# Question Regarding Arminianism



## Soli Deo Gloria (Jun 7, 2007)

I have a question that has really bothered me for some time and perhaps some on here could help me come to a better understanding of this.

As those that believe in the doctrines of grace, what should be our response to Arminians and/or Semi-Pelagians? If we consider Arminianism to be a heresy, what does that mean for the people that hold to it.

I ask this, because as a Baptist, I am always confronted with individuals who are Arminian in their theology. How should we see these individuals? Are they preaching and believing in a false gospel? Or is their understanding of the gospel limited?

I would consider John Wesley to be a Christian. Yet, did he preach a false Gospel? And should we declare that he did? 

This is what I am wrestling with. Some help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria (Jun 7, 2007)

So then trevor would you consider Arminianism to be a false teaching? If so, are Arminians just mistaken? What should our response be to them?


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria (Jun 7, 2007)

I agree. I guess what I am asking is do we confront what they are teaching as "false teaching"...call it by name, and try to show them their errors from Scripture.

And do we just say that these Christians do not have a "full" understanding of the Gospel? This is what I am trying to get to.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 7, 2007)

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> I agree. I guess what I am asking is do we confront what they are teaching as "false teaching"...call it by name, and try to show them their errors from Scripture.
> 
> And do we just say that these Christians do not have a "full" understanding of the Gospel? This is what I am trying to get to.



False teaching would be teaching against the gospel. Although there are Arminians who are false teachers, I don't think that Arminianism in of itself is sufficient to call someone a false teacher.

Pelagianism (not semi-Pelagianism) is false teaching because it teaches that someone can be saved and perfected without God. I've yet to meet a Pelagian, though.

I would agree with your last statement, that these Arminian Christians do not have as full an understanding of the gospel.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria (Jun 7, 2007)

How do we then tell the difference between those Arminians who are false teachers and those who are not false teachers?


----------



## elnwood (Jun 7, 2007)

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> How do we then tell the difference between those Arminians who are false teachers and those who are not false teachers?



I generally use the following maxim: If they don't call sinners to repentance and faith in Christ, they're a false teacher. Watch out for social gospels and self-esteem gospels.

Joel Osteen and Robert Schuller, for example, are false teachers. People on this board would dispute me on this, but Rick Warren is not a false teacher.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jun 7, 2007)

*Arminianism*

Arminianism (error) is all too often confused with Pelagianism (heresy). So keep these two distinct. Semi-Pelagianism (officially formulated at the Council of Trent in direct opposition to the Protestant teaching) is quite subtle, yet undermines the Gospel altogether. 
Perhaps you should reflect on Pelagianism with the help of Dr Needham, for which see http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1071and his audio lecture on Finney (see http://www.wicketgate.co.uk/p10.html or http://www.churchaudio.org.uk/refc/N Needham - Finney and his Critics.mp3). The following site is helpful, too (http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ks_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=finney&B1=Go). 
Let it be said in passing that Wesley's Arminianism also substantially differs from that of Billy Graham. 
Scripture, of course, is the final touchstone.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 7, 2007)

Tripp:

I think you would do well to read what the Reformed churches had to say about Arminianism by simply reading the conclusion of the 'Canons of Dordrecht' 

But a few thoughts:

1) The Canons never use the word heresy (other than a reference to Pelagius) but maintain the serious errors of Arminians. 

2) There is a difference between men who teach Arminianism and those who follow it. That is not to say that a person in the latter category is not in error, but it is to emphasize that the teacher should know better.

3) The Canons were written for the Reformed churches and against those who were teachers in the Reformed church. In other words, blanket condemnations of the non-Reformed people are not helpful because they are in a different context and situation. Some people are simply not taught and do not know any better. Yes they are still responsible but that does not exclude the fact that sanctification involves the mind as well as the heart. In other words, they have more learning to do.

The biggest problem in reference to Arminians and the preaching of the gospel, in my opinion, is justification. Is it by works or is by faith? Is it by effort or grace? The historic Arminian doctrine of justification lends itself to saying that we are justified on the basis of our faith which _itself_ is our justification whereas Protestants have said it is the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. This would make faith a work and thus cause us (at least in part) to be justified by our works. (See CD RE 2.4) But this could only be judged on a case by case analysis. 

I think we should hesitate to say that Arminianism is a damnable heresy. But I also think it should be soundly refuted for what at its heart is, at least, an undermining of the gospel as an erosion of _sola gratia_ Since Arminianism and Arminians is/are a varied lot we need to understand each person on their own 'merit' (pun mildly intended).


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2007)

Charles H. Spurgeon from "A Defense of Calvinism"



> But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 7, 2007)

A question for Trevor and whomever else: suppose an Arminian teacher speaks of salvation in this way: "Your salvation is all up to you - the devil has cast his vote, and God has cast his - you're the deciding vote." I presume you would strongly denounce such teaching. Is it (the idea that our salvation is fully under our control, to have or reject, while God sits idly by wringing his hands in anguish that we might not choose him) not a blasphemous error that should be spoken out against clearly and firmly?

Todd


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jun 7, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> A question for Trevor and whomever else: suppose an Arminian teacher speaks of salvation in this way: "Your salvation is all up to you - the devil has cast his vote, and God has cast his - you're the deciding vote." I presume you would strongly denounce such teaching. Is it (the idea that our salvation is fully under our control, to have or reject, while God sits idly by wringing his hands in anguish that we might not choose him) not a blasphemous error that should be spoken out against clearly and firmly?
> 
> Todd



Good point - free will is the hinge, as Luther would have said when writing his great work on the bondage of the will - which is at the heart of it.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jun 7, 2007)

I have come across this site http://www.spindleworks.com/library/kampen/arminianism.htm


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria (Jun 7, 2007)

Dieter...that is a very interesting article. It seems that the author of that article is arguing that Arminianism is indeed a different gospel. Yet, from what I am reading on this board...most would not go that far.

For example, the author of that article writes, "In recent reading I came across some remarks concerning Arminianism which showed both the seriousness and extent of Arminian thinking and how it is incompatible with the Reformed faith which, after all, is the Scriptural faith. In essence, in Arminianism we have a different gospel (see 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-8), a gospel which denies salvation is the complete gift of the sovereign God who graciously justifies sinners through faith alone."

Therefore, I would assume that the author of that article would say those who teach from an Arminian viewpoint are false teachers. Once again, I am getting from many on this board that we should not see them in that light. Plus, if it is a different gospel, is it a gospel that saves?

My confusion exists because as a Southern Baptist, I am surrounded by Arminian teachers. In the Southern Baptist Convention currently, there are many who would like to see Calvinistic Baptists thrown out. Yet, alot of my fellow Calvinists are very open to the Arminian side and very slow to criticize their teachings as false. 

I am just trying to determine where to draw the lines. What is the dealing we are to have with Arminians? Are they our "confused" brothers in Christ...or are they advocating a false gospel, and therefore need to be confronted?


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (Jun 7, 2007)

I am not sure what your situation is...and I'm not able to back this up, but this may be what I would consider doing.


As those that believe in the doctrines of grace, what should be our response to Arminians and/or Semi-Pelagians? = Our response is to gently share the gospel with them supporting it with scripture. You know, the word cuts through a lot of stuff.


If we consider Arminianism to be a heresy, what does that mean for the people that hold to it. = We have a freedom and peace of mind holding to reformed truths. I think Arminians must deal with a lot of emotions that we don't have to deal with as we think about things, and we can take to the cross.


How should we see these individuals? Are they preaching and believing in a false gospel? Or is their understanding of the gospel limited? = Saved if believe in Jesus' death and resurrection, but we care about them personally (and those whom they influence) and desire that they understand the truth for their own sanctification and peace (?). BTW I always suspected that Joel Osteen was a false teacher! He didn't preach the gospel on his show when I saw it. What a waste! Their understanding does seem to not encompass the full love and strength of the gospel. Praise God that he has revealed this truth to us. Doesn't prayer help a lot in these circumstances???

I hope this helps. 






Soli Deo Gloria said:


> I have a question that has really bothered me for some time and perhaps some on here could help me come to a better understanding of this.
> 
> As those that believe in the doctrines of grace, what should be our response to Arminians and/or Semi-Pelagians? If we consider Arminianism to be a heresy, what does that mean for the people that hold to it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2007)

Tripp,

This question gets re-circulated on the board every so often.

Over time, I've learned that it is unhelpful, in practical theology, to determine a minimal litmus test for doctrines that either damn or save a person. That is to say that we often focus too much on asking: "Can an Arminian be saved?" and assume that the question is really meaningful.

How do you find this Arminian to begin with? It's like asking: "Is somebody who is a Calvinist saved?" Who are you talking about? I'm serious, who specifically is being referred to when you ask about a person's salvation.

It's far too simple to broad brush an entire population of people and call them Arminians and say: such are lost or such are saved. This is why we get into large arguments that, in some cases, are pointless. We have some, on the one hand, that merely want to affirm that "...there are Arminians who are saved..." while there are others who want to affirm "...an Arminian can't be saved...."

I always want to know who, specifically, are we talking about because _Christians_ are the ones that are saved. I prefer to think of people in the Church, baptized into Christ, as Christians. They are in the visible Church by varying levels of good or bad confession but have been baptized nevertheless. While in the Church, Pastors have a responsibility to preach to and discipline them.

Thus, I want to separate the individual that I meet in a Church who has heard the Word preached (well or poorly) from the good or bad doctrine that is taught by those who are charged with rightly divining the Word of Truth. I would say, then, that we have men and women who are Christians visibly by baptism who are under the influence of Arminian or Reformed or Lutheran, etc. doctrine. I sometimes refer to myself as Reformed but primarily I call myself a Christian with a Reformed Confession.

I HATE Arminian doctrine. I don't know how much more clearly I can state it. The doctrine undermines the Gospel at nearly every turn and focuses attention away from the grace that saves and points it inward to the will of man and even a form of works righteousness. I pity, with tears sometimes, Christians who are impoverished and starved to death under this doctrine. Some of them are Christians externally only because their blind guides have seen to it that they never hear Christ crucified for the sins of those who believe upon Him but hear, instead, about how Christ makes you a happy person or how He is your co-pilot.

Even those that received a garbled message that Christ died for sinners don't get the Gospel week in and week out but hear too much about how they need to imitate Christ and _do_ things. They aren't told of their place in Christ or the assurance of their salvation and so they come to Church guilt-ridden over their sin and leave guilt-ridden because they think the Gospel is for converts but then the rest is up to them.

I HATE, HATE, HATE Altar Calls. I think it's as Gospel denying an ordinance as Penance. The idea of re-dedication is a constant "clean up your act" message. Many Churches practice re-baptisms as well because men and women are constantly paralyzed by thinking that it is the strength of their faith that saves them and not their simple trust in the death and resurrection of Christ. They thus are assaulted on every side by sin that overcomes and then Satan whispers in their ear and says: "You didn't really have faith enough that saves or you wouldn't have committed this sin." It's why so many atheists come out of these Gospel-denying Churches that place the tenor of faith on the conversion experience and the focus on the self instead of the Cross.

And so my answer to your question is this: don't worry about who's in and who's out. Don't worry about who's saved and who's not saved as a crowd. There are lost men and women in OPC Churches and there are saved men and women in Assembly of God Churches. But that distinction doesn't mean that it is immaterial what the two bodies teach. I'm not saying: "Who cares what they teach." People are much less likely to hear the Gospel in an AOG that has blocked the Word at every turn with their man-centered doctrine while the OPC is much less likely to have those snares.

But men are sinners and even a blessed Confession like the WCF is no guarantee that a man is saved.

Thus, when it is up to you to teach men and women in the Church, don't play duck, duck, goose and try to figure out who are the saved and who are the lost. Teach the Word of God faithfully. Teach it like human souls depend upon it. Present Christ and His work as something outside of them. Tear down the walls that keep men from the clear presentation of the Gospel.

And watch the power of the Word, working together with the Spirit, transform hearts and minds.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 7, 2007)

Amen Rich! 

"If it never proves great, yet weak faith shall save; for it interests us in Christ, and makes Him and all His benefits ours. For it is not the strength of our faith that saves, but the truth of our faith-not the weakness of our faith that condemns, but the want of faith; for the least faith layeth hold on Christ, and so will save us. Neither are we saved by the worth or quantity of our faith, but by Christ, who is laid hold on by a weak faith as well as a strong. Just as a weak hand that can put meat into the mouth shall feed and nourish the body as well as if it were a strong hand; seeing the body is not nourished by the strength of the hand, but by the goodness of the meat."
-The Doctrine of Faith, by John Rogers, Preacher of God's Word, at Dedham, in Essex. 1634.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria (Jun 7, 2007)

Rich, I completely understand what you are saying.

I understand what saves you. I am simply asking...is the Arminian gospel the true gospel? If isn't...shouldn't we preach against it and shouldn't we resist it all together? If it is just an error but those who hold to it still embrace the true Gospel, then what should we do?

Once again, it just seems like I am getting a lot of double speak on this issue. And therefore, I remained very confused.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2007)

I didn't think I double spoke at all about how much I revile Arminian doctrine. Was that unclear?

I guess I'd like to know what you mean by preacing against it. I believe in expository preaching and, when preaching the Gospel, I think it is very instructive to use examples of what the Gospel is NOT (as Paul does). I regularly, in my teaching, condemn false apprehensions of a thing to underline the correct understanding of it. But the focus is on getting the listener to understand what the Truth is rather than just focusing on the Lie.

Thus, what I fundamentally focus on is making sure men get the Gospel in their bloodstream rather than making my mission to simply get them to revile teachers of Arminianism.

False doctrine becomes distasteful in the mouths of those fed with the Bread of Life.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jun 8, 2007)

*offer more truth*

When we come across a professed believer it is important to listen to them very carefully and see if their faith is on solid ground.
We have an opportunity to be used of God to plant ,or water more of the seed of the word. 
One example in scripture is in Acts 18:24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 

25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 

26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. 

He believed yet needed to be exposed to more of the truth. Present clear and strong texts of truth with the arminian friend showing the excellency of the Lord's work,and how that God has revealed His eternal purpose to the church. Show your arminian friends those verses that they will not be hearing preached in their churches.
Pray that the Spirit will work through the verses you offer. Speak the truth in love being patient with them. In time all the sheep will hear the shepherds voice.


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2007)

Nobody has ever been saved by believing the Arminian gospel. Yes, Arminians have been saved. Roman Catholics have also been saved. But it is in spite of the system they adhere to, and only because they believe somewhat inconsistently the true Calvinistic gospel which teaches a man is saved by faith receiving and resting upon Christ and His righteousness alone.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 8, 2007)

Trevor,

Yet, this is a thread about Arminian doctrine.

Sinners go to Reformed Churches or there would be no need for the Gospel. The question is not about how men act but about whether or not the Gospel is there.

I don't think you do any favors to either camp by constantly picking on Reformed people for being divisive. It exists for sure but it is not what defines.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 8, 2007)

I agree with points made in this thread by Rich AND Trevor! That said, as a former Arminian I want to say that I like to hear preaching about what the gospel is NOT as well as what it IS. Not because I am being fooled still, but so I can then help reach those who are. 

I believe Arminian teachings and preaching should indeed be spoken out against by laymen and from the pulpit, but it can be done in a way that isn't overly "attacking" but simply preaching the truth boldly. That's how I was to the doctrines of grace, they were presented boldy/matter of factly and I was forced to examine it and accept or reject it. Once I accepted it, I was more open to my former beliefs being "attacked" so that they could lie exposed in front of me.


----------



## reformedman (Jun 8, 2007)

*Deja Vu*

Hi Tripp, coincidentally this was the subject of a post I did a couple of days ago. Click here for that subject.

I believe that we need to watch out for arminians that clearly and confidentally go against the 5th point, it is my opinion that they are heretical. Other than that, the other 4 points can be confusing and although they don't affirm totall depravity or unconditional election, etc, they must believe it even though they don't say it. Just as a previous poster recognized, it is possible to be saved eventhough they are confused in their belief on certain subjects.

Back to the point of the op, I have come to the belief that we should approach receptive brethren with a teaching attitude for as long as they will hear but not to make this the main point of concern, but instead work together for the extension of the kingdom and the holiness of each individual. These should be the main concern in a relationship with the arminians. I would treat a person who denies the fifth point as an unbeliever who needs the gospel though.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 8, 2007)

Arminianism is damnable. If someone at church were not to repent of it he would be excommunicated. Exclusion means something. 

There are two kinds of Arminians. 

1. Those who are babes in Christ and are growing in sanctification. (They will one day be exposed to the true gospel and will flee to it, or would if they could.)

2. Those who understand Calvinism and reject Calvinism cannot be saved. They despise a truly gracious God. It is the offense of the cross.


----------



## Mayflower (Jun 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Many Arminians are saved.



You are right, and probely many so-called (whom in their pridefulness) calvinst are not saved.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 8, 2007)

Ouch. I just got whiplash. The thread was making some great progress and David just threw it into reverse without even slowing it.

Augustine understood the Gospel, but not as well as Luther.
Luther understood the Gospel, but not as well as Calvin.
Calvin understood the Gospel, but apparently not as well as Mr. Cronkhite.

David you have made some strong assertions. You have not backed them up with argument and they are not the least bit persuasive. Try again if you would like but as it stands now, you sound divisive and your evangelistic apologetic is lacking.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 8, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Ouch. I just got whiplash. The thread was making some great progress and David just threw it into reverse without even slowing it.
> 
> Augustine understood the Gospel, but not as well as Luther.
> Luther understood the Gospel, but not as well as Calvin.
> ...



Bob,
Thanks for your illustrative description of the thread. I do so enjoy your posts! 

I will endeavor to brace the assertion as time allows. The Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit indwells and leads us into all truth. It would follow that someone exposed to the truth would eventually accept it if they had Him directing. Thus if someone teaches against Calvinism he cannot have the Holy Spirit and teach long. 


Also, Arminianism attacks _sola fide_ and _solus Christus_, crucial parts of the doctrine of salvation. Someone who teaches he can lose his salvation obviously doesn't understand HOW he is saved. (To be sure we are not saved by our ability to understand the mechanics of salvation, but we do know our understanding is from His grace.) 

The scripture is sufficient and it is useless without the light of the Spirit shining in our minds. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself by teaching one man A and teaching another man B. That trait would have more in common with capricious pagan gods. Our world is more pagan than you might think.

BTW, to have a strong evangelistic apologetic you must first stand on firm ground.


----------



## reformedman (Jun 8, 2007)

*Yowza*

I'd have to agree, you pronounced that they (a general label), are damnable (implying deserving hellfire eternally), without proving that they all, who label themselves that, understand fully the implications of their belief. By this, you'd have to say that Wesly is currently in hell, would you say that?


----------



## Herald (Jun 8, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Nobody has ever been saved by believing the Arminian gospel. Yes, Arminians have been saved. Roman Catholics have also been saved. But it is in spite of the system they adhere to, and only because they believe somewhat inconsistently the true Calvinistic gospel which teaches a man is saved by faith receiving and resting upon Christ and His righteousness alone.



Matthew - I concur completely. Imagine that? I think this is the second time that we've agreed on something.  I won't add a word to what you have said.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 8, 2007)

Arminianism IS another gospel, and a gospel of works. I don't know how by any standard one can believe that Arminians believe the same gospel I do.

Arminianism — Another Gospel by Rev. William MacLean, M.A.​ 
Arminian Doctrine Exposed by Ralph Erskine (1685-1752)

Proving that they are no Christians in their Hearts Who are Arminians, Anabaptists, Socinians, Romanists, Antinomians, Erastians, and the like, in their Heads by George Gillespie

CALVINISM AND EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM by John L. Girardeau

The god of Arminianism is not worshipable By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

And many many more.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 8, 2007)

reformedman said:


> I'd have to agree, you pronounced that they (a general label), are damnable (implying deserving hellfire eternally), without proving that they all, who label themselves that, understand fully the implications of their belief. By this, you'd have to say that Wesly is currently in hell, would you say that?



Certainly. I was disgusted to read Spurgeon's exaltation of a mere man. 

It is God Who saves. Arminianism exalts man and thereby diminishes God.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 8, 2007)

David,
I agree that Arminianism as a theoretical model contains elements that are so very much against the gospel. Arminianism leads logically to open theism. It could even be construed as a rejection of the God of the Bible.

The problem I have is "What the heck is an Arminian?"

Where is this person - a person who understands fully the jots and tittles of the remonstrants? Who understand that Calvinism is more than predestination and reprobation? An arminian is our own shorthand for a person who isn't a Calvinist. The actual person doesn't exist. There isn't a group of people who subscribe to the Arminian Confession of Faith.

Instead, what we find, are people who have a cafeteria theology. A little of this, a little of that and who are spoon fed by errant teachers who have kicked all the sharp edges from theology so it appeals to everyone.

Here's a post I started a few years ago that speaks of the need for those 'people' we call Arminians:



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



PS, The word "need" is an intentional overstatement to grab attention.








non dignus said:


> Bob,
> Thanks for your illustrative description of the thread. I do so enjoy your posts!
> 
> I will endeavor to brace the assertion as time allows. The Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit indwells and leads us into all truth. It would follow that someone exposed to the truth would eventually accept it if they had Him directing. Thus if someone teaches against Calvinism he cannot have the Holy Spirit and teach long.
> ...


----------



## Herald (Jun 8, 2007)

> Arminianism IS another gospel, and a gospel of works. I don't know how by any standard one can believe that Arminians believe the same gospel I do.



Jeff - others have said this already. Not everyone understands they believe or are under the influence of Arminianism. No one is saved by the Arminian gospel. They aren't saved by Calvinism either. They are saved by the blood of Christ. Many believers never grow in their theological knowledge. This is far different from the person who is enlightened to the theological issues at hand and still believes that man cooperates with God in salvation. 

There are many Christians who are ignorant of even basic theology. I blame this on the shepherds who are not able to teach their flocks. Pray that God will bring a revival of truth to these churches; a second Reformation.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 8, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> David,
> I agree that Arminianism as a theoretical model contains elements that are so very much against the gospel. Arminianism leads logically to open theism. It could even be construed as a rejection of the God of the Bible.
> 
> The problem I have is "What the heck is an Arminian?"



True, but we speak of the average American evangelical here. That he is confused makes it all the worse. God is not the author of confusion. I'm speaking of the teachers who reject the gospel in favor of the one you eloquently characterize as false. 

Yes, we have a debt to heresy. It is the Lord's way of keeping us in spiritual shape. "....indeed that all things must work together for my salvation." HC 1


----------



## non dignus (Jun 8, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Certainly. I was disgusted to read Spurgeon's exaltation of a mere man.



My apologies. Wesley rejected the doctrines of grace. He started the first officially Arminian denomination thereby attacking and dividing the church. He led thousands of people into this error who in turn have led millions more.

But other than that, he was impeccable.


----------



## satz (Jun 8, 2007)

I believe that predestination is an integral part of the gospel and that arminianism is a terrible error. 

However, I have never understood the stand some seem to take that it is impossible for an elect person to hold to arminianism for a long time. Or, they seem to think that God has guaranteed to save each and every one of his elect out of that error. I don’t see where the bible supports this. God has guaranteed all his elect in heaven, but he has not guaranteed them in truth and holiness in this life. That is left up to them and their teachers to use the means he has provided on earth.

The bible says the elect will live holy lives and forsake sin and the world. Is that how we would describe Lot, Samson, and the Corinthians sinners whom God judged for defiling the Lord’s Supper? And since a tree is known by its fruits, if those Corinthian church members were so profane as to do that to the Lord’s Supper, is it not a reasonable assumption to say they were involved in at least some of the doctrinal and practical errors present at Corinth? Yet Paul takes the punishment God meted out on those church members not as proof of damnation, but salvation.

I am not saying this to try to change the way we _practically_ treat arminianism. But I believe it is an error to say that God’s elect cannot fall into and stay in severe error. By doing so they may lose practical assurance of salvation, but the fact that an elect person may end up like that must, I think, be admitted as a theological possibility.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 8, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> No one is saved by the Arminian gospel. They aren't saved by Calvinism either. They are saved by the blood of Christ.


 
This line of thinking denies the necessity of faith for salvation. Sola Fide.



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Many believers never grow in their theological knowledge. This is far different from the person who is enlightened to the theological issues at hand and still believes that man cooperates with God in salvation.


 
Agreed.



BaptistInCrisis said:


> There are many Christians who are ignorant of even basic theology. I blame this on the shepherds who are not able to teach their flocks. Pray that God will bring a revival of truth to these churches; a second Reformation.


 
Absolutely. However, being ignorant of a doctrine, and holding to a heretical doctrine are two completely different things. One may be ignorant of the finer details of their salvation and yet be saved. However, once one crosses over into a system of works righteousness, we must condemn it as another gospel, and the church should cast them away. Nor are all Arminians the same, but yet those who hold to the five points are essentially the same as their forefathers.

John Owen spoke of this in his "A Display of Arminianism":



> "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,—“mors 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 iJero<n po>lemon,http://www.puritanboard.com/#_edn1_[4] “a 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.[ii][5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,—“the 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."
> John Owen (The Epistle Dedicatory, A Display of Arminianism)
> _


----------



## Iconoclast (Jun 8, 2007)

*can this be sorted out?*

We all agree essentially on what the gospel is. It is interesting to see the questions that are now raised in this thread.

1] Can an arminian be saved?
2] should we have anything to do with them?
3] Is there a difference between a new convert,and someone who has never heard the doctrines of grace because they are in an arminian church
4] What of the person who is openly hostile to the 5 pts, should they be treated differently/ and indeed spoken against?
5] How should we deal with any who profess some form of belief. ie, Roman Catholic, Charasmatic etc. Should we:
A] try to find common ground and go from there
b] be harsh and just crush them with some proof texts
c] question them on how they came to their position
d] go back to basics and see if they hold a proper view of 
the scripture itself
e] let them know there is a better way to view these 
issues, and that the confessions of faith 
were written to help us in this 
f] hold a firm no compromise position,yet with a confident
patient attitude
g] express concern that the understanding they have 
might lead to serious error in the walk/then explain
how the teaching,or any teaching that is defective
is damaging to the soul.
I must confess that arminian teaching is pathetic and mostly defective in many ways. I see Roman teaching,and charasmatic teaching in a similar way.
Nevertheless if they do not know or believe the doctrines of grace yet,it is most likely that other arminians have reached these persons with a form of gospel that they are embracing. I have heard of people who have gotten saved out of cults. No one would recommend a cult as the way to go,but if it were used by God to get them reading scripture I think we can be used to provide correction. What do you think ?


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria (Jun 8, 2007)

Wow, thank you for all the responses. I now see that I am not the only person that wrestles with how to deal with the "Arminian" question.

Based upon what I am reading, here is what I see most on the board saying:

1) When one is saved, they may not have a firm grasp of every theological point of the Gospel. This is to be expected...they are babes in Christ.

2) Arminianism, when FULLY accepted, is a false gospel. Those that fully accept this and teach it should be opposed with biblical evidence.

3) Many Christians though don't hold to "complete" Arminianism. Others may hold to some Arminian teachings but have no understanding that they are holding to false teachings. These Christians need to be encouraged, taught, and uplifted. We can still work and fellowship with these Christians as long as they have a sweet spirit. 

4) One can be saved and hold to certain biblical errors. The point of teaching and preaching is to rid a person of those errors and have them grow in spiritual knowledge. Thus, those who have Arminian leanings can still be saved, they just haven't came to a (full?) understanding of the Gospel.

5) Those who knowingly accept and teach all points of Arminian theology while strongly rejecting Calvinistic theology are false teachers and there may be some doubts regarding their salvation since they seem to reject the God-focused Gospel.

Does these five points sound acceptable? This seems to be the consensus view I am getting from the comments so far.

Once again, thank you for all the thoughts. They continue to be helpful.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 8, 2007)

Tripp,
You've boiled this thread down into a mighty fine puree. Great job. Your synopsis is accurate, concise and useful.

This goes to show that when you take us all together we are pretty smart and balanced. However, when we work alone we are a dangerous bunch of upstarts.


----------



## Herald (Jun 8, 2007)

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis 


> No one is saved by the Arminian gospel. They aren't saved by Calvinism either. They are saved by the blood of Christ.



Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel


> This line of thinking denies the necessity of faith for salvation. Sola Fide.



Jeff, not at all. I am not excluding faith, I am excentuating Solus Christus. While faith is the vehicle, the blood of Christ is the substance. I gladly affirm Sola Gratia and Sola Fide in soteriology.



> However, once one crosses over into a system of works righteousness, we must condemn it as another gospel, and the church should cast them away.



Let me urge caution. If a brother or sister begins to espouse false or heretical teachings it is our duty to confront them, in love, with the truth. Our desire should be to see them repent and once again embrace the truth of the gospel. Only when they persist in falsehood should we consider excommunication. Jeff, I'm sure you would agree with that.

The truth is not a broad-sword. We should never seek to harm a brother, but to comfort, encourage or restore. Only when all avenues have been exhuasted should excommunication be considered.


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Matthew - I concur completely. Imagine that? I think this is the second time that we've agreed on something.  I won't add a word to what you have said.



Bill, I'm sure we agree on many other things as well. Blessings!


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 8, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Jeff, not at all. I am not excluding faith, I am excentuating Solus Christus. While faith is the vehicle, the blood of Christ is the substance. I gladly affirm Sola Gratia and Sola Fide in soteriology.


 
My point was, that we can not look at Sola Christus apart from Sola Fide. We ARE saved through faith, and that faith is a faith in Christ alone. Faith has content, and some "faiths" do not have saving content.



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Let me urge caution. If a brother or sister begins to espouse false or heretical teachings it is our duty to confront them, in love, with the truth. Our desire should be to see them repent and once again embrace the truth of the gospel. Only when they persist in falsehood should we consider excommunication. Jeff, I'm sure you would agree with that.


 
Amen. We should always try to win brothers back to Christ, and win new people to Christ!



BaptistInCrisis said:


> The truth is not a broad-sword. We should never seek to harm a brother, but to comfort, encourage or restore. Only when all avenues have been exhuasted should excommunication be considered.


 
I agree. But the point I am trying to get across is that we must have a passion for the true gospel, and a hatred for all false gospels. This is HARD in today's day where it isn't politically correct to say "this faith will lead you to hell." Especially with the Arminian faith since it is the most pervasive in American culture. After all, we're a Christian nation right?!! (sarcasm) 

Those that are experienced on this board will remember that I chime in almost every time this topic comes up. It is not because I can't wait to condemn somebody, it is becaue I used to believe this stuff. I want to let people know where it leads them! And for goodness sake, if the reformed don't have the truth, who does! It doesn't do anyone any good to tell a lost person that there o.k. 

In regards to the Arminian being a member of a church:

1) My church will not accept one as a member.
2) I don't believe we should treat members of Arminian churches as "sister" churches etc. And to my knowledge, the reformed do not have any fraternal relations with such churches. The Council of Dort, while not using the term "heresy" treated the ministers in the Dutch community exactly as such, driving them out of the land, and not even allowing them to defend their false doctrines! There's alot more to be said here, but I'll keep it short.
3) If Arminianism were to exist in a reformed church, every opportunity to council that person should be exhausted, and of course in love.

I'll end with this. People today err on the side of "grace" and "love" to the exclusion of truth. In the end, this isn't true grace and love, but comprimise. All I am try to say is that we need both.

Regards,


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jun 8, 2007)

Here is a good quotation from Donald Macleod:
“The popular view of the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is that Arminians teach that God loves all men whereas Calvinists teach that God only loves the elect. This is a gross oversimplification. We are talking of two entirely different kinds of love. To the Calvinist, redeeming love is God’s determination to actually save. Far from believing that God loves all men in this sense the Arminian does not believe that God loves one single human soul in this sense. For him, God’s love does not go beyond offering salvation. The last word lies with the human will. The Almighty stands helpless outside the door of the heart, the handle on the inside. He is defeated by man’s No! Electing love, by contrast, means that God doesn’t take No! for an answer. He opens the door, not roughly, from the outside, but gently, from the inside, so that we come to Christ ‘most freely, being made willing by his grace’. (Behold Your God!)

And here are more links
http://www.monergism.com/directory/...mple&search_kind=and&phrase=arminianism&B1=Go
http://www.evangelical-times.org/Articles/april 00/apr00a13.htm; 
J Packer - http://www.soundofgrace.com/apr98/page3.htm or http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/deathofdeath.html; 
J Packer – http://www.the-highway.com/Justification_Packer.html; also http://www.lgmarshall.org/Arminianism/packer_arminianisms.html
http://www.the-highway.com/Justification_Packer.html
Paul Helm – http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/02/three-responses.html;

John Murray - http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/reform1.html (cf. http://www.the-highway.com/murray1.html)
Rev. Eric Kampen - 
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/arminianism.html

Errol Hulse - http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1277


A case can be made for aligning Arminian teaching to an earlier semi-pelagian soteriology officially formulated at the Council of Trent (see session 6 / incidentally the longest of all the decrees of Trent - http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html) which at the heart is both an attack on Luther's teaching on the biblical doctrine of 'justification' and his 'bondage of the will', the real battle-ground of the Protestant Reformation (in its clarion call to bring the Church back to the Gospel).


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria (Jun 8, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> People today err on the side of "grace" and "love" to the exclusion of truth. In the end, this isn't true grace and love, but comprimise. All I am try to say is that we need both.



What a powerful statement.

I am a young Southern Baptist Pastor. Recently, I have began to observe how within the Southern Baptist Convention, Arminianism has long been allowed to flourish. I realize the SBC is not a church, nor does it have the power to force regulations and the like on local Baptist churches.

The SBC exists for the sake of missions and for other endeavors. The SBC, at its founding though, was strongly Calvinistic. With the advent of modernism and liberal theology, the Convention became liberal leaning. With the Conservative Resurgence starting in 1979, the Convention has come back to its biblical foundations.

However, false teachings are still allowed to be preached throughout the Convention. Anytime that a Calvinist speaks out against Arminian teachings, he is seen as being "extreme" and having a "harsh spirit". AND THIS COMES FROM FELLOW REFORMED BAPTISTS!!

It really shocks me and that is what I wrestle with. in my opinion, Armininism is a false system. It presents a false view of the Gospel. Therefore, like Southern Baptists of the past, we should speak out against it. We should teach against it. And we should be very careful to not endorse it under the guise of "love and grace".

I am not talking here about salvation. I am simply talking about cooperation. Where do you draw the line? This what I wrestle with. The more I study, the more I conclude that Armininism is a threat to the true Gospel. Why my fellow Reformed Baptists in the SBC can't see this is beyond me.


----------

