depravity and believe their free will saves them) are not saved.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Remember that George Whitefield replied to his pupils who asked him if he thought he would see Wesley in Heaven by saying no, because Wesley would be too close to the throne of God! And Whitefield is but one example of the like-minded pastors and teachers throughout Reformed history.



Just to be fair on this, Augustus Toplady, another staunch Calvinist during the exact same era had violent exchanges with Wesley which included Wesley saying to Toplady's Calvinist God "If that is your God, then He's my devil!" Needless to say, Toplday did not consider Arminians as brothers. Read several of his works on APM, including Arminianism, The Road to Rome and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Thanks again for your posts Chris.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

> Like you said, I will let Adam speak for himself, but I do not see him saying that. What I do see him saying is that Arminians (who reject total depravity and believe their free will saves them) are not saved.





[Edited on 2-11-2006 by houseparent]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 10, 2006)

It is one thing to call out the wolf in sheep's clothing and confute his error. It is another thing, entirely, to say that all of the sheep in his particular flock are following him to hell in that error.

We need to be careful here. Again, we're talking about who is saved and who isn't. In my humble opinion, we may be quite surprized on judgment day as to who God has saved in spite of our reservations. Remember, he saves. And where the seed has fallen, some bring forth 30, some 60, and some 100 fold. I think that should tell us that the Spirit does not impart to all of Christ's disciples the same amount of understanding. But we should see that it is the quality of understanding, not the quantity. I am sure we'll see John Wesley in glory. I have no doubt in my mind about this. Did he err? Of course. But can anyone say he was not saved? If one does, one should be judged in the same way he has judged.

I think we're talking above our paygrade here!

It is one thing to show an error for what it is. It is competely different to judge a group of people for where God has them even now. He has them in His hand and He put them there, if they are there. We didn't put them there, and their own level of understanding about God did not put them there.

I think we should abandon this discussion for now. I don't think it is helping. Please consider these things carefully. We do not need to rush to judgment on something that, frankly, God does not need our help in adjudicating.

Suffice it to say that Arminianism is in error. But we go too far when we claim that some darkness is too dark in which God might save someone. May I remind all that the confession says too, that churches are a mixture of truth and error, and that there have been times of darkness as well as light. But, drawing a line in the sand is not going to help anyone. Proclaim the truth as the Scriptures do. But leave it to God by His Spirit to convince, rebuke, exhort, and perfect.

Please consider carefully.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 10, 2006)




----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Matt,
> 
> ...If people do not believe your full definition of the gospel then they are damned, even if they are just ignorant and have never been taught....


You know what Philip? When you post in other forums that you lament the way people communicate on this board I take you at face value.


> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I would suggest asking questions to figure out if the person is understanding the arguments put forth. It is basic communication 101. Ask questions to clarify.
> 
> Instead many assume as soon as they see that youy have a different take that you don't get it or understand and immediately move to burn the straw man.
> ...


Which is the real you?

I've been biting my tongue on a number of forums for a long time concerning your posts. I am a man with much passion but I also repent of my sin when my passion takes me too far. You regularly post things that I would consider quite sanctimonious. I've been trying to be patient with you because we have diverse views on some controversial subjects and I very much want us to get along, perhaps even be friendly toward one another, and not just love each other, as Christ commands, while having to grit our teeth to do it.

Let me quote myself:


> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 1. I think we need to be a bit more charitable to Matt's intentions. He's talking about a system of doctrine and not people. I know this really rubs people the wrong way and many of you know that I'm not the type to cast a ton of people beyond the pale. *How many people have you met in Reformed Churches and elsewhere that have a faulty view of the Trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ? I can even grant that some of those people are saved until they fully embrace a Trinitarian error. Don't push what he's trying to say too far. *It probably wouldn't float too well in most Evangelical circles because they can't read between the lines but I was trying to do so and give him the benefit of the doubt.


From Matt's own hands:


> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Think about this - are you agitated or angry at this paragraph?:
> 
> *If I write a an article on the heresy of anti-trinitarianism, and follow Chalcedon, Ephesus and Nicea, would people have a rough time with that? I mean, can you be a Christian and deny the Trinity? How can you know God without knowing Christ without knowing the Trinity? Impossible. Again, to deny it is to fall into a TRINITARIAN heresy. But that seems basic enough. Are you agitated that people must know God, must know the Trinity, must know Jesus (God's Son) to be saved? Those who deny the Trinity are lost. What if you do not know the Father? Well, Jesus says that to know God the Father is to know and vice versa. If one does not know the Trinity, they cannot know God. If they cannot know God, they can't be saved. (Don't get mad at me get mad at Christ, He said it). Those who deny those things or are ignorant of those things in their system of "salvation" are lost. They don't know God. But wait - are you agitated that I said that?*


In other words he IS talking about a system of doctrine, Arminianism, that leads people in a bad direction.

When are _*YOU*_ going to apply Communications 101 principles. I've been leading men and women for over 18 years. A primary maxim is to _Lead by Example_. If you want others to apply grace on this forum then you ought to begin by leading others in that direction. I see no grace exhibited by you toward Matt, a real brother sitting in front of you. Instead, you exhibit concern for hypothetical brothers that you are sure are offended and led astray but cannot produce a single case of actual harm that his article has produced. 

Further, you are unwilling, apparently, to *let Matt speak for himself* as to what the article *actually means to him*. How about you say, "Please explain this to me Matt because I don't want to jump to conclusions...." Instead you jumped into a full-orbed condemnation and when Matt finally expressed his real motives you would not accept them. You repeatedly use STRAW MAN arguments completely twisting what he said. There I USED THE WORD because you are being very uncharitable.

If you truly want to help Matt then begin by accepting Matt's intentions and quit ascribing to him false motives and, by extension, accusing him of bearing false witness. THEN demonstrate to him how he might get his intent across with better words. Instead, I see you focusing on Matt's thoughts as if you can divine what he intends. I can get on board with some of you concern regarding how it is crafted and might be received. What I find fault with is that you are using the very method you condemn in others to condemn Matt.

So I say to you, that it is not everyone on this board, excluding Philip M. Way, that needs to learn a bit of brotherly love, lonsuffering, and charity. I think you need to consider your own words and be convicted by them. You are among those who contribute to the poisonous mood of this forum and need to repent of your pride in this matter.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2006)

Kevin,

Heresy breeds children. Though I didn't ever make a blanket statement that all the disciples of a heretic are necessarily heretics in that article, we would have to admit that Jesus actually did.

Matthew 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Christ was angry at them because He knew heresy breeds children that are even worse than the former. A false teacher creates worse chidlren becaue all they know is the heresy and believe it to be true.


Maybe a more helpful paper should be written as to why Arminianism is Pelgianism repackaged. Would we all have a problem with Pelagianism?

The Synod said in RE 2:3 - That Arminius and the Remonstrants "summon back from hell the Pelagian error." 

That seems a bit harsh eh? According to Phillip, these men are waging war against, not only the church, but the Gospel too!

They said that Arminianism:

"deceive(s) the simple" (Rejection of Errors 1:1)
"is an invention of the human brain" (RE 1:2)
is a "pernicious error" (RE 1:3)
"smacks of Pelagius" (RE 1:4)
"runs counter to the entire Scripture" (RE 1:5, 3:4)
is "gross error" (RE 1:6)
"militate(s) against the experience of the saints"
"is contrary to Scripture" (RE 2:1)
"contradict(s) Scripture" (RE 2:4)
"attempt(s) to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism." (RE 2:6)
"contradict(s) the apostle" and "contradict(s) the Savior" (RE 2:7)
"is an insult to the wisdom of God " (RE 3:1)
"are opposed to the plain testimonies of Scripture" (RE 4:4)
" this teaching is entirely Pelagian and contrary to the whole of Scripture" (RE 3:7)
"the early church already condemned this doctrine long ago in the Pelagians," (RE 3:9)
"this view is obviously Pelagian" (RE 5:2)
"nullifies the very grace of justification and regeneration " (RE 5:3)

Listen closely, those who are for defending Arminianism, to what the council concluded:

"That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, with its associated points, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads the minds of men away from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally pierces many with darts both of despair and security; that this same doctrine makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes. And conversely that, in this Reformed doctrine of predestination, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that this same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestined the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them." And they go on to suggest many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge but detest with their whole soul.

Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, entreats as many as reverently call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to judge the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the slander which on every side is heaped upon it, nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted and taken to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from this declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod. Moreover, the Synod warns slanderers themselves to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak, and for laboring to render suspect the society of the truly faithful. 

Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father's right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth; bring to the truth those who err; shut the mouths of the slanderers of sound doctrine, and endow the faithful ministers of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. Amen."

Edit in:

Thanks Rich for that last post. 

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

I'm sure someone has noted this, but there has been a problem of definitions here - of what is an Arminian. To put a new spin on a stale metaphor - going to an Arminian church does not make one an Arminian any more than going to McDonald's makes one a hamburger.* 

_If_ an Arminian is someone who believes the Arminian doctrine, then it seems that Arminians are heretics - and bound for hell if they never reform. But if an Arminian is someone who is a member of an Arminian church (and this is the most common use of the term), then not all Arminians are heretics. Indeed, some Arminians (maybe most) do not believe all the heretical doctrines of Arminianism.

Not all Jews are Jews at heart. Not all who claim the WCF truly believe it. 

As it often is the case, much hinges on what definition you are using. 

...

Now I'm going to find a hamburger. :bigsmile:

*P.S. The stale metaphor is pretty bad because I think in most cased, we _do_ mean people who are members of Arminian churches when we say someone is an Arminian. So please take that bad pun with a heavy dose of salt and french fries. (Yes I really am hungry). 

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 10, 2006)

For the record, my scant remarks were not directed at Dr. McMahon's articles, but was a general statement in light of some comments that followed.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 10, 2006)

> Both he and many others here have said repeatedly that what is being referred to as heresy is *the full system of historic Arminianism*, and that if someone's beliefs are truly consistent with that system, they do not understand the Gospel and hence are not converted - but they have also (unsuccesfully, it seems) tried to make it abundantly clear many times that they are not accusing all (or even most) non-Calvinists (even the many who call themselves "Arminians" today) of being in such a state, namely because most of them fortunately do not fully or consistently understand or embrace the whole, actual system of historic Arminianism.



The article doesn't say that one must hold "the full system of Arminianism" to be worshipping a false God. Rather the article implies that to hold any *one* of certain particular doctrines is to worship a false god:



> For Arminius´ "œgod" loves everyone equally, and sent his "œSon" to die for all men equally. This "œgod" did not decree the salvation of anyone in particular, and "œthe Christ" of Arminianism did not die for anyone in particular. Instead Arminius´ "œgod" decreed and his "œchrist" died for making a "œway" of salvation.
> 
> ***********************************************
> 
> ...






One can hold one or more of the above, yet not hold to all of them. For example, Dave Hunt. Dave Hunt is not a full Arminian. He does not hold the "_the full system of historic Arminianism_" (he does not believe one can fall from grace), but he does hold portions of it. For what you are saying to be true, then Dave Hunt should be exempt from this article, right? No so....



> This aberration and deviancy is found in the preaching, teaching and books of such popular authors as....*Dave Hunt*,....many other "œlime light" (but sorely misguided and misinformed) preachers of today.



Now I wouldn't give two pennies for anything from the pen of Dave Hunt (the copy of his book that I have I received for free from a friend). Moreover, Dave Hunt openly refers to Calvinism as a false gospel and teaches that Calvinists who have always been Calvinists are not saved. By claiming that the true gospel is a false gospel, I seriously doubt that he can be considered a believer (yet I leave it to the orthodox church to officially call him to the plate).

However, my point here is that Dave Hunt does not hold "the full system of Arminianism," yet he is included in this article as one who is worshipping the false "god" of Arminianism.

It is implied by this article that if you, with understanding, hold any *one* of the doctrines that I quoted above from the article, then you are following a false "god" and will be suffer God's wrath. If this is not what Dr. McMahon is saying, then someone please correct me. I'd like to believe that Dr. McMahon is refering specifically to full Arminianism, but the way the article is written, it appears that 95% or more of fundamental baptist churches are worshipping a false "god". Dr. McMahon, please correct me, but I don't see how does not necessarily follow. If it is specifically "the full sytem of Arminianism" being refered to, then maybe you should consider writing that into the article so it is abundantly clear, because, considering the length of this thread, it is not clear to many of us. 

Thanks.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

Matt,

Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism _ to his grave _ is bound for hell? 

Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates? 

If I have the order correct, the elect _will_ eventually become regenerate. And some present Arminians may be elect and will eventually be corrected in their false beliefs by God's grace, but while they really believe Arminianism, they are not yet regenerate.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Matt,
> 
> Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism _ to his grave _ is bound for hell?
> ...



After a 14 hour shift I believe I can still answer the above accurately:



> Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism _ to his grave _ is bound for hell?



Yes!



> Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates?



Yes!

Only truth can set one free. The above will only damn. Blindness is still in place............

Regeneration allows for sight. It is possible that there are some people holding to a false theology that Gods spirit will free them of eventually, once regenerated. Once the truth is brought to light, conversion will take place. The elect will not carry the error to their grave!

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God......


[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Kevin,
> 
> Heresy breeds children. Though I didn't ever make a blanket statement that all the disciples of a heretic are necessarily heretics in that article, we would have to admit that Jesus actually did.
> ...



Yet, we know that those who are truly born again, and truly saved will not be a son of darkness, but of light. Now, I will not say that all who sit in Arminian churches being taught error are sons of darkness. I just won't. I was there. So was Spurgeon. I will not say that my conversion only came about 5 or 6 years ago, because it is simply not true. I was converted when I learned that Jesus was to be my master, and I His disciple. And that happened almost 30 years ago. Did I know truth? Absolutely. Was I taught error? Absolutely. But to lump me in with the sons of satan because I believed what I was taught, all the while holding to some of the same truths I still do, is not even close to accurate. God had his hand on Paul's life long before he became a disciple of Christ. Do you think he was taught pernicious errors? Do you think he was a son of satan?

There is too much dogma in this for me, and I will bow out now. I will not have part in this because it is going too far. Please reconsider. This is the beginning of hyper-calvinism. I know because I have seen it before.

The ultimate conclusion to this is that only Calvinists are saved and excuse me, gentleman, but that is just wrong. Not only do you exclude every saint from the OT, but you have taken out a fair portion of godly men and women who truly believed that Christ saved them.

You're painting with too broad a brush, I think. Again, no one is saying Arminianism is right, or that those who propagate its tenets are without fault. But condemning all that are under its teaching is wrong.

May I also say that we who are without error should by all means hurl theological stones. What have we that we have not received?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 10, 2006)

So Scott...your thoughts on Wesley?



[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2006)

> Not only do you exclude every saint from the OT, but you have taken out a fair portion of godly men and women who truly believed that Christ saved them.



Kevin,
I appreciate what you are saying. For the life of me, I have no idea where you have come to the conclussion that holding to this idea excludes the OT saint??? The elect OT saint held to these truths. All Matt is saying is that if you hold to Arminianism, in the clinical senses, you cannot be 'godly'; at least in the way you believe.

All for now.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> > Both he and many others here have said repeatedly that what is being referred to as heresy is *the full system of historic Arminianism*, and that if someone's beliefs are truly consistent with that system, they do not understand the Gospel and hence are not converted - but they have also (unsuccesfully, it seems) tried to make it abundantly clear many times that they are not accusing all (or even most) non-Calvinists (even the many who call themselves "Arminians" today) of being in such a state, namely because most of them fortunately do not fully or consistently understand or embrace the whole, actual system of historic Arminianism.
> ...


Dan,

Great example of a gracious critique. The method of presentation is certainly debatable. I appreciate the tenor of your post.

For what it's worth, I do think that we need to distinguish here between actual people, who are more or less Arminians, and saying they are consigned to hell and criticizing each point of Arminianism and showing that it is false according to what Scripture teaches.

Many people are interpreting the article in this light: "Dr. McMahon says that each point of Arminianism is idol worship point by point. I know John who holds to that view or I know C.S. Lewis who holds to that view. Matt is saying they are idol worshippers and hell bound or in hell already."

Perhaps they could interpret it in this light: "Dr. McMahon is calling each tenet of Arminianism a form of idol worship. Does he make a compelling case that it presents a false view of God that can have soteriological consequences? If so, then like the Trinity, some people miss the boat but can be saved in spite of it. Most people don't know enough to be full-orbed heretics in any one doctrine so this tells them: 'Hey, that's hot, NO TOUCHY!'"

Both are inferences that can be drawn from Matt's article. One has caused this reaction:





while the other has caused this reaction:





I don't agree with all the conclusions of those who support the tenor of the article, but I tend to take the latter approach to the article rather than the former. If I thought he was consigning all partial practioners of Arminianism to the abyss then I would be as vocal as others. I also attend a Southern Baptist Church with many who, more or less, are confused by the teaching. I'm there because I consider them brothers and want to help them and prevent the damage that some of those doctrines inflict on the sheep.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2006)

I have no Idea about Wesley; God will judge him as he will me. I do know that if anyone holds to Arminian theology on thier deathbed, that person outwardly denies the Christ of the scriptures as the god of Arminianism is at odds with Gods word and promises.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Thanks you Scott. 

I hope Matt will answer the two questions as unequivocally as you have.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 10, 2006)

> _posted by Dan...._
> the way the article is written, it appears that 95% or more of fundamental baptist churches are worshipping a false "god".



Dan in his selection of quotes shows what I have been saying the whole time. The way the article is written - and based on previous articles and posts and emails from Matt McMahon - he makes the case that to be saved and to be worshipping the true God one must be holding to the whole of calvinism and none of arminianism. I mean good grief, I have heard Chuck Swindoll preach on predestiniation, election, irresistible grace, perseverance, and total depravity - and yet he is listed as one leading the church in worship of a false god!! He is labelled a false prophet, the blind leading the blind!!



> _posted by KC_
> Please reconsider. This is the beginning of hyper-calvinism. I know because I have seen it before.
> 
> You're painting with too broad a brush, I think. Again, no one is saying Arminianism is right, or that those who propagate its tenets are without fault. But condemning all that are under its teaching is wrong.



Exactly KC. Exactly.

As for accusations about my own motives or words - if I did not love Matt I would not have said anything. If this is seen a uncharitable I am sorry that people in the church do not know how to confront error that encroaches upon the very content of the gospel. I am ashamed the elders in the Body of Christ stand by and allow this kind of stuff to be written without a challange. And to stand up for the simple pure GOSPEL of Jesus Christ and be labelled a heresy defender, that takes the cake.

Many of us have seen the slide in this direction for several years now. Each new article and each new thread reveals more of the truth about what Matt has come to believe. And there is apparently nothing we can do to stop it or challenge it without acquiring a label that discredits all we have written in debate. 

Hence many, many godly and good men and women have left this forum and resigned as members and moderators and I as an administrator. It is simply too much to be identified with the leanings of this forum and further even worse to see those you love enclose themselves in a system of theology that limits the gospel and cuts the church off at the knees. It is sad beyond words.

So, as the newly crowned king of putting words into people's mouth's, as the knight appointed for the uncharitable defense of arminianism and other various Christ denying heresies, and as the Jester in the Court suppossedly winking at that which denies the gospel itself, I bid you all good bye.


Phillip

[Edited on 2-11-06 by pastorway]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _posted by Dan...._
> ...


That is very sad.

I wish you would acknowledge your own failings even as you rightly criticize errors in others.

There's baggage here from a history past that I was not a part of but the evidence of it is unmistakable. It is hard for me to take this resignation as a credible critique of the board when I've seen you lament mean-spritedness in others and then display it unrepentantly to others. Neverytheless, I do wish you well and think you've probably made a good choice. If you've gotten to the point where you can no longer say "Peace" to some brothers then it probably is time for you to leave.

I don't see the slipperly slope to hyper-Calvinism while I acknowledge that there are some on this forum who have such leanings or leanings in other imperialistic directions. I take the good with the bad.

Good bye and God Bless You in your ministry. I pray you will bless your congregation with Godly, humble service to His Glory.


In Christ's Love,

Rich

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2006)

Dan,

The article does work on a couple of levels. First and foremost, I think it is quite obvious, even from the quotes you gave, than in outlining simple Arminianism as Arminius taught, it very blatant to the lead in on every paragraph with, "œArminius also taught"¦" In the beginning of the article, if you note, I directed people to his works published by Baker Book House. So the outline of "œwhat Arminius" taught is very blatant. The article is directed toward 1) the history of Arminianism, 2) Arminius´ teachings, and then those who, today, follow some of his ideas. If you notice, I was very careful to continually depend on Arminius´ ideas for the content of his theology, though I specifically did not quote him on purpose. I did not want to weigh the lay reader down with a "œscholarly paper", rather, a more practical paper. It leads to "œwhat do you believe "“ are you thinking like Arminius thought?"

I also agree with you that people (most) do not hold to all of Arminius´ tenants. As a matter of fact, most contemporary theology is an aberration of what Arminius taught, what Pelagius taught, and lots of liberalism affected by the Enlightenment. Dave Hunt is a good example, along with some of the others mentioned, because they follow critical portions, knowingly, and publicly, of Arminius´ teachings. 

No one following any of the tenants of Arminius is exempt from the article. Its point is to ruffle their feathers to think about how much or how little they will follow Arminius´ "œgod." 

It would probably be helpful to write another article that deals with how we change or reinterpret the Doctrine of God as Christians, and thus fall into idolatry. For some reason, it seems, we are not so concerned about the first commandment as much as we are not committing adultery or not lying. But unless our theology is perfect, then we have to wonder how deviant our view of God actually is. Even there, that is a scary thought. Arminius not only deviated from orthodoxy, but delivered false doctrine. If we hold to, say, a deviant idea that is not essential, that is error. Holding a deviant idea that is essential (like salvation) is heresy. Dordt, in no unconditional terms, called both Pelagianism and Arminianism heresy. Using their words - Arminius and the Remonstrants "summon back from hell the Pelagian error." Dave Hunt, in follow Arminius in much of his theology is also deviant on those issues, though he is an inconsistent Arminian, not an inconsistent Christian in that regard, by holding to Perseverance. 

If one holds to one tenant of something that overthrows salvation, then there is a serious problem for that overthrows the whole of salvation. But in the discussion one must differentiate the difference between regeneration and God saving an individual in an Arminian church, where, with Kevin, I would certainly say that person is saved, with their exercise of faith and what they actually have faith in, which could come to fruition over a long period or even years as they learn more about Christ. That is why I was VERY explicit in the end of the article to warn the reader. I even said "œthese Arminians, if we can call them that"¦" That was specifically because of the degrees of those people (I wouldn´t even call them Arminian) who are regenerated and changed under the Word (the reading of the word in an Arminian church) and then come to faith later. I too, along with you and Spurgeon and lots of other people, were converted under Arminian and liberal preaching in spite of the preaching, but in light of read WORD OF GOD. 

So those in camp #3, which I pointed out, the hard core Arminians like hunt who may have inconsistent Arminians according to Arminius, but are Arminian according to most of the tenants of that heresy, are propagating and believing it, and that will damn them. As Anthony rightly said "“ you are a hamburger just because you go to McDonalds. However, you are a hamburger if you are cut from a cow and served up as a beef patty. Hunt, for example, is cut from the same cow that the Remonstrants were.

Anthony asked:



> Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?



Yes. If Dave Hunt dies in his unbelief, and continues to worship a false god, he will go to hell if he does not repent. 



> Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates?



Biblically, someone who believes and has given themselves over to a false theological system is damned. Paul is explicit about this in Galatians 1:8-9. They are not only unregenerate, but God says in 1 Thess. 2 and in Kings under the "œlying spirits" that He sent them a delusion to believe a lie.



> If I have the order correct, the elect will eventually become regenerate. And some present Arminians may be elect and will eventually be corrected in their false beliefs by God's grace, but while they really believe Arminianism, they are not yet regenerate.



Maybe, but not necessarily. I would agree with your first sentence. The elect will become regenerate and justified. Some present Arminians may be unregenerate and may come to faith and reject their Arminianism. Others may be converted in an Arminian church, may not "œreally" be Arminian, although they are simply abused sheep. As with a Roman Catholic church, so in an Arminian church, if they are converted, God will rescue them. For example, John Wesley (not Charles) told Whitefield that "œYour God is my devil." If he believed that to the grave, he is in hell. John was known for cutting up big portions of Edwards´ sermons as they came to England and republishing them because he hated the God Edwards´ served and preached about. I pray he repented of it.


Kevin,



> The ultimate conclusion to this is that only Calvinists are saved and excuse me, gentleman, but that is just wrong.



I don´t think anyone is saying that at all. That, I think, is where others are getting heated for no reason.

I´m also not condemning all those under that teaching. That is certainly not what I said, or what the article says. 

I would though ask what kind of leeway Christ gave the Pharisees. Could ti be that the Jews taught under the Pharisees that some were saved? Could it be that of those they taught that some were regenerate? Could it be that some of the "œunknowing" sheep of God´s pasture were converted by hearing the Word of God read to them in the synagogue even thought the Pharisees where teaching heresy and blind leaders? It is interesting to me that Christ gives no leeway here, though it could be true that some were saved. Christ says in Matthew 23:15, "œWoe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

It seems He thought that those converted to the Pharisee way of thinking were not simply deceived, but actually sons of hell, worse than the Pharisees themselves. Phillip, how would you deal with this and Jesus? Is Christ being too strong and "œhypercalvinistic"?


----------



## kceaster (Feb 11, 2006)

*Dr. McMahon...*

Thanks for the clarification. It eases my mind greatly to read it.

On the same token, I would like to take the opportunity to at least give a word of caution.

As I see it, almost every major theological rift in and out of the Reformed church over the past 30 years has had to do with who is a Christian and who isn't. Lordship salvation to the current justification fiasco all have to do with this question. But it is not just now. The Docetists were early nitpickers, too. And I think it is a form of Pharisaism that we continue to want to answer this question.

I understand the need to point out heresy and also to warn against it. I also understand the need to "denominate," because it counts who is on the Lord's side. But at the very epicenter of this quake of our own making is pride. If we want to determine who is a Christian and who isn't; who has the right doctrine and is thereby saved as opposed to those who still dwell in darkness; it is an exercise in utter futility. It can only lead to further division and disease within the Church of God.

What is commanded of us? Are we to determine who is a Christian and who isn't? Are we to write treatises about the 'god' of Arminian worship? Where is it written? I understand your zeal. But I think it came off (obviously) a bit more harsh than what it needed to be. You haven't gotten this much heat in quite a while, have you?

If I'm out of line, I certainly ask your forgiveness, publicly. You are an elder in God's church and I am not. I am certainly not telling you anything you do not know. I am merely suggesting that the question of who is a Christian is moot. Frankly, we do not know; it is not given us to know. We are to preach the Word. We are to warn, and rebuke, and reprove, and to teach all those who would hear us.

So, in your article, you took a heresy to task. But, if I did not overreact, I took it as you blasting those who are not under good teaching at the moment. And let's face it, there are many, as you, yourself have lamented on more than one occasion on this board. But if I may humbly say, blasting the sheep isn't going to win them. We can't blame a sheep for what they're eating, if their shepherd, who's really a wolf, is the only one feeding them. That's what I thought you were doing. And I know that it isn't what you set out to do, but I think it may have been a byproduct.

And it isn't as though we should not call a spade, a spade. It is healthy in the church to point out false teaching. But we have to be careful in doing so that we do not paint with too broad a stroke. You have written things in the past that I'll bet you wish you hadn't. If your life had ended before now, what would your epitaph be? I know mine would not be something I'd be proud of. It ain't lookin' too good right now, either.

The point I'm trying to make is that while warning is good, and separation from error is a needful thing, I think we just saw that you were being a bit too harsh in it. And it may not have been your best work, either. I'm not sure how many eyes saw it before you put it on the web, but I would encourage you to bounce what you write off of people you know will not agree with you, but will give you an honest opinion as to how you come across. I do that, but not quite as often as I should.

I'm glad to see that you weren't making such broad accusations after all.

I think we all get bogged down from time to time with what's wrong with the church. But instead, we ought to dwell upon what is right in her. It's not easy having the Reformers as guides, because they lived in a time a bit darker than our own. I'm not saying we go around with our heads in the clouds, oblivious to the disease running rampant. But we need to see that the light we've been given is never going to be snuffed out. The revelation we have now will never diminish. It may be forgotten for a time, but another generation will pick up where we left off, just like Luther and Calvin did with Augustine.

We need to remember that glorious things are spoken of Zion, the city of our God. And we need to look at her, even in the darkest of times, as a glorious thing.

There will always be heresies. There will always be enemies at the gates. We must be vigilant and ready. But we need to remember that our best defense is not offense, but praise. Battles are won by the songs of the saints. If we keep our eyes focused upon the object of our faith, even the Lord Jesus Christ, then all of these other things will take care of themselves. We won't need to answer who is a Christian, because we will be so caught up in preaching the gospel of peace, praise, and thanksgiving, and petition for the lost, that we won't have time to wonder about it. It's a delicate balance to be sure, but I just don't see much joy in looking at the darkness and numerating the people in that darkness. It's sort of like taking a census of a city by counting graves in the graveyard instead of the living people. The population of heaven is living, not dead. We are living, not dead. We need to let the dead bury their dead and get on with worshipping God in spirit and truth and let these other things be answered by our worship and the gospel that frames it.

I'm sorry I've gone on so long. I hope you will see that I'm not trying to point fingers. I'm preaching to myself as much to anyone else. May God give us wisdom in the way we handle those things in the dark. We want His light to shine, but we can't be a hindrance by causing a shadow to fall where light would shine.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> What is commanded of us? Are we to determine who is a Christian and who isn't? Are we to write treatises about the 'god' of Arminian worship?



Kevin,

With respect, I wish to say that I believe that in _some_ sense, we are called to make an outward, private judgment on the gospel that people profess to make. Is the gospel a saving one, or is it a damning one? 

I am by no means suggesting that we make ecclesiastical judgements and take upon ourselves the yoke of a synod or the likes, but I do think it important that Christ has said "You will know them by their fruits." 

It is a very important point in this regards that both sides are making a judgment about the salvation of one who truly believes the gospel of Arminianism....one side says their saved...the other side says their not. Either way, it is equally a judgment call. When I look at Joe Arminian down the street, I don't think "I know the secret will of God and Joe's in for it!" But I do think that we are called to treat Joe as either a christian to whom we can extend the right hand of fellowship, or a lost man, desperately in need of the gospel.

In my personal judgment, I rest on (in no particular order) 1) The Synod of Dort, 2) The Westminster Standards, 3) Quotes from historic theologans of old and ultimately 4) the anathema of Paul in scripture.

All of these have been quoted at length either in this thread or in the article written by Matt, and they seem to be in harmony with one another.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 11, 2006)

Shoudnt we presume them to be Christians until they spout of heresy as eternal truth?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Shoudnt we presume them to be Christians until they spout of heresy as eternal truth?



Nathan,
No one is really pointing the finger at anyone personally (well, outside of Hunt and his ilk), but the illicit system.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 11, 2006)

*Jeff....*



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...


 
Quite right, systematically. In other words,, we look at the systematics or the biblicity of a gospel in order to determine whether or not it is in line with Scripture. The Bereans did that.

But would you not agree that while we may pronounce their gospel to be an anathema, we would not say that all who hear it are anathema?

It is very well for us to show Arminian heresy as deep and profound error. But along with this, we must care for the sheep under its telling. We can't very well go around scolding the sheep for what they're being fed, can we? If they are God's sheep, they are in the pasture He's led them to, are they not?

And for the other point, let's treat them like sheep until they show *themselves* to be goats. Sheep require gentle care, that's why God used them as an example. Remember, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." And these are the same that Paul pleaded with in tears. He was harsh with the teachers, and that is commendable within Dr. McMahon's article. But if we say that the sheep are worshipping the teacher's false god, we need to reevaluate that. Many are too weak and sick to go to another pasture, yet their God is sustaining them with what little they get.

In "Arminian" churches tomorrow, many will gather. And many false teachers will stand and attempt to lead these little ones astray. But what did Jesus say about it? Woe to the one who does such things. But He doesn't blame the little ones, does He?

That's all I'm getting at. And I'm quite ready to admit that I've misread the article, if that is not a good assessment of it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

Kevin,
Do you care to expound upon your previous statement about the OT saint?


----------



## youthevang (Feb 11, 2006)

Pastor McMahon, I want to thank you again for your article.



> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Some present Arminians may be unregenerate and may come to faith and reject their Arminianism. Others may be converted in an Arminian church, may not "œreally" be Arminian, although they are simply abused sheep.



I truly concur with your above statement. I, myself was converted in an Arminian church and have been under Arminian teaching for years. When I think about it, what came out of my mouth did not line up with what I believed. I would say that we have a choice, but deep down I did not believe that mumble jumble. In 1993 when I decided to confess Christ as Lord, a friend of mine said that I would never change but continue to be the same person I was. I then replied, "no I will not because when He saves a person, He does not fail." I was even taught the doctrine of the "carnal Christian." I could not buy into that craziness. I would always butt heads with people because there are verses in the Bible that you cannot just write off with regards to God being in total control. It wasn't until I studied the doctrines of grace that I began to realize why I always butting heads with people.

Pastor McMahon, may our Father continue to grant you peace and the boldness to proclaim the Gospel of Christ.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 11, 2006)

*Scott...*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Kevin,
> Do you care to expound upon your previous statement about the OT saint?



What I meant was that if we are determining that one who is saved is a full-orbed Calvinist, then it would exclude the OT saint. In fact, any who came before the Reformation would be excluded in that sense. Although the tenets (not to be confused with tenants or tenents) were certainly there, they were not as well thought out and defined. Therefore, we need to be careful when we take our understanding of a particular point and foist it back upon those who came before the point was made. The one who sows but is gone before harvest will attest to the fact that they planted wheat. But unless they see the harvest, they have limited understanding of that wheat. Only when it is harvested and made into bread has the wheat been really developed for its created use. But the one who eats the bread cannot fault the one who sowed the wheat for their limited understanding. Nor can the one who eats consider the sower as having no part in the process just because of the limited understanding.

If we expect, as most hyper-calvinists do, that in order to be saved one must know fully the doctrine of salvation, then we exclude many upon whom that light shined, but only dimly. We cannot make Calvinism the litmus test of salvation. Because 3000 souls were added on the day of Pentecost and were converted without full-orbed Calvinism.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Kevin,
Thanks for your thoughts. Again, one of the pitfalls here is that we are not all on the same pages when itcomes to definitions. Knowing Matt, when he speaks of Calvinism, he is speaking of the theology that existed since Adam. Calvin was one of the first, outside of the Word, to summarize the system. Hence, the OT saint assuredly had and understood the ideas calvin penned.



> Although the tenets (not to be confused with tenants or tenents) were certainly there, they were not as well thought out and defined.



I disagree. Are you telling me that men like Noah and Abraham, Jacob, Samuel did not understand this?



> If we expect, as most hyper-calvinists do, that in order to be saved one must know fully the doctrine of salvation, then we exclude many upon whom that light shined, but only dimly. We cannot make Calvinism the litmus test of salvation. Because 3000 souls were added on the day of Pentecost and were converted without full-orbed Calvinism.



Kevin,
Thats the point; we are not saying that calvinism is the litmus test, but scripture, and since there is only one gospel, to have something else is heresy.


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 11, 2006)

*Unregenerate Calvinists*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> So you are saying that 'many' Arminians are regenerate?



I would say that there are about as many regenerate Arminians as there are regenerate Calvinists around today. Conversely, I'd say that there are about as many unregenerate Calvinists who know nothing of the love of Christ, charity and its fruits, as there are unregenerate Arminians. I certainly do not believe that those who read or teach John 3:16 or 1 John 2:2 -- "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" -- as meaning that Jesus paid for all sins are, therefore, unregenerate idolaters. They are necessarily wrong but not necessarily unregenerate. The regenerate Arminian pastor could be more godly a believer than Cornelius Van Til or Meredith Kline. In comparison to himself, George Whitefield thought that of John Wesley (who was just as Arminian on the 5 points as was Arminius). I disagree with Matt and his disciples that the 5 points are essential to salvation. In their defense, they are following many Puritans in this view. There have always been bigots on both sides. I relegate this type of bigotry to the dark side of Puritanism. And yes, there is a dark side to Puritanism.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

Greg,
To begin with, the above quote was not mine. Someone asked me the question and I was posing back to the poster for clearity his position. Again, clearity of definition is important here. Arminianism is heresy. 

If Arminius died holding to the theology he subscribed to, do you believe he was regenerate and now in glory?






Scott
~A disciple of Christ, not Matt

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 11, 2006)

Since learning biblical doctrine is a matter of time and effort and degree (is a process and imperfect in this life) would it be wrong to see it as part of sanctification? 

I realize conversion (which happens after regeneration) needs biblical knowledge and a basic degree of biblical understanding (faith and repentance need biblical knowledge of what we are to have faith in and what we are to be repentant of), but it's hard to see that necessity and then take it to mean a Christian needs to have the understanding contained in John Owen's _Death of Death in the Death of Christ_ for conversion and justification. 

Can we not see that regeneration, conversion, and justification can rest on a degree of doctrinal understanding that is short of understanding the doctrines of grace, yet then if a person truly has regeneration and has converted they will then strive, in time, to see the truth and develop more and more understanding of biblical doctrine and accept it (which to me sounds like part of the imperfect and progressive process of sanctification)?

And the main point I'm making is even if a regenerated person never gets to the 5 point Calvinist level of understanding they still have justification, just as degree of sanctification doesn't effect a person's foundation which is justification by faith alone.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 11, 2006)

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



Did they understand that salvation was of the Lord? Absolutely. Did they understand that they are sinners and that He is holy? Absolutely. Did they understand that they did nothing by which to merit the grace of God? Absolutely. Did they understand that Christ came to die ONLY for the sins of the elect? No. They did not understand Christ's death, because they did not see it and know about it. They had faith in the object of Christ, but they had no knowledge of the redemption wrought by His blood. By faith they saw very blurry, what we now, by faith, see more clearly. Did they believe that all of those to whom salvation comes, God would ordain. Absolutely. Did they believe that all of those to whom salvation comes would persevere to the end. Absolutely.

So, I would say they're 4 pointers, just in the limited sense of Dordt.

But to say that they had the knowledge of Paul according to salvation is a logical fallacy. Christ had not yet been revealed. Why did the disciples not understand all that Paul came to understand about salvation while Christ was with them? Because the Spirit had not yet been given, because Christ had not yet been glorified.

We can't claim, just because the veil has been lifted, that there was no veil to begin with. There was a veil. And that means that there was limited understanding as to what the OT saint knew about salvation. That in no way lessens their salvation. They are just as saved as you or I. It does mean that we are more responsible than they for what we know. There is a greater burden upon us because Christ has been fully revealed, than there was upon them.



> Kevin,
> Thats the point; we are not saying that calvinism is the litmus test, but scripture, and since there is only one gospel, to have something else is heresy.



I'm not suggesting for a moment that Arminianism is not heresy. I'm simply stating that not all who are being taught it are heretics.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

> Did they understand that Christ came to die ONLY for the sins of the elect? No. They did not understand Christ's death, because they did not see it and know about it.



Kevin,
What Gospel did they have? Surely, it was not another gospel. What was comprised in the gospel that was _preached_ to Abraham? The sacrificial system was in place in Jobs day. 

Job 19:25 For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

The term 'redeemer' is used in the pages of Job. The redeemer in job was 'messiah'; Job knew this.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by youthevang_
> Pastor McMahon, I want to thank you again for your article.
> 
> 
> ...



I have a very similar story! I could never figure out why I couldn't get along with many in my church or with the people at Rapture Ready (where I used to post A LOT) until I discovered the DoG and then it hit me!


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Quite right, systematically. In other words,, we look at the systematics or the biblicity of a gospel in order to determine whether or not it is in line with Scripture. The Bereans did that.







> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> But would you not agree that while we may pronounce their gospel to be an anathema, we would not say that all who hear it are anathema?



Certainly not, but would we not say that all who _believe it_ are anathema?



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> It is very well for us to show Arminian heresy as deep and profound error. But along with this, we must care for the sheep under its telling. We can't very well go around scolding the sheep for what they're being fed, can we? If they are God's sheep, they are in the pasture He's led them to, are they not?



I think that this is pressupposing that Arminians (ones who actually believe the stuff they're being taught) are sheep. 



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> And for the other point, let's treat them like sheep until they show *themselves* to be goats.



This is exactly where I think the discussion needs to focus. If all a person professes is Arminianism, then there is _no good reason_ to threat them as sheep. We wouldn't do that with Jehovah's witnesses or other false gospels would we? Their profession that they give us is the only thing we have by which to fall upon.

Luk 6:43 "œFor a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
Luk 6:44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.
Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart[7] brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

I think that as long as what comes out of their mouth is nothing but a false gospel, we should treat them as unconverted people, until they show us otherwise.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Sheep require gentle care, that's why God used them as an example. Remember, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." And these are the same that Paul pleaded with in tears. He was harsh with the teachers, and that is commendable within Dr. McMahon's article. But if we say that the sheep are worshipping the teacher's false god, we need to reevaluate that. Many are too weak and sick to go to another pasture, yet their God is sustaining them with what little they get.



It sounds to me like there is some confusion (again) on the definition of an Arminian. 

Is an Arminian one who simply goes to an Arminian church? No. (Just as one is not a Calvinist simply because he goes to a Calvinist Church)

One is an Arminian when the believe the gospel of the remonstrance. One cannot believe Arminianism and the true gospel at the same time. They are incompatible. This doesn't mean that you have to openly know and profess the five points of Calvinism....but it means that you can't hold to the doctrines of Arminius, _precisely because they are incompatible with the gospel of salvation by Christ Alone._



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> In "Arminian" churches tomorrow, many will gather. And many false teachers will stand and attempt to lead these little ones astray. But what did Jesus say about it? Woe to the one who does such things. But He doesn't blame the little ones, does He?



Kevin,

If you post a response to anything in my post to you, please answer how you can say this in light of the verse Matt posted earlier:

Mat 23:15 "œWoe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Surely this does not excuse the false gospel of Arminians (again ones who believe, and not simply go to an Arminian church) simply because they are students and not teachers, no?

I think this thread is becoming even more an more profitable. Thanks for your interaction Kevin.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I'm simply stating that not all who are being taught it are heretics.



Agreed, but you do realize that absolutely nobody on this board is saying that.

It is the believers of the heresy of Arminianism that is being addressed, not just simply people sitting under that type of preaching.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



Kevin, Jeff is on point. That is the difference.

That is also why I said that one MUST make a difference between being regenerate and converted. Phillip said that was smoke and mirrors. Clearly he was misunderstanding. Those "sitting" under Arminian preaching may be regenerate, and it may take them much longer to enact faith under heretical preaching, but they will. The teachers of the heresy, who have given themselves over to it, are indeed false teachers. No one has, or is, saying that all who sit under Arminian teachers are Arminian heretics. Even in the article I specifically said, "Such Arminians, _if they may even be called that_, are newly regenerated, but as they spend time in God´s word, they will see the error of those who preach and teach a different Gospel, maybe even the errors that they are currently holding."

I think a lot of this is not being able to classify the categories the article deals with. 1) Arminius and the Remonstrance, 2) newly converted people under Arminianism, 3) Those struggling with seeing the difference between Arminianism and the Gospel, and 4) staunch contemporary Arminians following enough of Arminius to be heretics.

KC - also, thank you for your loving concern with proofreading articles and the like. Certainly you are right, I've not had this much heat in some time, and frankly, I was very surprised to see it on this subject from Reformed Christians. I do, though, appreciate your desire to see the Kingdom advance in love. Yet, sometimes (many times in recent days), we find the Kingdom under attack, and as John Owen pleaded in "A Display for Arminianism" he wished that many more preachers would have picked up their pens to write against it. Yes, the article may have a harsher side, quite on purpose mind you, that rubs people the wrong the way. Certainly, I thought through that and desired to have something a bit more poignant that usually is written or read. But I think there are people out there who will read it (and as a matter of fact I already had some emails to that affect) that have helped them understand things more clearly. Though collateral damage is inevitable (see this thread!) I think at times books like "An Alarm to Unconverted Sinners" and "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" need to be written and preached. I am of the opinion of Edwards that there is great justification in the "scare tactic", and that it may be the most useful tool in converting those from opposing views. I have found, personally, that people have much more been converted under my own preaching by sermons on hell, than they have about heaven.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 11, 2006)

Iam just jumping in this discussion, but than it absolute must mean that Thomas Aquinas must be dammed, and also the puritan John Davenant ((1572-1641, famous commentary on Colossians) and also Albert Barnes (1798-1870) who (if iam right) did not hold to limited atonement, that mean that they would not be a fivepiont calvinist, and not be saved ???????????? Hard to believe!???????????


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 11, 2006)

Ralph, no, we are not saying that at all. It may be helpful 1) to read through the article written, and then 2) read through some of the concerns in this massive 10 page thread.


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Ralph, no, we are not saying that at all. It may be helpful 1) to read through the article written, and then 2) read through some of the concerns in this massive 10 page thread.



Dear Math,

I will do. Is it not maybe wise to write another artical as a repley to this discussion , and to be more in detail to make those (like me and much others) be clear what you mean, i think that would be very helpful?


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> If Arminius died holding to the theology he subscribed to, do you believe he was regenerate and now in glory?



I believe there is nothing in the doctrines of Arminianism that necessarily damns anyone. Though I oppose the error, I deny that Arminianism is a counterfeit gospel. Someone can die mistakenly yet strongly believing in prevenient grace, conditional election, universal atonement, and denying the perseverance of the saints and be regenerate and now in glory with our Lord. I do not believe the 5 points of Calvinism are essential to saving faith and conversion. Further, I would gladly share a platform with an Arminian preacher like a John Wesley, and I would admit an Arminian brother to the Supper. My view on this is the direct opposite of Matt's.

One of my favorite hymns from the Trinity Hymnal is #466, "I Sought the Lord," which begins:

I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew
He moved my soul to seek Him, seeking me.

That's the experience of many Calvinists. At first, they think it was they who wised up and sought the Lord, but afterward they learn in Scripture that it was all of God. For some, that "afterwards" comes immediately. For others, it takes months or years. For those poor believers who never see the glory of Calvinism in this life, their "afterwards" will come sweetly in the life to come. For many, becoming a Calvinist is a transforming experience that is like becoming born-again again, but it is not to be confused with the repentance and faith of conversion. It is typically a deepening maturity as the repenting believer applies himself to the means of grace and moves onwards and upwards from glory to glory.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 11, 2006)

*Scott...*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > Did they understand that Christ came to die ONLY for the sins of the elect? No. They did not understand Christ's death, because they did not see it and know about it.
> ...



If you'll follow my post, I was showing each of the 5 points. And when it comes to limited atonement, they would not have understood limited atonement the way we understand it. Atonement for them was for whoever sacrificed individually and the day of atonement. In essence, all of the atoning sacrifices prefigured Christ. And they were effectual in their scope. But they needed to be repeated often and every year. So, I will not agree that they knew the atonement of Christ in the way that we know it. Epistemologically, speaking.

In that sense, they could not have known what Calvin put forward on atonement, nor any who came after Christ.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Ravens (Feb 11, 2006)

So, I rarely post on here. Maybe, what, 40 posts in a year and a half, two years? Something like that, I don't even remember. And I don't plan on entering this discussion, too much brass & bluster. Just offering my thoughts for what they are worth, and they probably aren't worth much.

First off, I'll admit that I haven't read Matt's article. I have no interest in doing so. That's not a "slight" on him. I've just read other things that he's written, I personally believe Arminianism to be very wrong, and I don't really want to spend my time reading something that tells why Arminianism is wrong. I'm just commenting on this discussion. And I think that's why this thread heated up so fast. 

I've been a lurker for like three and a half years or so, and a discussion like this pops up every so often, almost like clockwork. So for all the "quote the article" stuff going on, it really boils down to people having strong feelings, and deciding to "go at it again", in the context of all of the other discussions that have ever been written.

I definitely side with Ben, Joseph, Pastorway, Brett, et al. But I think that Arminianism is as dead wrong as to Matt, Jeff, etc. And I'm sure that Ben and the rest, actually, I'm pretty sure of it, think that Arminianism is flat-out terribly incorrect, as much as to Matt and the others. I just think you get into fuzzy terrain trying to figure out if all heresy is damnable, which heresy is damnable, how long someone has in it until they are damned, etc. 

That being said. Most Arminians that I have talked to (even though I'm sure that some differ) don't talk about their conversion as if they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and decided to please God through their own works. And, personally, I think "the root" of conversion is, being in utter despair over your state before God, realizing that you can't please Him in any way, shape, or form, and trusting and falling and clinging to Christ because you know that He makes you right with God.

Now, if someone does that, I just think its questionable to attribute all kinds of damnable motives to them because they believe in a certain view of "free-will." I am NOT equating Arminianism with Calvinism and compatibilism, but when everyone has their annual Hyper-Calvinism debate, everyone makes it a point that we really have our own wills, and that our wills really do decide to believe, only that all of it falls out according to the providence of God, as He works on our nature.

If anyone of us was discussing a hyper-Calvinist, and said that the human will really casts itself upon Christ, after God regenerates our nature, people would applaud and talk about the reality of second causes. So the common Arminian pew knows that he DOES have something called a "will", and that he did choose to believe in Christ. We all chose to believe in Christ. We debate the origin of a choice. And if the common Arminian, sharing his story, only talks about how God sought him out, how God kept convincing him of his sin through the Word, how God kept working on His heart, and how God finally "brought him home", or however he would describe that in his colloquial pew language, I don't see that as "damnable". I mean obviously someone could hold those things in a damnable way, but big deal, anyone can hold anything in a damnable way.

I mean views of Providence aren't even monolithic in a Reformed context. There are people with "hyper-Calvinistic" views that many of us like to read, even though we disagree with their "hyper" Calvinism. Turretin talked about providence in terms of concursus. R. L. Dabney (is he an Arminian?) said Turretin was wrong and actually explained providence more or less in terms of scientia media!!! So because he came close to affirming "middle knowledge" is he now a heretic? I mean, even in our own camp, we disagree on *exactly* how God works on the will, works in and with our actions, etc. 

So I don't know. I also think it manifests a disturbing view of church history. I mean, Gill's book that someone linked, and others, might list a bunch of quotes from people, but anyone who has set down with the ante and post Nicene fathers knows it not quite so cut & dried as a long list. I mean, for the most part, when you are reading the ECF's, there are tons of times when you're reading, and it'll go something like this:

"::segment of stuff that is just basic Christianity:://::Hey, that's cool, that could almost be interpreted in a Reformed light, or as a seed of truth that would flower at the Reformation:://!!!RED FLAG, RED FLAG!!!, He's waaaaaaaaaay off there::" For every quote that says something about predestination, there's another one in the same church father that might have redemption messed up. Of if they are right on redemption, maybe they were wrong on continuing revelation. Or if they were right on predestination, or even had "leanings" towards predestination, they were probably wrong on the hypostatic union.

"Lists" like that tend to take one or two quotes on any given subject and are like, "Look how Reformed the ECF's were" where you could find thirty quotes by the same person on any other given topic that would make you shake your head and take a tylenol. 

And its pretty evident that *not many* theologians before the Reformation had more than like 3 points down at any given time, and usually not even two. I mean we like to quote Gottschalk and throw his name into the list of predestinarians, regardless of the fact that he still held some wack Marian views (read Jaroslav Pelikan's history of medieval theology). 

And that's just what it comes down to. Some people on here seem to think that ALL your ducks have to be in a row to be saved. And if they say, NO, just the IMPORTANT ducks, well the IMPORTANT ducks that they're listing, if they ALL have to be in a row, REALLY DO condemn like 90 - 99% of the theologians and "writing" pastors/bishops/whatever that came prior to the Reformation.

And it just disgusts me, because if people took these things to their logical conclusion, they could set down with Irenaeus, the Cappadocians, Augustine, John of Damascus, Gottschalk, Anselm, etc., and find enough ducks out of a row in every one of them to consign them to the bottomless pit.

And of course nobody wants to SAY that, which is why those who take this strong stance keep coming up with caveats, and clarifications, etc. I mean with all due respect, I think its *mostly*, not completely, the other side that needs to think this through more. Well, really, we all do, but some people need to sit down and think why Augustine, John of Damascus, Anselm, etc., will not be in hell. And if they won't be in hell (and maybe not them, but just think, ECF's in general) then why necessarily will the Arminian in the pew be in hell?

But whatever. I mean, honestly, I know I'm probably in the minority. I know I have no "street cred" ;-) on this board, I know that I'll probably be lambasted and have a bunch of Clarkian syllogism and fifteen-page quotes of the WCF thrown at me, or just people nit-picking apart my post and making me look silly, and I'll probably be "unChristlike" for saying this...

But threads like this, and just the... I dunno... I don't even know what to call it. I won't say "arrogance", but its something like that, that I find on this board sometime, makes me want to vomit. Or bang my head onto the keyboard. Or just forget about all of this junk and go relax with some dark ale and Jerry Garcia.

People read some Clark books, or the Puritans, etc., and achieve what they think to be MAXIMAL "Reformity", and just so off-handedly pick apart GREAT men of the past. I mean, some people on here probably wouldn't let Calvin be a minister in their church because of his views on the Sabbath (I know he was "practically" a Sabbatarian, but I don't think the theological underpinnings are the same, regardless of what some thing), some people probably question whether Luther was even saved, what with his rejection of the RPW and his affirmation of consubstantiation. And John Bunyan, well, he was a Baptist!!! And of course Machen and Warfield equivocated on the creation days and what not. 

Wow, all these men just dropped the ball and had some serious flaws in their theology. Hopefully God corrected them prior to glorification. Good thing *I* came along, and that *I* am wholly Reformed.

I mean, I know that's hyperbolic. But its the impression that I get. And its the impression that A LOT of us get. So maybe we are wrong in how we frame it, or wrong in how we say it, but it should at least give the other side pause to think.

It keeps getting passed off that some of us "aren't hard on Arminianism". Like, "how could this even be DISCUSSED on a Reformed message board." Simple. We're talking about the soteriological status of common-pew Arminians, not whether Arminianism is merely incorrect or not. Before you guys leap to conclusion, just remember that most of us who are disagreeing with you confront Arminians with their ideas, spend endless hours doing internet pro-Calvinist debate, and, in my case, spent four years getting a religion degree from a Nazarene institution wherein I constantly debated, wrote papers, made my stance known, risked my grade, etc., attacking Arminianism.

So anyway.

I don't even know if I had a point, and I probably won't continue in this discussion.

For what it's worth


----------



## Ravens (Feb 11, 2006)

To clarify, because I can hear the hounds sniffing already as I reread my post, I am NOT saying that our views are confused, and Arminian views are near ours, relative to conversion. I'm only saying, the just as we affirm that we do have a will that does choose for Christ and monergistic regeneration, if, IN THEIR EXPERIENCE, they know God sought them out and brought them to Him, and they express it by saying, "I believed on Christ", the Arminian in the common pew, that is, I don't see that as the triumph of Pelagianism. I just see that as retelling personal narrative, i.e., there really is an entity called "I" that really did make a volitional commitment to Christ. And I wouldn't damn them for not understanding it in the same way that I do.


----------



## Ravens (Feb 11, 2006)

One last thing, as I've already decided to "come out". People make comments like, "Well the Spirit of Truth WOULD lead his children into all truth, and not leave his sheep in error." Really? Does it tell the time-table on this? I mean a lot of good Christians, and the church in general, were obviously left in some PORTION, or even in large portions, of error, over the years, according to the providence of God. EITHER the paedobaptists OR the baptists are left in error, until death. And some of the same people who talk about the Spirit bringing into truth and everything are the same ones who've went through like 17.5 doctrinal revolutions in the past 5 years.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. Because I consider this as being led astray. They are honest in their approach to the things of God. Just as I used to be. Yet, if this is true, then I was, during my time in Arminianism, an anathema.

I used to believe that God saves everyone, but that He could only save them if they chose to believe. At the same time, I believed that He chose them to believe. So, what I believed was heresy and truth mixed, which in that case, still equals heresy. Was I anathema? Was I a heretic? Or, was I simply in error? Was I worshipping any other but the true Christ? Was I worshipping God in spirit and truth? Yes, in the light I had. But God had not yet revealed to me the truth I now know. What do I have that I have not received?



> I think that this is pressupposing that Arminians (ones who actually believe the stuff they're being taught) are sheep.



The thing is, true teaching doesn't make one a sheep. True belief doesn't make one a sheep. God makes sheep. And some of these understand 30 fold, some 60, and some 100. Were the men in Acts 19 not sheep prior to being baptized with the Holy Spirit? I don't see how we could say that. They worshiped God prior to this without full knowledge of the gospel. Once they knew, it most certainly informed their worship, but they were sheep before, and they were still sheep after. Apollos only had limited teaching, but was he not a sheep prior to Aquila and Priscilla? I don't see how we can say he wasn't. 



> This is exactly where I think the discussion needs to focus. If all a person professes is Arminianism, then there is _no good reason_ to treat them as sheep. We wouldn't do that with Jehovah's witnesses or other false gospels would we? Their profession that they give us is the only thing we have by which to fall upon.



There is a huge difference in scope between Jehovah's witness and an arminian. For the most part, the arminian lives life by the Word of God. The JW doesn't. I've heard this argument before from "hyper-calvinists" and I don't think it holds water. What is the object of faith in JW? What is the object of faith in Arminianism? Christ is central to the protestant faith. Arminians are not that far from truth. Therefore, I think we do treat them as sheep. If I hadn't been, I might not be where I am today.



> Luk 6:43 "œFor a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
> Luk 6:44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.
> Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart[7] brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
> 
> I think that as long as what comes out of their mouth is nothing but a false gospel, we should treat them as unconverted people, until they show us otherwise.



Again, I think we're talking about two different kinds of sheep. False teachers and those to whom the false teachers come. I'm not speaking against the censure of false teachers, but I am not willing to send their hearers to hell. They are being led astray, but they are still sheep. I should also remind you that Isaiah says we have all turned away as sheep. Yes, as sheep. We can't think for one moment that Isaiah doesn't consider those about whom he is speaking as not being in the flock of God. He considers them to be sheep who have gone astray and each turned away from God. He reminds them that God has laid on Christ, the iniquity of these sheep that went astray. That is comfort for the one being taught calvinism as well as for the one who is being taught a false gospel.



> It sounds to me like there is some confusion (again) on the definition of an Arminian.
> 
> Is an Arminian one who simply goes to an Arminian church? No. (Just as one is not a Calvinist simply because he goes to a Calvinist Church)
> 
> One is an Arminian when the believe the gospel of the remonstrance. One cannot believe Arminianism and the true gospel at the same time. They are incompatible. This doesn't mean that you have to openly know and profess the five points of Calvinism....but it means that you can't hold to the doctrines of Arminius, _precisely because they are incompatible with the gospel of salvation by Christ Alone._



If that is the only gospel they've heard, but yet God gave them faith, regenerated them, and converted them, then who are we to say that they aren't saved. That was me. That was many of us. And I'm sorry, but there is enough truth in the way God saves a person to make up for the errors, no matter how pernicious they are. It is because salvation is of the LORD. What did Jonah say to convert the Ninevites? God is going to destroy you. Are the 5 points in that gospel? God saved them. Who are we to deny it?



> Kevin,
> 
> If you post a response to anything in my post to you, please answer how you can say this in light of the verse Matt posted earlier:
> 
> ...



I think that this does happen, but not to the general laity. I think in this passage, Christ is identifying the disciples of the Pharisees. But we have to differentiate a disciple from a regular Israelite. It has been well documented that not all could become disciples of the Pharisees. It was a status thing. So I think what Jesus is referring to here is those (the talmidim) who would be trained up to take their place as pharisees or rabbis.

If this is the sense of the passage, then we cannot lump all of those who hear false teaching as sons of hell, especially in light of the fact that in other places, the "little ones" are not considered sons of hell.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Kevin, Jeff is on point. That is the difference.
> 
> That is also why I said that one MUST make a difference between being regenerate and converted. Phillip said that was smoke and mirrors. Clearly he was misunderstanding. Those "sitting" under Arminian preaching may be regenerate, and it may take them much longer to enact faith under heretical preaching, but they will. The teachers of the heresy, who have given themselves over to it, are indeed false teachers. No one has, or is, saying that all who sit under Arminian teachers are Arminian heretics. Even in the article I specifically said, "Such Arminians, _if they may even be called that_, are newly regenerated, but as they spend time in God´s word, they will see the error of those who preach and teach a different Gospel, maybe even the errors that they are currently holding."



Was Paul converted, or regenerated on the road to Damascus? I could multiply examples. And I think you need to look at it from that perspective. You cannot really think that the only conversions in the world have taken place under calvinistic teaching. That is simply nonsense. The thief on the cross is a prime example. He must have been, both regenerated and converted, and yet he did not have the kind of full gospel understanding that you are talking about. If you're still convinced, we'll agree to disagree and there is no animosity.



> I think a lot of this is not being able to classify the categories the article deals with. 1) Arminius and the Remonstrance, 2) newly converted people under Arminianism, 3) Those struggling with seeing the difference between Arminianism and the Gospel, and 4) staunch contemporary Arminians following enough of Arminius to be heretics.



Perhaps that is what I am missing. But if our main point of contention is above, then you'll see why we don't agree. I believe that people in arminianism can be converted, whereas it would seem that you do not.

I'll also point out that perhaps your title is a misnomer. Because I was coming at it from a point of worship. Can a converted arminian (perhaps you would say there are none) worship God at all? I say yes. But I think you would say that they worship a different god. If we classify the teachers, I would agree with you. But if we classify those who are ignorant, then I would disagree. I think the ignorant can and do worship God in spirit and truth given the light they have. I'll use myself again as an example.



> KC - also, thank you for your loving concern with proofreading articles and the like. Certainly you are right, I've not had this much heat in some time, and frankly, I was very surprised to see it on this subject from Reformed Christians. I do, though, appreciate your desire to see the Kingdom advance in love. Yet, sometimes (many times in recent days), we find the Kingdom under attack, and as John Owen pleaded in "A Display for Arminianism" he wished that many more preachers would have picked up their pens to write against it. Yes, the article may have a harsher side, quite on purpose mind you, that rubs people the wrong the way. Certainly, I thought through that and desired to have something a bit more poignant that usually is written or read. But I think there are people out there who will read it (and as a matter of fact I already had some emails to that affect) that have helped them understand things more clearly. Though collateral damage is inevitable (see this thread!) I think at times books like "An Alarm to Unconverted Sinners" and "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" need to be written and preached. I am of the opinion of Edwards that there is great justification in the "scare tactic", and that it may be the most useful tool in converting those from opposing views. I have found, personally, that people have much more been converted under my own preaching by sermons on hell, than they have about heaven.



Nothing wrong with all of that. I would just caution you to consider every different group who will read your article. If there was someone out there, like my sister, who is in an Arminian church, she may doubt her salvation because of what she's been taught. And I think that in that sense, it may be doing harm.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

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



There you have it! You can hold to all points of Arminianism and still be a Christian. 

Dordt says:

And this is the perspicuous, simple, and ingenuous declaration of the orthodox doctrine respecting the five articles which have been controverted in the Belgic Churches; and the rejection of the errors, with which they have for some time been troubled. This doctrine the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confession of the Reformed Churches. Whence it clearly appears that some, whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public: 
That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than an interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them ; and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul. 

Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to judge of the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the calumnies which on every side are heaped upon it, nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from this declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod. Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them, for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches; for distressing the consciences of the weak; and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful. 

Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father's right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth; bring to the truth those who err; shut the mouths of the calumniators of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful ministers of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. Amen.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> No. Because I consider this as being led astray. They are honest in their approach to the things of God. Just as I used to be. Yet, if this is true, then I was, during my time in Arminianism, an anathema.
> 
> I used to believe that God saves everyone, but that He could only save them if they chose to believe. At the same time, I believed that He chose them to believe. So, what I believed was heresy and truth mixed, which in that case, still equals heresy. Was I anathema? Was I a heretic? Or, was I simply in error? Was I worshipping any other but the true Christ? Was I worshipping God in spirit and truth? Yes, in the light I had. But God had not yet revealed to me the truth I now know. What do I have that I have not received?



Kevin, I'm not going to pretend to judge your previous state based off of a couple short paragraphs on a message board. But I will tell you this:

If you believed Arminianism, you were not saved. If you truely were an Arminian (which I am not judging at this point), you believed that you saved yourself with Christ's help. This is simply not the gospel, in any way shape or form. The gospel is Christ alone saving people.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The thing is, true teaching doesn't make one a sheep. True belief doesn't make one a sheep. God makes sheep. And some of these understand 30 fold, some 60, and some 100. Were the men in Acts 19 not sheep prior to being baptized with the Holy Spirit? I don't see how we could say that. They worshiped God prior to this without full knowledge of the gospel. Once they knew, it most certainly informed their worship, but they were sheep before, and they were still sheep after. Apollos only had limited teaching, but was he not a sheep prior to Aquila and Priscilla? I don't see how we can say he wasn't.



God makes sheep indeed. He regenerates them immediately, but he converts them mediately. At conversion, He gives them a knowledge of the true gospel, salvation by Christ alone. This knowledge is not a "full knowledge of the gospel", but is a faith nonetheless in the TRUE gospel, not a false one based upon works/merit. 

The point of this discussion is not to say "How little must a person believe in order to be saved?" but more revolves around the question "Even though a true sheep has the gospel in the most basic seed form, what things will he never believe without denying those basic truths of the gospel?" I suggest that a person who has the most basic, fundamental understanding of the gospel (while even being completely ignorant of TULIP), will never believe Arminianism because of it's antithetical nature to the true gospel of salvation by Christ alone.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> There is a huge difference in scope between Jehovah's witness and an arminian. For the most part, the arminian lives life by the Word of God. The JW doesn't.



This is pressupposed and needs to be proved. JW's are the modern form of Socinianism, while the Arminians are a modern form of Pelagianism...both historic and fundamental heresies. 



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I've heard this argument before from "hyper-calvinists" and I don't think it holds water. What is the object of faith in JW? What is the object of faith in Arminianism? Christ is central to the protestant faith. Arminians are not that far from truth. Therefore, I think we do treat them as sheep. If I hadn't been, I might not be where I am today.



This is where we disagree. "Christ" is central to both JW's and Arminians. JW's believe that Christ is not God. Arminians believe in an ineffectual Christ (a Christ that paved the way so you can get into heaven by your good works).



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Again, I think we're talking about two different kinds of sheep. False teachers and those to whom the false teachers come. I'm not speaking against the censure of false teachers, but I am not willing to send their hearers to hell. They are being led astray, but they are still sheep.



Nobody is condemning the hearers of false teachers to hell. I thought I made that abundantly clear in a previous post. We are condemning their followers (i.e. believers) to hell. The teachers and followers are on their way for the same reason...they believe the Arminian/works based lie.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> If that is the only gospel they've heard, but yet God gave them faith, regenerated them, and converted them, then who are we to say that they aren't saved.



God does not give people faith in a false gospel. He only converts people by the hearing of the one/true non-merit based gospel of salvation by Jesus Christ alone.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> That was me. That was many of us.



That was me too. 



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> And I'm sorry, but there is enough truth in the way God saves a person to make up for the errors, no matter how pernicious they are.



No. I really don't understand where you are drawing the line here. A person can believe the one true gospel of salvation by Christ alone and still rely on his own works? It is impossible. It is a contradiction. 



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> It is because salvation is of the LORD. What did Jonah say to convert the Ninevites? God is going to destroy you. Are the 5 points in that gospel? God saved them. Who are we to deny it?



Nobody is saying that the five points of Calvinism must be in the gospel for people to be converted. What we ARE saying is the the five points of Arminianism must NOT BE THERE because it is antithetical to the gospel.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I think that this does happen, but not to the general laity. I think in this passage, Christ is identifying the disciples of the Pharisees. But we have to differentiate a disciple from a regular Israelite. It has been well documented that not all could become disciples of the Pharisees. It was a status thing. So I think what Jesus is referring to here is those (the talmidim) who would be trained up to take their place as pharisees or rabbis.
> 
> If this is the sense of the passage, then we cannot lump all of those who hear false teaching as sons of hell, especially in light of the fact that in other places, the "little ones" are not considered sons of hell.



Again...nobody on this board is saying that the "hearers" of Arminianism are sons of hell. That would make me a son of hell, because I HEAR it all of the time. It is the adhearers to Arminianism that are on the road to perdition.

Ignorance is no excuse and it is my belief that it cannot be supported biblically.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 11, 2006)

*Jeff...*

Perhaps a more biblical example:

Were the Galatians regenerated and converted? Paul says they were bewitched by the Judaizers. They were being taught a false gospel and they believed it. So, in light of this, how were they different than Arminians? The gospel was false, and yet Paul has not condemned them to hell.

Is this a better example?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 11, 2006)

"There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of their own opinion. Therefore, for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. But when his time is come, God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind." Wesley to Whitefield, August 9, 1740

"I love and honour you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul. There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done. But I hope the Lord will show you this before you go hence." - Whitefield to Wesley, Dec. 24, 1740.


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 11, 2006)

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



You certainly can. And you can hold to all points of Calvinism and still not be a Christian. Woe to those who look to their Calvinism for assurance.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

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



There is no thing as heresy; I guess Christ and Paul were wrong when they talk of false teachers and wolves.

Greg,
I forgive you for the last two personal jabs at me..........

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 11, 2006)

This has been a very good discussion. I'm glad there is enough understanding in the Reformed community to know when issues are important. 

Still people are continuing to hold contrary definitions of Arminian which could clear up many disagreements. Arminian_ism_ is well understood, but that is not the same as what is an Arminian. I wish more people would define their terms, or at least consider if the other person is using a different definition. Had we all adopted a single definition of Arminian for the sake of this discussion, the content of the thread might be half what it is now

...Well maybe not _half_ . 

Second, there are a lot of cases of people assuming they understand other peoples' arguments. A few simple questions to your opponent can go far in reducing the cross-talk that has added to unnecessary parts of the debate. Not to pat my own back, but all I needed to do was ask Matt two simple questions to help me understand his position, and he gave me two simple answers. This is not to say that this was sufficient for everyone, only that it made a big difference for me - so I'd recommend it.

But all that said, I think much of what has been posted has been useful debate and discussion - and is not evidence of anything wrong, but is an example of health inquiry and debate. It's a good thing! 

The issue of Arminianism, and if it has the potential to carry some to hell, is worth the effort. I'm still working out what I believe is true on the issue, but I'm glad it is not being ignored. Better that we should determine the the truth - and speak what we firmly believe is true as Matt has done - even if it offends - then to remain in ignorance at the risk of our souls. So even if there is disagreement, we should deal with it head on as some have been _brave_ enough to do in this thread.



[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

Good ending.

Thanks for all who participated.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 12, 2006)

Scott, let this one ride a bit longer. I'd like to see some conclusions that others bring to the table. If it gets out of hand, then close it.

[Edited on 2-12-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Nobody is saying that the five points of Calvinism must be in the gospel for people to be converted. What we ARE saying is the the five points of Arminianism must NOT BE THERE because it is antithetical to the gospel.



What complete nonsense. If the 5 points of Arminianism are NOT THERE, then the 5 points of Calvinism automatically ARE THERE. There is no middle ground! 

Either you believe humans are totally depraved, or you don't. There is no middle ground.

Either you believe election is unconditional, or you believe it is conditional. There is no middle ground.

Either you believe the atonement is universal in intent, or you believe it is limited in intent. There is no middle ground.

Either you believe grace is irresistible, or you believe it is resistable. There is no middle ground.

Either you believe you are eternally secure, or you believe you can lose your salvation. There is no middle ground.

Ergo, Jeff, you are *definitely* condemning all non-5-point-Calvinists to hell. Just for example, Bruce Ware is a well-known and respected 4-point Calvinist. Not only does he NOT hold to the Limited atonement, but he *explicitly* holds to the Universal atonement taught by Arminians. So if you are correct, Jeff, then Bruce Ware is on his way to hell, because he consciously embraces one point of Arminianism. Sorry, Jeff, but you are dead wrong, and are implicitly slandering your brothers in Christ, be they 1-point Arminians (such as Bruce Ware), or 5-point Arminians.


Gregory said it quite clearly and quite well:



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





AMEN, doulosChristou!



Arminians are wrong. But they are not damned. They are not perfect, but they are forgiven. Even if only in Heaven, God will eventually clear up their error. But for salvation, their error need not be cleared up on earth.






[Edited on 2-12-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Peter (Feb 12, 2006)

I had one simple thought touching this subject. I haven't followed the thread very attentively so I might be way off in this or repeating something already said, but I see a correlation between the Romish view that faith is bear assent and the view that those without perfect knowledge of the workings of salvation are lost. Faith is not assent to a sequence of propositions, it is confidence in the person and work of Christ.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 12, 2006)

Statistically, this heated discussion has become one of Puritanboard's top 5 threads:



> *Top 5 most viewed topics:*
> Did baptism really replace circumcision as the sign/seal of (16650)
> Theonomy? What is it? (3782)
> Why Theonomy is BAD? Or is it? (3209)
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Well...I would hate to be someone who had just believed the bare gospel for the first time then....because exactly how much time do I have to decide if I believe in limited atonement or not? How much time do I have to read the bible to see what it says? 

According to you, one can not be studying and not for sure on a subject, but must know right away what one believes on any given topic.

Not only that, there are different strands of positions on the five points. What about the Lutheran position? It certainly is not arminian, is it?

You have created a non-sequitor. It does not follow that because Arminians are condemned, that ALL non-calvinists are condemned.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Perhaps a more biblical example:
> 
> Were the Galatians regenerated and converted? Paul says they were bewitched by the Judaizers. They were being taught a false gospel and they believed it. So, in light of this, how were they different than Arminians? The gospel was false, and yet Paul has not condemned them to hell.
> ...



I started a new thread to discuss this question:

Did Paul treat the Galatians as Christians or non Christians?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 12, 2006)

Adam, I'm sorry I misunderstood at least some of what you were saying earlier - with regard to full Calvinism being a necessary condition of saving faith. And thanks for pointing that out, Jeff - I'm glad we're agreed on that.

I still disagree with you though, Jeff, on singling out Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace as necessary in that way, though, largely because I believe with many others that the five points really do all stand or fall with one another. Using Unconditional Election as an example - if _Total_ Depravity is true, meaning (as we agree) that _regenerating_ grace must therefore be _Irresistible_ rather than prevenient, then there is _also_ no way _election_ could have been _conditional_ on foreseen faith, since that faith would be monergistically brought forth. The same can be demonstrated with Perseverance of the Saints, since God only irresistibly regenerates those He has already unconditionally elected, and that translates into saying that He only regenerates those who will be saved in the end.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> According to you, one can not be studying and not for sure on a subject, but must know right away what one believes on any given topic.



In one sense and to a certain extent I agree with this, as I think everyone here would, in that to be saved, one does not necessarily have or need a full, explicit, systematic understanding of all the issues involved. But I actually think Joseph would agree with it _in that sense_ as well. And I think his original point has some validity as well, since to be saved, one still must at least have a _real_, _underlying_ understanding of some of those issues as such.

The thief on the cross is an excellent example. Did he understand or need to understand exactly how the Spirit brought about regeneration in him, or how He was elected, or the like, in an _explicit_, _systematic_ way? Of course not. At the same time, he _did_ have to instantly have a true knowledge and belief that Christ's promise was supremely trustworthy (i.e. an underlying, perhaps even subconscious understanding of Perseverance of the Saints), a certain knowledge that he was helpless to save himself and thus had to turn to Christ (i.e. an underlying understanding of Total Depravity), a belief that Christ was preparing to go to _His_ Kingdom (i.e. underlying understanding of both the deity and Lordship of Christ, even though he did not explicitly understand the doctrines of the Incarnation or the Trinity), and on an on.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Not only that, there are different strands of positions on the five points. What about the Lutheran position? It certainly is not arminian, is it?
> 
> You have created a non-sequitor. It does not follow that because Arminians are condemned, that ALL non-calvinists are condemned.



Joseph, I think this is one of the key points Matt, Jeff, Adam, myself and many others have been trying to point out since the beginning of the discussion. What Matt spoke of in his article as _historic Arminianism_ really is a more specifically-defined system than the mere concepts to which most so-called "Arminians" (many or even most of whom are probably better called _quasi-Arminian_, as in the case of Jeff's Lutheran example) today hold.

[Edited on 2-12-2006 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 12, 2006)

> Quote:
> *Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel*
> Not only that, there are different strands of positions on the five points. What about the Lutheran position? It certainly is not arminian, is it?
> 
> ...



Chris,

I answered the issue of "historic Arminianism" in my post on page 9, 10th post on the page (assuming your settings are for 25 posts per page). The words "historic Arminian" never appear in the article. To hold *even one* tenant of Arminianism, according to Dr. McMahon, is damning.

In his reply to my post, Dr. McMahon did not deny that at all, but re-affirmed that to be the case:



> No one following *any* of the tenants of Arminius is exempt from the article. Its point is to ruffle their feathers to think about how much or how little they will follow Arminius´ "œgod."



What of those whom you refer to as "quasi-Arminian" Lutherans?

From the LCMS website:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2242 



> 2) The nature of Christ's atonement. *Lutherans believe that when Jesus died on the cross He atoned for the sins of all people of all time--even those who have not or will not come to faith in Christ.* Reformed churches have historically taught a "limited atonement" of Christ, i.e., that Christ's death on the cross atoned only for the sins of "the elect"--those who have been predestined from eternity to believe in Christ and will spend eternity with Him in heaven.



Lutheranism is not exempt from the article either.







[Edited on 2-12-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 12, 2006)

If the point was to talk about the "system of arminianism" then it is a poorly written article.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 12, 2006)

HG- 

What do _you_ think it was written about?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 12, 2006)

I'm don't want to play psychologist  but since I was asked; I can't imagine that WM, is trying to throw all non calvinists under the bus. So I take it was a warning to all to examine their theology to see how it fits in relation to orthodoxy. If it doesnt stand well then, one needs to study and go about fixing it.


----------



## lwadkins (Feb 12, 2006)

This is nothing but the old time worn "It ain't fair" argument dressed up as theology. More of the BS that new Christians have to deal with and part of the new "Religon of Tolerance." Man has always had and continues to have a propensity for creating his own gospel (that always has "some" basis in the real gospel) and declaring it to be a valid gospel.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I had one simple thought touching this subject. I haven't followed the thread very attentively so I might be way off in this or repeating something already said, but I see a correlation between the Romish view that faith is bear assent and the view that those without perfect knowledge of the workings of salvation are lost. Faith is not assent to a sequence of propositions, it is confidence in the person and work of Christ.



Peter,

I have consciously not been following the thread either. But your point is of interest to me, especially the last sentence. I wonder if it is mere coincidence that each of the most vocal proponents of the Arminians are damned are Clarkians.


----------



## Peter (Feb 12, 2006)

That was my point Fred.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> That was my point Fred.



I thought so, but did not want to assume. And an exceedingly insightful observation on your part.

Thanks, Peter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> What complete nonsense. If the 5 points of Arminianism are NOT THERE, then the 5 points of Calvinism automatically ARE THERE. There is no middle ground!
> 
> Either you believe humans are totally depraved, or you don't. There is no middle ground.
> ...


Joseph,

You know how much we agree in so many areas. Ben and others who have taken issue with the article as well.

Your post above I think is a good example of how this thread has "evolved".

Who is being criticized here? Is it one of the posters or is it Matt's article? I think the thread has created some protagonists that some would want to associate with Matt's article and some are left with the impression: "He's saying that about what Matt said." It gets very complicated with all the twists and turns.

I've affirmed that there are ways that the article can be interpreted that cause consternation. I wonder, however, if Matt had been dead for a few hundred years and we were digging this article up from some obscure Reformed Puritan in the past if we'd be saying "Whoa, that sounds like Owens." I've read J.I. Packer write that Arminianism in a return to Rome.

Again, I prefer to view it as a grave warning. It is one thing to have zeal in ignorance. It is quite another to become zealous for Biblical error as I believe Dave Hunt is. I will never say any man is damned because I have no such knowledge.

I don't like to talk about such issues in hypothetical categories. I tend to be a very "what's this mean to those I worship with" kind of guy. I worship with Southern Baptists right now.

Let me just take the idea of a poor view of man's sinfulness. Do not the Scriptures witness that the Law brings us to the Gospel by convicting us of our utter need for a Savior? Doesn't Arminianism tend to undermine that utter need?

For example, JUST YESTERDAY, I was in Church (it's Monday here). The preacher is a visiting minister here on island to prep for a Franklin Graham crusade that will be taking place in November. His sermon was horrible. He preached on worry and spoke of peace as something more in psychological terms of doing away with angst. He never spoke about being at peace with God.

During the altar call some people came forward crying. They were baptized members coming forward to rededicate their lives (the Arminian sacrament by which those who aren't being as holy as they're supposed to be come back to promise to be holy again. The rest, in the pews, are doing OK so they don't have to come forward.) Anyway, the minister didn't know these were baptized for sure, he asked that they repeat a prayer in their hearts so that, if they're unbelievers, they can experience God's peace. It went something like this:

"Heavenly Father, I know I need peace but I don't know how to get peace. Jesus, please come into my heart and be in charge of my life. I know you are waiting to bless me and I want to be blessed. I pray that you would be in charge and give me that peace."

I wish I knew the exact words but that's close enough. I commented to my wife later that the prayer would not have offended anybody in an AA meeting. No mention of sin or a need to be delivered from utter wretchedness.

Who cares about the dang doctrine and that it is expressed an embraced with seminary precision?! I care about what it means when people pray prayers that are consequent of a faulty doctrine that allow a sinful heart to pour any meaning they want into the terms "peace" and "rule". I REALLY CARE about those people who are going forward on those altar calls. I teach them about the Gospel and am trying to help them understand it. I am not some stuck-up Calvinist content to lob rocks at them because they're messing it all up. I'm really afraid that the presentation of the Gospel is so flawed that it is spiritual malpractice. I care about my relatives whose souls are poisoned by it too.

And so, being very concerned about my fellow brothers and sisters who remain weighed down with worry about their sins because they hear the Gospel mixed with Arminianism, I have very little affinity for its doctors. Men and women come time and again to that stupid altar call to receive the assurance they should have heard when the Gospel was first proclaimed. It is NO DIFFERENT than that plank of justification that Rome holds out in Penance in terms of how it is utilized by the uneducated. It breaks your heart to see. It is almost enough to not want to come back just so I don't have to witness it week after week but NO, NO! I will make sure that somehow, I'm not sure how, that God will use me to tell some of these people "PEACE. You can really rest now." 

I call them brothers and sisters because they've been baptized in the name of the Trinity and professed faith. I weep for them like brothers and sisters because they are like Galatians that want to return to chains, called by a different name, but now it's altar calls and rededications as opposed to circumcisions.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Peter (Feb 12, 2006)

Fred, its my mistake for being unclear. Pastor Way is right to be alarmed, there is alot at stake here. Notional knowledge must be distinguished from real saving experience of the knowledge of Christ. At the same time I can see things from the other side's perspective. You must have sufficient knowledge of Christ inorder to trust in him. Arminianism in its extreme forms adds human will to the basis of salvation. Yet how much must we know about salvation in order to be saved? The Apostle Peter at one time disbelieved in the death and resurrection of Christ, was he yet unsaved? I think a lot has to do with our disposition towards the truth. Not knowing it or disbelieving it in ignorance is much different from obstinately refusing it. Dave Hunt, who name was brought up before, knows the truth and he hates it. He wants his choice to accept Jesus to be the ground of his salvation. Jesus' overtures are to us as sinners, to come with nothing, with no money to pay our debts. We must completely transfer all reliance to Christ. To do otherwise is to strike at the sufficiency of Christ and to endanger our salvation.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 12, 2006)

*John Calvin on Arminianism*

The following is an verbatim quote from Calvin. Of course, just because he says what he does below does not make it true, but nontheless, would people react to Calvin as they have this article? Is Calvin a "hyper-calvinist"?

Calvin wrote this agains Pighius, who defended "free will" in the Arminian sense.

John Calvin, _The Bondage and Liberation of the Will_, p. 188-189


> Two reasons prevent me from now refuting these delusions with Scripture: namely that a vast forest [of texts] would spring up around me here, and that this will be the subject which will occupy the whole of the next book. Add the fact that whenever his mind finds Scripture not to his taste he ignores it. But where is that respect which he pretends that he shows to the definitions of the ancient fathers? "If anyone teaches that both the increase and the beginning of faith and the very desire to believe [come] not as a gift of grace (i.e., through the working of the Holy Spirit reforming our will from unbelief to belief, from ir-religion to religion), but are innate in us by nature," he is declared to be a heretic by a decree of a church council (Council or Orange, ch.5). Also, "if anyone argues that God waits for our desire that we should be cleansed from sin, and does not acknowledge that it is by the work of the Holy Spirit in us that we are even caused to want cleansing," he is condemned as an adversary of the Holy Spirit (ch. 4). Again, "if anyone teaches that God's mercy is bestowed on us because apart from the grace of God we will, toil, knock, ask, and desire it, and *does not acknowledge that it is from God through the Spirit that we are caused  to believe*, will, and be able to do all these things as we should," *he is judged worthy of an anathema * (ch. 6). The following decrees were passed by the council in addition: "*If anyone says that by the disobedience of Adam man was not entirely, that is, in both soul and body, changed for the worse*, but believes that only the body was subjected to corruption, the freedom of the soul remaining unharmed, then he is deceived by the error of Pelagius" (ch.1).  Again: "If anone says that grace is bestowed in response to human request, and not that it is grace itself which causes us to request it, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah" (ch. 3). Again: "If anyone affirms that it is possible to think or choose by natural strength any good thing which has to do with eternal life, that is to assent to the preaching [of the gospel] without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit who gives to all their delight in assenting and believing, then he is deceived by a heretical spirit" (ch. 7). Again: "God loves us as we shall be through his own gift, not as we are by our own merit" (ch. 12). Again: "No one has anything of his own but falsehood or sin" (ch. 22).


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Rich,

Please help me understand what is complicated about my post. I was very clearly responding to one post which Jeff Bartel made. I was not talking about Matt's article at all.

Please see above where I put certain words in bold. I made it clear that I was specifically addressing Jeff, not Matt.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> I've affirmed that there are ways that the article can be interpreted that cause consternation. I wonder, however, if Matt had been dead for a few hundred years and we were digging this article up from some obscure Reformed Puritan in the past if we'd be saying "Whoa, that sounds like Owens." I've read J.I. Packer write that Arminianism in a return to Rome.



I agree that Matt sounds like John Owen. I highly respect both Matt & John. And both of them are quite explicitly clear that Arminians don't go to heaven unless they convert to Calvinism before death.



> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Anthony asked:
> 
> ...




And Scott Bushey agrees with Matt:




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






> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Anyway, the minister didn't know these were baptized for sure, he asked that they repeat a prayer in their hearts so that, if they're unbelievers, they can experience God's peace. It went something like this:
> 
> ...



Rich, 

I completely agree with you that such "prayers" are an abomination, and that no one is saved by them. Of course I agree that there has to be a real recognition of sin, grace, and salvation via Christ's sacrifice.

But *many* Arminians don't use such prayers. For salvation, a large number of Arminians believe and pray very clearly concerning our utter lostness in sin, and our total need of Christ's sacrifice in order to obtain forgiveness. Read John Wesley. He was a staunch Arminian. But he didn't ignore the depravity of humans lost in sin, and he certainly didn't ignore the cross. 

I think *everyone* on this thread and on this board agree that Arminianism is *very much* in error. But is it damnable error? No.

I'm not saying you disagree. I just want to be very clear.


I appreciate you, Rich. And I appreciate your posts. I am very blessed to have you as a brother in Christ!


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I still disagree with you though, Jeff, on singling out Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace as necessary in that way, though, largely because I believe with many others that the five points really do all stand or fall with one another.



Just for the record, I have never said that a person must assent to Irresistible Grace in order to be saved. They must assent to Total Depravity, as the WLC states, and as the scriptures declare.

As the saying goes....you gotta get 'em lost, before you can get 'em saved. (All sayings break down...so please don't read any works salvation into the statement...but you know what it is trying to get across).

In a sense, total depravity is not about the gospel, it is about the condemnation of the law. You realize the disease, before you can know the cure.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Using Unconditional Election as an example - if _Total_ Depravity is true, meaning (as we agree) that _regenerating_ grace must therefore be _Irresistible_ rather than prevenient, then there is _also_ no way _election_ could have been _conditional_ on foreseen faith, since that faith would be monergistically brought forth. The same can be demonstrated with Perseverance of the Saints, since God only irresistibly regenerates those He has already unconditionally elected, and that translates into saying that He only regenerates those who will be saved in the end.



I agree that the points stand or fall together, but that does not mean that a person can hear/learn about them all at once does it? A person may wait long before he ever HEARS about the doctrine of limited atonement, or effectual grace.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> During the altar call some people came forward crying. They were baptized members coming forward to rededicate their lives (the Arminian sacrament by which those who aren't being as holy as they're supposed to be come back to promise to be holy again. The rest, in the pews, are doing OK so they don't have to come forward.)
> ... I'm really afraid that the presentation of the Gospel is so flawed that it is spiritual malpractice. I care about my relatives whose souls are poisoned by it too.
> 
> ...




This is what Keswick theology has done to the evangelical church. It was supposed to be perfectionism for Calvinists, but it taught Arminianism to many who didn't know they were learning it, by teaching that sanctification (rededication) is obtained in the same way as justification, by believing a set of propositions and making a decision, thus teaching decisional regeneration, i.e. Arminianism.

I never came to faith until I was an adult, almost 40 years old, even though I was technically raised a Christian. This that you describe is what I grew up with. For those who think maybe some Calvinists are nitpicking about this, I didn't come to faith until I was presented with the Gospel in a Reformed context. I am always amazed when I hear of someone coming to faith in an Arminian or Dispensational church, not because I think they're all lost, but because the Gospel is so garbled in those contexts. So I wonder and would like opinions about the following, whether they constitiute "other gospels" or not; Arminianism and Keswickian or Wesleyanism/Perfectionism.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The following is an verbatim quote from Calvin. Of course, just because he says what he does below does not make it true, but nontheless, would people react to Calvin as they have this article? Is Calvin a "hyper-calvinist"?
> 
> Calvin wrote this agains Pighius, who defended "free will" in the Arminian sense.
> ...




Even John Wesley agreed that it is not "apart from the grace of God". Rather, he said that we are *totally* depraved, with no good in us at all. But Wesley said that God gave prevenient grace to everyone. And it is this grace that makes people "able to do all these things as we should". So John Wesley actually would agree with much of what Calvin said in your quote. But of course he thought that a person could be made "able to do all these things", and yet still choose not to do them. John Wesley was wrong, but not damnably wrong.



> The following decrees were passed by the council in addition: "*If anyone says that by the disobedience of Adam man was not entirely, that is, in both soul and body, changed for the worse*, but believes that only the body was subjected to corruption, the freedom of the soul remaining unharmed, then he is deceived by the error of Pelagius" (ch.1).



John Wesley taught that man is totally depraved, every bit as much as any Calvinist taught. Wesley agreed that man was "entirely, that is, in both soul and body, changed for the worse" because of Adam's disobedience. So John Wesley would agree totally with Calvin's statement above. He simply believed that God gives prevenient grace to everyone, to enable all men a sort of pre-fall-ability to choose. He did not deny total depravity. He just believed that God partially rescues all men from it. Thus, he would say that all of salvation after faith was a gift, and he would also say that it was the grace of God that made it possible for even that initial faith to take place.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The following is an verbatim quote from Calvin. Of course, just because he says what he does below does not make it true, but nontheless, would people react to Calvin as they have this article? Is Calvin a "hyper-calvinist"?
> 
> Calvin wrote this agains Pighius, who defended "free will" in the Arminian sense.
> ...



Jeff,

I'm not sure what you are trying to show by this, but it is not a refutation of Arminianism. It is a putting of the cart before the horse, considering that Arminianism did not even exist in Calvin's day - Arminius came after.

This is Calvin's critique of _Pelagianism_ which is quite different, and much greater an error than Arminianism. It is clear that this is the case not merely from history, but because Calvin cites the Council of Orange as an authority in this matter (as well he should), and at Orange, semi-Pelagianism was upheld as a sort of compromise between the the Augustinian and moderate Pelagian factions (one things of Jerome).

Each of these statements by Calvin can be claimed by classical Arminians using the doctrine of prevenient grace. NOTE: I do not agree with the doctrine of prevenient grace, but it is compatible (at least at face value) with the statements from Calvin.

So no cigar.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Just for the record, I have never said that a person must assent to Irresistible Grace in order to be saved. They must assent to Total Depravity, as the WLC states, and as the scriptures declare.



I want to point out the fact that many Arminians DO believe in total depravity. John Wesley is an important example.

He taught total depravity as heavily as Calvinists.

He just believed that God offered "prevenient grace" to universally undo some of that depravity. 

Thus, he would say that the natural state of man is totally depraved, but that God sends prevenient grace to return all people to a not-quite-so-depraved state, so that they at least have the restored ability to choose good instead of evil. Then, if any of these people choose Christ, then they receive salvation. But don't forget . . . even their initial ability to have faith was a gift from God. Several times, John Wesley even said that "faith is a gift from God". 

John Wesley was confused and inconsistent. But he believed man was lost in sin, and he preached the cross of Christ as the only available remedy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Rich,
> 
> Please help me understand what is complicated about my post. I was very clearly responding to one post which Jeff Bartel made. I was not talking about Matt's article at all.
> ...


I should have been clearer. I initially thought you were ascribing it to Matt because I tend to scan things initially and then re-read them. I'm just stating that this thread has confused some (including me) and takes a lot of effort to sort out who is criticizing who because an affirmation or criticism of Matt's article becomes a rabbit trail argument (lenghty trails at that!) and some might start to think they're criticizing Matt. I should have been clearer on that.


> But *many* Arminians don't use such prayers. For salvation, a large number of Arminians believe and pray very clearly concerning our utter lostness in sin, and our total need of Christ's sacrifice in order to obtain forgiveness. Read John Wesley. He was a staunch Arminian. But he didn't ignore the depravity of humans lost in sin, and he certainly didn't ignore the cross.


My experience would indicate that such man-centered prayers are widespread (witness the appeal of _The Prayer of Jabez_). I'm not saying that there aren't Arminians that pray utter lostness but I've travelled pretty far and wide and intersect Christian men and women from every corner of the globe. "Lostness" sentiments are rarely expressed in prayer or in the literature they consume. I hope that I'm wrong but fear that I am not.


> I think *everyone* on this thread and on this board agree that Arminianism is *very much* in error. But is it damnable error? No.


No doctrine really damns. It doesn't have the power to do that. Unbelief damns. I know no man's heart so I reserve final Judgment to Him who knows the heart. Nevertheless, are there tenets of Arminianism that are just as pernicious (perhaps more so) than having a faulty view of the hypostatic union of Christ? A case can be made that it so distorts the Gospel that I would not want be one of its Doctors at the Last Judgment answering for those it harmed.


> I appreciate you, Rich. And I appreciate your posts. I am very blessed to have you as a brother in Christ!


Likewise my friend.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I never came to faith until I was an adult, almost 40 years old, even though I was technically raised a Christian. This that you describe is what I grew up with. For those who think maybe some Calvinists are nitpicking about this, I didn't come to faith until I was presented with the Gospel in a Reformed context. I am always amazed when I hear of someone coming to faith in an Arminian or Dispensational church, not because I think they're all lost, but because the Gospel is so garbled in those contexts. So I wonder and would like opinions about the following, whether they constitiute "other gospels" or not; Arminianism and Keswickian or Wesleyanism/Perfectionism.


I was raised Roman Catholic and, by interesting circumstances, ended up in Evangelical, non-denominational Churches for a really long time. I almost can't remember what I really believed about salvation then. I think I frankly just believed that my excitement for Christ (especially singing) combined with my desire to read the Bible, get quiet time, and pray were marks that I loved God and would be saved by Him. I was a Worship Team leader and I remember looking forward to the 40 minutes of singing we had each week. I would raise my hands and sing with great passion working something up within me as we came to emotional climax designed to inspired the congregation (designed by my song selection). 

I always left so deflated. I remember leaving Church depressed every Sunday. Depressed! It was like I had just come down off a drug and now I had to face the week - a week filled with sin and knowing I wasn't living up to the life I was supposed to be living. 

I lived in a state of spiritual depression for years. A couple of altar calls rededicating my life and the 40 minutes of singing every week were very much like going to Penance as a Roman Catholic kid. Enter the Church depressed loaded down with sin, get your fix (Te Absolvo), go back into the world sinning almost immediately and wondering why I was so miserable.

I'm with you, I don't know how people get saved in systems like that. The preacher never spoke about Christ atoning for our sins. He never even ended prayers in Jesus Name, preferring to end them in "...your most precious Name." (anybody else notice how widespread that is). I've met friend after countless friend that was re-baptized, re-dedicated constantly, etc.

I think God had me by the neck then but MAN, am I blessed that R.C. Sproul came on the radio at lunchtime in Quantico!! In the first 20 pages of _Faith Alone_ I was thinking: "IT WAS ALWAYS RIGHT THERE!!! WHY ISN'T ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT THIS?!!! 

When you're in the middle of it, though, you can't see it. They even sometimes get the language close but the symbols and the pietistic messages drown it out.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## satz (Feb 13, 2006)

Prehaps it might be helpful to look at this issue from another angle. Instead of asking 'can an arminian be saved?' maybe we can ask 'can one of the elect be so deceived so as to believe in arminianism?'

I believe the answer is yes, they can. God does not promise to protect his elect, no matter what happens, from heresy. If he did, why would the apostles write so extensively against it and warn so strongly about false teachers?

There are some in this thread who have said that there is not a time difference between regeneration and conversion. I respectfully disagree. I am sure the example of John the Baptist has been debated about before. What about Cornelius and Lydia? I think they are both examples of elect people regenerated but not converted before they met Peter/Paul. If you look at the descriptions of them before they met their respective evangelists and compare with all the verses on total depravity, it is impossible to conclude that they were natural men before they heard the gospel.

If instead of one of the apostles, an arminian heretic had preached to them first, do we really believe it is absolutely impossible they would have been deceived? If the elect are really 'immune' from heresy in this way, than large portions of the new testament that warn about false teaching are a waste of space. Nor do i believe that God ever promises he will restore all his elect from false doctrine that deceives them. To hold to that proposition, borders on fatalism, i think. 

Look at 1 Cor 11 where we see corinthian christians who died for abusing the Lord's Supper. We have no indication whatsoever that they repented. And surely it is not unreasonable to think that a man who dares to profane the Lord's Supper in that way would also be invovled in some of the other heresies and problems plaguing the church of corinth. And whilst Paul tells us they were saved from hell by God's faithfulness, we have no grounds for concluding they were restored to sound doctrine in this life.

Look in the Old testament at Samson and Lot. Both of them lived carnal, fruitless lives. We don't know for sure about Lot but Samson at least never repented, even at the end.

That, i think, is the whole point of santification and preaching. Those things don't save anyone, because Jesus Christ saved all his elect by himself. But they do give the elect assurance in this life, and make the difference between making it to heaven having lived a life like Paul, or like Samson.

Gettting back on topic, I think those who say arminians cannot be saved are holding on to an erroneous idea that the elect cannot be deceived and become arminian ( or something else ). Or, an elect man might be converted to an arminan gospel and if he is stiff necked and hardens his heart, or if God's preachers around him are slothful, he may never be converted out of his error.

None of these things are meant as a defense of arminianism or any kind of error. If agree that a gospel without predestination is no gospel at all, and i agree with Rich that it pains me to see men and women who seem to have genuine love for Jesus Christ deceived by this nonsense.

i think it was Ryan(?) who mentioned a page ago that arminian believes makes a christian's profession questionable. But then so does any false doctrine or sin he or she hold to, although different things will effect his profession to different extents. There are certainly somethings that if believed make it almost impossible for other to believe that man can be born again. But i do not believe arminianism crosses that line.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by satz]

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by satz]


----------



## lwadkins (Feb 13, 2006)

It would seem to me that the underlying issue here is not who is dammed and who isn't, but what really constitutes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of the arguments are just specious. So and so is not a "5 pointer"; and he can't be dammed, look at how good a person he is and he believes almost everything a "5 pointer does" Since when does almost believing the right things mean you have been chosen by God? No matter which side of the argument you are on, this argument is not credible. 

Try approaching this from a different direction. Tell us what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, how it changes the elect and what the elect look like after being changed.

Having come out of an Arminist tradition I resent the fact that so many in that tradition tried with all their might to keep me in that tradition, finding ways to reinforce their false teachings and ingrain them in me to such an extent that I would be mired forever in those errors. I don't resent the people, by the way, they were really "nice" people. Were they dammed? If they continue to teach error and try to cause others to stumble into their errors, yes. But, God wasn't done with me and he may not be done with them. He didn't leave me in that mess but brought me out of it. How?

When he changed me, he gave me a hunger for his Word and by the Spirit of God led me to greater understanding as i strove to come to an awareness of who God is. Who is the living God that i am to worship! Who is Jesus Christ, son of the living God who gave himself for me!

In passing I want to say that these "Arminist" errors are not stand alone as so many in these threads want to imply. In fact over time if held they bleed over to other areas of doctrine and pollute it also. They will completely distort "human" understanding of the Gospel, save that God intervene. Are there so called "Arminists" that do not understand what real Arminist doctrine is? Of course! Just as there are Catholics, Mormons, JW's and those from other traditions that do not understand what their traditions truly believe. Now, many today want to say that those who sit under the teachings of these groups, but dont understand or necessarily follow their teachings, may in fact be "saved." Well, they may be elect but if they have been justified, where is their hunger for God's Word. Why are they sitting contentedly under false teaching without being disturbed by it. No one can know whose God's elect may be, but the Bible indicates that we can make judgements as to their current state based on their fruits (both good and bad).

Also there is another human frailty that damages the credibility of many participants. That is adherence to a particular teacher of professor or mentor. These folks have a lot to teach us, and we can stand on their shoulders and have more understanding then if we did not have them. But ultimately you and you alone are responsible for what you choose to believe. Too often we hold to what someone teaches because we "like" them or their charismatic presentation of issues sway us to become loyal followers. Time and time again I see those whose doctrine is inconsistent, and there is no way to reason with them. That is because it is more like a football game to them. I have chosen my team, and we will WIN!! Then there is the other side of the coin. Those who reason and are so pleased with their great intelligence and learning that they invent convoluted constructs of logic and reason that are then used to modify the clear meaning of Scripture. There also is no reasoning with these folks, they are too impressed with themselves to listen to anyone else and consider that all their intelligence reason and logic may have failed them.

So set aside all of these things that distract. Tell me what the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is, and lay out the Order of Salvation, tell me what happens to people when they are justified and what justified people look like. Tell me about sanctification and fruits. Lay this out clearly and this thread is moot.
X

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by lwadkins]


----------



## satz (Feb 13, 2006)

> Tell me what the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is, and lay out the Order of Salvation, tell me what happens to people when they are justified and what justified people look like. Tell me about sanctification and fruits. Lay this out clearly and this thread is moot.



Isn't this what people have been going on about for the last 12 pages?


----------



## lwadkins (Feb 13, 2006)

Mark, I don't see a clear statement of the Gospel and what it does to people in this thread. I am glad that you do, and you can be of great service to me by summarizing it for me.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I disagree that Wesley's form of depravity was the same as the Calvinist form.

No matter how you shape it, the Arminian form is that man is depraved, and needs God's help (prevenient grace) to save him, BUT IN THE END, that's all it is, is help. Man is not so depraved that THE GRACE OF GOD ALONE must rescue him. He is sick and in need of medicine, but not dead, and in need of resurrection.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Jeff,
> 
> I'm not sure what you are trying to show by this, but it is not a refutation of Arminianism. It is a putting of the cart before the horse, considering that Arminianism did not even exist in Calvin's day - Arminius came after.
> ...



Fred,

I understand what you are saying, and historically it is important to make the comments about Arminianism "technically" existing during/after Arminius.

That being said, I think the quote (at least part of it) directly applies to the Arminian controversy. How many Arminians would say that the Spirit caused him to believe, will etc?



> and does not acknowledge that it is from God through the Spirit that we are caused to believe, will, and be able to do all these things as we should," he is judged worthy of an anathema (ch. 6).



The semi-Pelagian controversy condemned by Orange and the Arminian controversy are so closely related, that it is easy to see why the Puritans saw Arminianism as the ole' Pelagian heresy resurrected.


----------



## satz (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> Mark, I don't see a clear statement of the Gospel and what it does to people in this thread. I am glad that you do, and you can be of great service to me by summarizing it for me.



sorry.. what i meant was that people have been arguing over just that thoughout this thread. So asking for a clear statement would only produce more of the same debate.


----------



## lwadkins (Feb 13, 2006)

No reason to be sorry brother, i am here to learn and sharpen myself just as you are.


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader.
> 
> 
> ...



I wanted to post a public apology for my comments on this thread, specifically the "Mega dittos" line above. 

Regardless of whatever my opinion is of the article, bandwagon comments are unacceptable. I could have as easily asked my question without the "mega-dittos" comment. May God grant me the grace to learn when to keep my mouth shut. I am not an officer in the Church, nor do I have any aspirations therunto. The public discussion of such a public article ought to be reserved to the elders of the Church, and I do not believe that I should have had any business in giving a public opinion on the matter.

Please forgive me.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> The public discussion of such a public article ought to be reserved to the elders of the Church, and I do not believe that I should have had any business in giving a public opinion on the matter.



Hmmm. Are there some saying that we can't publicly discuss an article publicly displayed for that purpose unless we agree with it? As for the elders of the Church being the ones elected to discuss such matters, I am not sure about that either. Besides, Dr. McMahon's denomination is not even in the sphere of our denominations authority. 

Maybe I am missing something, but apart from calling out Dr. McMahon as a heretic, which I don't believe nor would I do if I did, I don't see the problem with reasoned criticism of his article. I doubt he has problems with criticism of the article, or he would have not posted it for discussion.

On the other hand, I may be missing something, and would like to be corrected if so.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ...



Brett,

At the moment I am writing this, this thread has had 3789 views. Now I'm sure that many of us regulars have viewed the thread between 10 and 20 times, so the number is greatly inflated as to the actual number of viewers. Possibly 200 people have read through this thread to date, and who knows how many hereafter. My point is that I am not a teacher in the church. What business do I have of making public statements, especially seeing that the name of my church and denomination are at the bottom of each of my posts? I am begining to think that posting on public forums (except to ask a question, seek clarification, or to offer encouragement) is not for me. I have no desire to pass judgment on anyone who does think that it is okay, but in my mind, I am not convinced, so, for conscience sake, I am bowing out.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 13, 2006)

Remember, the purpose of the Puritanboard, from its inception, is to discuss theology, history, pray for one another, etc. I have absolutely no qualms about anyone being charitably critical about something. None whatsoever. I am not so tolerant with uncharitable discussion. Would I have expected such to be the case on this issue on the *Puritan*board? Not remotely. But still that's OK. It just surprised me. You can always tell how much a topic is really hot by those who partake in in it AND those who don't. Healthy discussion on any topic should be encouraged, though. Let's just be sure we know what the other person is saying, and we respond in charity as much as Christianly possible. 

This topic is especially applicable to us all since we all live in an age where Arminianism is excepted as the Gospel, as you find throughout Christendom today. I think _healthy_ discussion should be encouraged.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Hey Dan, I can understand that. I will consider this entire thread a loss if we cannot come to some kind of basic agreement, but I don't have much confidence that we will. I appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Remember, the purpose of the Puritanboard, from its inception, is to discuss theology, history, pray for one another, etc. I have absolutely no qualms about anyone being charitably critical about something. None whatsoever. I am not so tolerant with uncharitable discussion. Would I have expected such to be the case on this issue on the *Puritan*board? Not remotely. But still that's OK. It just surprised me. You can always tell how much a topic is really hot by those who partake in in it AND those who don't. Healthy discussion on any topic should be encouraged, though. Let's just be sure we know what the other person is saying, and we respond in charity as much as Christianly possible.
> 
> This topic is especially applicable to us all since we all live in an age where Arminianism is excepted as the Gospel, as you find throughout Christendom today. I think _healthy_ discussion should be encouraged.



Dr McMahon, what strikes me is the misunderstanding of the message that you might have intended to get across. If those such as Phillip (a minister of the Gospel) have misunderstood your viewpoint, do you think that perhaps some of those laymen that agree with you have misunderstood? You have continually corrected those that have argued against your aticle as misunderstanding you, but they are merely arguing against what many who agree with you are saying. If both sides are not understanding your point, your point is not clear enough. 

That is just one mans personal observation.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 13, 2006)

In my humble opinion the Gospel must start with an understanding of who God is, that He is holy, uncreated, the Source of all that is good.

The next point would be that though He created us good, we (through our representative Adam) chose to put our own judgment ahead of God's and to decide to rule ourselves, on the evidence of a traitor.

If those two points are understood well, it would then follow that we are in grave and just danger from this Being, who though benevolently disposed to His creation, must do something about human evil that is first just, then, if possible, merciful, since the latter also accords with His nature.

God has done what was necessary through sending Jesus to earth to live the life we should have lived, and to die the death we should have died.

Again, In my humble opinion, that's what we need to be telling the unconverted. One problem with modern evangelism is that by leaving out the wrath of God and the just reason for it, the sinner isn't sufficiently awakened to begin to hate sin as God does.

Also, when talking about election to people, I try to stress that NO ONE would come to God if He did not elect them, not because they're helpless cripples, as 4-point Calvinists often say, but because NO ONE WANTS TO!

PS, the all-caps isn't yelling, I'm too lazy to use BB code to bold. Sorry.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...



That may be true. I may not be clear. Sometimes I'm not clear at all. I often feel tht after preaching a sermon, I was not as clear as I would like. In writing we have more time and more observation to make. But at the same time, I've received emails and U2Us to the contrary that have thanked me for the article. It seemed to clear to them. Maybe then, with certain preconceived notions, the article tends to _become myopic_. I hope, in the next one, to clarify anything that may seem out of sorts. I don't want to be confusing, but I think some initial "doctrines" are being misunderstood that I may be taking for granted, and others are not. Or maybe I'm interpreting them one way and then others are reading into them something else. I hope to clarify that.


----------



## historyb (Feb 13, 2006)

Well I am almost done reading the paper and so far I find it excellect and very well done In my humble opinion.


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> But at the same time, I've received emails and U2Us to the contrary that have thanked me for the article. It seemed to clear to them.



Well, what some have said about your article is hardly an orthodox view of the Gospel and risks mixing law and Gospel. 

First of all, your paragraph that addresses the Arminians seems to suggest that anyone under these teaching is likely unconverted, but many here seem to be saying that there really aren't any true Arminians (i.e. Spurgeon's Arminian prayer example). I think that both are untrue, but it is demonstrable that Arminians do know their theology. There is a misconception here at PB that Arminians tend to be ignorant of their theology. While there are more default Arminians today that Calvinists, the Arminian position has been as intellectually developed as the Calvinist one. 

Worse than that, some seem to be implying that the quality of our faith is the basis of our justification, rather than the object of our faith which is Christ. Forgive me for pointing out this irony, but that is the heresy of the Arminians that we should be more concerned with. To say or even imply that the quality of faith affects our justifcation and then to condemn those synergists as damned heretics seems to be a straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

While those on my side have been accused by some of being caught up in the spirit of the age, it is the accusers that are so caught up in modernistic reductions, that they can't see the forest for the trees.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by raderag]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 13, 2006)

Brett - 

Stop trying to guess at things, be sure to keep things in context and don't assume anything. 


I don't think people are saying its the quality of "the faith", but rather, WHO that faith is placed on/in. 



> Well, what some have said about your article is hardly an orthodox view of the Gospel and risks mixing law and Gospel.



Can you quote me something about the Law/Gospel distinction in the articel that was incorrect? Never mind, I'll let you off the hook - I didn't even discuss the Law/Gospel distinction, so I can't see how it got "mixed." Law was ONLY mentioned in the Scripture for Hosea 4:6. So I can't see how that woudl be "mixed" if I didn't use it, or talk about it.

But that really is not the issue. The issue is understanding regeneration and faith. 



> First of all, your paragraph that addresses the Arminians seems to suggest that anyone under these teaching is likely unconverted



Here is my first paragraph - where is this stated??

"Throughout the Old Testament God warns His church that false shepherds are under His judgment and condemnation. They lead the flock of God astray and teach false doctrines that are "œempowered" by demonic lies and satanic ploys to tear people away from God, and rely on their own works for salvation. God says in Jeremiah 23:1, "Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!" Again, God states in Jeremiah 23:2, "œTherefore thus says the LORD God of Israel against the shepherds who feed My people: "You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings," says the LORD." Christ warned His disciples that deceivers would come into the fold and deceive many being ferocious wolves among the sheep of God´s chosen people. Matthew 7:15 says, "œBeware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders and warned them in like manner in Acts 20:29, "œFor I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock." The Apostle Peter echoes the same when he warns the church against false teachers who come in teaching destructive heresies. 2 Peter 2:1 states, "œBut there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies..." Certainly, false teachers and false shepherds are a grave problem for the life and sanctifying vitality of the flock of God."

It sounds to me like you are pulling things out of the magicians hat. I believe that first paragraph is about false teachers. Correct me if I'm wrong.



> but many here seem to be saying that there really aren't any true Arminians (i.e. Spurgeon's Arminian prayer example). I think that both are untrue, but it is demonstrable that Arminians do know their theology. There is a misconception here at PB that Arminians tend to be ignorant of their theology. While there are more default Arminians today that Calvinists, the Arminian position has been as intellectually developed as the Calvinist one.



I would agree that many have a full orbed Arminianism, and hwole denomionations of people are following thier teaching. I was in one when I was first converted. 



> Worse than that, some seem to be implying that the quality of our faith is the basis of our justification, rather than the object of our faith which is Christ. Forgive me for pointing out this irony, but that is the heresy of the Arminians that we should be more concerned with. To say or even imply that the quality of faith affects our justifcation and then to condemn those synergists as damned heretics seems to be a straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
> 
> While those on my side have been accused by some of being caught up in the spirit of the age, it is the accusers that are so caught up in modernistic reductions, that they can't see the forest for the trees.



Remember, Mormons say they know "Jesus." So do JWs. As a matter of fact, so do Islamics and Hindus. But the "content" of "Jesus Christ" is the question at hand for the Arminian heresy. "I trust in Jesus" is an utterly meaningless statement without content, even without regeneration. What does "trust" mean and what does "Jesus" mean - these are actually inconsequential for regeneration, but not inconseqential to true faith. To have a regenerate Christian, one needs to be regenerate (sovereign grace); being born from above so perception can take place. To have a regenerate Christian that exercises faith in the Gospel, you need regeneration (sovereign grace) AND the Gospel (biblical Gospel content in a minimum degree). This is really what everyone is arguing over and some are trying to mix up both together which are completely different things.

The next paper will clear that up.



[Edited on 2-13-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 13, 2006)

I think Scott was right to close this. My bad. People are still on the same track and running int he same circles. 

Let's stick a fork in it - OK its done.


----------

