# Is Arminianism works righteousness?



## Javilo (Jul 2, 2009)

I am thinking that Arminianism is works righteousness because they believe
that a person is saved by the action of their own free will. Thus it is
something they do and not what God has done. So this leads me to 
believe that they are not really saved since it seems to me that by a free will
"make a decision for Christ" they are really saying "Lord, I am good enough."
which is works righteousness the way I see it. If this is true, how many
Arminians are tragically hell bound with a false assurance of their salvation
depending on their free will works righteousness!


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Jul 2, 2009)

Let me respectfully say that your statement sounds rather extreme and condemnatory, to say the least. I don't think even in the days of the old Reformers, anyone believed that a belief in double predestination was a prerequisite to salvation.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jul 2, 2009)

He didn't say, so far as I can tell, that a belief in double predestination is necessary for salvation.

He did say that the consequences of Arminian free-will theology makes it works righteousness, and therefore they are not saved. Now if this is true, is another matter.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 2, 2009)

I do thing caution is in order here. On some level, anything, even saying, "in and of myself I believe -- I am coming to faith," is a work and a grounds for boasting. That said, I have known ardent free-will Armenians who would disavow that they had done (or required) any work. Inconsistent? You bet. But these are still brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of if they are "of Apollo" or "of Paul."


----------



## Confessor (Jul 2, 2009)

I asked in another thread whether one could have true faith in Christ's work and still believe in free will. I think they can, although a _caveat_ must be added: When they are confronted by the perspicuous Biblical witness and still deny the matter, entrenching themselves in the belief that regeneration is an effect of their own wills, then their situation is much more precarious.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 2, 2009)

Salvation is a process of sorts. A new believer may not have all the information onboard that maybe you or I do at the time they are regenerated. This is not like the movie the Matrix where once one is plugged in, one can download every doctrine the Bible possesses. Arminianism is sinful and an error. Someone that understands the difference between justification by faith alone and Arminianism, and yet rejects justification by faith alone for the error is perishing. There's a difference between ignorance and holding to a doctrine. The HS will direct the truly converted to truth.

~To answer your question, yes. Arminianism is works based.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 2, 2009)

The Canons of Dordt:



> Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
> 
> V. Who teach that the incomplete and nonperemptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.
> 
> ...


----------



## historyb (Jul 2, 2009)

Javilo said:


> I am thinking that Arminianism is works righteousness because they believe
> that a person is saved by the action of their own free will. Thus it is
> something they do and not what God has done. So this leads me to
> believe that they are not really saved since it seems to me that by a free will
> ...



I wouldn't know any who thought that way. There was no belief that a person is not saved by their own free will and nothing else, indeed there is a belief that a person is saved by faith alone in God and they have a choice weather to believe are not.

I never heard anything like this until coming here, I know many pastors not in Reformed and many Christians non-Reformed who would tell you that we are saved by faith alone and not by anything we do.


----------



## Nomad (Jul 2, 2009)

Javilo said:


> I am thinking that Arminianism is works righteousness because they believe
> that a person is saved by the action of their own free will. Thus it is
> something they do and not what God has done. So this leads me to
> believe that they are not really saved since it seems to me that by a free will
> ...



Arminian soteriology may very well imply the things you list, but putting that aside for a minute, most Arminians would vehemently _deny_ the things you list. Most of all, they would deny that faith is a meritorious work or that they contribute anything to their justification.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Jul 2, 2009)

historyb said:


> Javilo said:
> 
> 
> > I am thinking that Arminianism is works righteousness because they believe
> ...



I think we all know namy non-Reformed Christians who tell people that they can be saved by Faith alone and that only faith in Christ is needed for salvation. I get the feeling that you are taking a swipe at this board instead of answering the question. I know a man who has taught for years that salvation is a gift of God for all by Grace alone. Dig a little deeper though and you will find that man MUST act first.

The first question might have been asked a little on the blunt side, but it is not an unusual or necessarily wrong statement.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 2, 2009)

Arminianism is a doctrine.

A person who has been baptized into Christ is a Christian.

Though Christians may be deceived by false doctrines we need to use the name Christian to refer to them and labor to teach them correctly according to the proper Way. I believe false teachers who propagate Armianism will be judged harshly for leading the baptized astray who are owed proper instruction.


----------



## historyb (Jul 2, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> historyb said:
> 
> 
> > Javilo said:
> ...



No, I wasn't taking a swipe thank you very much.


----------



## chbrooking (Jul 2, 2009)

There seems to be of late a sort of a spike in posts which question the salvation of Arminians. I am disturbed by it. 

If a perfect doctrinal stand is a prerequisite for salvation, we are all in deep trouble.

As Calvinists, surely you recognize that your theological understanding is a gift. As a gift, it may not (yet) have been given to others who know our Lord. Think of a child. What level of misunderstandings they have! And yet, by God's grace, they are accepted on the basis of His choice and Christ's work, not their own understanding of Him or Christ's work. Else, no infant or imbecile could be saved -- and this is one of the great encouragements of monergism.

Surely your test for your brethren can go no further than scripture. There, we are told that we will know them by their fruits and by their love. We aren't told that we will know them by their flowery thoughts (tulip). I know many Arminians who, I am quite confident -- as confident as I am of my Calvinist brothers -- know the Lord. Often, their love and piety shames me. They are inconsistent, to be sure. But they are brothers, nonetheless. The belief that a reformed perspective is a prerequisite for salvation is a denial of the monergistic principle of that reformed perspective itself. 

My Arminian brothers believe the Bible. They don't understand parts of it. But I could say the same of myself. My Arminian brothers believe that the eternal Son of God took on human flesh and wrought our redemption through perfect obedience, even to the death. And they count on that for their salvation. The Arminians that I know would never say, "I'm going to heaven because I had the common sense to take hold of what was offered." Now, surely they are inconsistent. I'm not denying that. But God help us if perfect consistency is a prerequisite for salvation! 

I've had Arminians doubt my salvation because I'm a Calvinist. I didn't just find it naive. I found it offensive. And I'm disturbed to see the same sort of naive offensiveness being presented here. Stick to the text. How will we know those who know the Lord? No passage that answers this question mentions understanding predestination.


----------



## coramdeo (Jul 21, 2009)

*Semi-Arminain?*

I'm wondering if we should not have another term to apply to evangelical Christians who hold to "free will". Since they don't believe in a true works salvation but salvation by faith alone through choosing by free will ( which they don't see as a work as noted in earlier post) should they be Semi-Arminian after the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian mode?...or am I all wet?


----------



## Whitefield (Jul 21, 2009)

coramdeo said:


> I'm wondering if we should not have another term to apply to evangelical Christians who hold to "free will". Since they don't believe in a true works salvation but salvation by faith alone through choosing by free will ( which they don't see as a work as noted in earlier post) should they be Semi-Arminian after the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian mode?...or am I all wet?



That sounds like straight Arminianism to me.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 21, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> coramdeo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering if we should not have another term to apply to evangelical Christians who hold to "free will". Since they don't believe in a true works salvation but salvation by faith alone through choosing by free will ( which they don't see as a work as noted in earlier post) should they be Semi-Arminian after the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian mode?...or am I all wet?
> ...



Yeah, those would be straight Arminians; the reason a distinction appears to be made there is because those Arminians are _inconsistent_. Most don't realize that free will implies works-righteousness.


----------



## ADKing (Jul 21, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> There seems to be of late a sort of a spike in posts which question the salvation of Arminians. I am disturbed by it.
> 
> If a perfect doctrinal stand is a prerequisite for salvation, we are all in deep trouble.
> 
> ...



I don't intend to get sucked into a extended debate on this issue as it has been discussed many times before. However, I cannot let such comments pass without adding my 

Let us please stop constructing and attacking straw men. Who on this board is arguing that "perfect consistency is a prerequisite for salvation"? Who has once said "a perfect doctrinal stand is a prerequisite for salvation"? 

You acknowledge that our test for our brethren ought not to go further than the scripture. Agreed. That is what is being asked. To say that we judge people's professions on "fruits and love" is true. But isn't some doctrinal knowldge a necessary fruit? To confess that "Jesus is Lord" implies that one knows who Jesus is and something of the implications of this statement. To discern the body and the blood of the Lord surely requires some knowledge of why he had a body and the significance of why it was broken. Surely, brother you acknowledge that a profession of faith in Christ includes doctrinal content. 

The heart of the question is this
1. Is Calvinism synonymous with the gospel
or
2. Is Calvinism a true but additional (and unessential) "flowery thought". 

Personally I hold to #1 and am quite disturbed by the implications of those who forcefully promote #2.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 21, 2009)

Rev. King,

I believe there might be a third option in your final dichotomy, namely those who have trust in Christ alone for salvation, but who do not realize that God first had to choose them. In other words, I don't think _sola fide_ by itself necessitates _sola gratia_ (and its logical implications, TULIP).


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 21, 2009)

The thing that concerns me is that we do view bad theology as we should. Bad theology is a moral problem and we should treat it as such. Arminians will use the vocabulary of one who believes in Sola Fide. But when you carry out the logic of Arminian thought it is pure works righteousness...even though they say they are trusting only in Christ's work. Some Mormons will also say the same thing with the same vocabulary as will the average Campbellite. Do we accept them as orthodox and saved automatically because they sound orthodox? Of course not.

We have become far too accepting of the Arminian error is these troubling times. Read the Canons of Dordt and see just how open they were to Arminians. Why have we neglected to treat the heresies and errors in our day in the way that those great theologians of old did?


----------



## Romans 9:16 (Jul 21, 2009)

If we are saved by the action of our will, whether the will is ‘free’ or not is irrelevant with respect to the question of ‘works righteousness.’ The issue is not the freeness of the will, but rather what is the relation of willing to believing. Any time faith is defined as a volition (whether its God’s gift or not) you will end up with ‘works righteousness.’ Only Gordon Clark’s view of faith (“assent to understood propositions” – see What is Saving Faith?) guards against ‘works righteousness.’ 

As to the question of whether Arminians (or anybody for that matter) can be saved with a faulty view of faith, will, etc., one must acknowledge a potential disjunction between the actual content of a person’s belief system and the way they formulate and profess it. I think there are many that understand the scriptural teaching of an entirely free salvation sovereignly bestowed, apart from any human willing (Rom 9:16), and yet are unwilling to allow this same clarity to ring out in their systemization of the Biblical materials. Thankfully, most Arminians don’t believe in Arminianism (even if they think and say that they do).


----------



## ADKing (Jul 21, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Rev. King,
> 
> I believe there might be a third option in your final dichotomy, namely those who have trust in Christ alone for salvation, but who do not realize that God first had to choose them. In other words, I don't think _sola fide_ by itself necessitates _sola gratia_ (and its logical implications, TULIP).



How is this a third option? Either _sola gratia_ is an essential part of the gospel or it is not. I am not talking about the subjective experience of confused individuals but am asking the question about the objective and essential content of the gospel.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 21, 2009)

ADKing said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. King,
> ...



Well, the problem is that some people do not understand _sola gratia_ consistently. They are simply unaware that free will precludes _sola gratia_.

For the record, I do believe that Arminians who put forth a large resistance to Reformed theology are in a much more precarious situation.


----------



## ADKing (Jul 21, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Well, the problem is that some people do not understand _sola gratia_ consistently. They are simply unaware that free will precludes _sola gratia_.
> 
> For the record, I do believe that Arminians who put forth a large resistance to Reformed theology are in a much more precarious situation.



OK, so this is really my last post on this topic 

I want to probe your statement "the problem is..." Let me ask you, "The problem with what?"

Is the confusion and ignorace of some people a problem with identifying the objective and essential content of the gospel? Surely you don't believe this. Just because people are unaware of things doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't speak to them (and clearly at that). 

Can the church identify what the gospel is? How much doctrinal content is essential to its message? This seems pretty straightforward to me. If we cannot answer such a question as the church we are in big trouble.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 21, 2009)

ADKing said:


> I want to probe your statement "the problem is..." Let me ask you, "The problem with what?"
> 
> Is the confusion and ignorace of some people a problem with identifying the objective and essential content of the gospel? Surely you don't believe this. Just because people are unaware of things doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't speak to them (and clearly at that).
> 
> Can the church identify what the gospel is? How much doctrinal content is essential to its message? This seems pretty straightforward to me. If we cannot answer such a question as the church we are in big trouble.



The problem with understanding whether people who do not recognize God's absolute sovereignty are saved.

I know many people who are simply unfamiliar with Calvinism. They haven't heard of it. They know that they must trust in Christ alone for salvation. They know that faith in Him is the means of their sins being forgiven. They know that Christ was punished so they wouldn't need to be. But they haven't yet been confronted with the problems that free will brings up.

Even when the Bible is plain about how God's grace is sufficient and necessary for salvation, it's very easy to read those passages quickly and not see its anti-free will implications. Certainly this implies _some_ moral problem on the part of the reader, but that does not imply they don't truly trust in Christ for salvation.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 21, 2009)

The thing that concerns me is that we do view bad theology as we should. Bad theology is a moral problem and we should treat it as such. Arminians will use the vocabulary of one who believes in Sola Fide. But when you carry out the logic of Arminian thought it is pure works righteousness...even though they say they are trusting only in Christ's work. Some Mormons will also say the same thing with the same vocabulary as will the average Campbellite. Do we accept them as orthodox and saved automatically because they sound orthodox? Of course not.

We have become far too accepting of the Arminian error is these troubling times. Read the Canons of Dordt and see just how open they were to Arminians. Why have we neglected to treat the heresies and errors in our day in the way that those great theologians of old did?


----------



## Confessor (Jul 21, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> The thing that concerns me is that we do view bad theology as we should. Bad theology is a moral problem and we should treat it as such. Arminians will use the vocabulary of one who believes in Sola Fide. But when you carry out the logic of Arminian thought it is pure works righteousness...even though they say they are trusting only in Christ's work. Some Mormons will also say the same thing with the same vocabulary as will the average Campbellite. Do we accept them as orthodox and saved automatically because they sound orthodox? Of course not.
> 
> We have become far too accepting of the Arminian error is these troubling times. Read the Canons of Dordt and see just how open they were to Arminians. Why have we neglected to treat the heresies and errors in our day in the way that those great theologians of old did?



Sorry to look over your post earlier.

Bad theology certainly is a moral problem, but it obviously does not follow that bad theology is an unforgivable sin. Certainly, some bad theology can be evidence of unregeneracy, but we must know where to draw the line.

And again, I would contend that it is possible to actually trust in Christ while being unaware of the implications of free will. There must be some moral problem in reading over the texts speaking of God's sovereignty in salvation,, but I don't think this moral problem is damning.

Lastly, I do not think a belief that some Arminians are saved is tantamount to an acceptance or tolerance of Arminian theology. I hate Arminianism.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 21, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that concerns me is that we do view bad theology as we should. Bad theology is a moral problem and we should treat it as such. Arminians will use the vocabulary of one who believes in Sola Fide. But when you carry out the logic of Arminian thought it is pure works righteousness...even though they say they are trusting only in Christ's work. Some Mormons will also say the same thing with the same vocabulary as will the average Campbellite. Do we accept them as orthodox and saved automatically because they sound orthodox? Of course not.
> ...



I agree with you Confessor. Really my worry is that too often we let the Arminian error off easy. Most on the PB, rightly so, condemn Roman Catholicism, but they would back off of Arminianism even though soteriologically speaking the error is the same. I do believe that there are some Arminians who will be saved in spite of their theology. I just feel that is some instances we could take a stronger stand against, in more public or vocal way. 
I am by no means implying that we burn them at the stake or personally and viciously attack proponents of Arminianism. Rather I would like to see us soberly and Biblically combat this vicious and pervasive error. Not that to some degree this isn't already done. The problem is that we are all to often ready to engage Arminianism is a safe zone like our local Presbyterian church, or on the PB, but when it comes to the public condemnation of the doctrine sometimes we shrink back. 
I worry that we are forgetting an obligation that we may have. Again I am using the general "WE" as Reformed Christians and am not accusing anyone on the PB specifically.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 21, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> I agree with you Confessor. Really my worry is that too often we let the Arminian error off easy. Most on the PB, rightly so, condemn Roman Catholicism, but they would back off of Arminianism even though soteriologically speaking the error is the same. I do believe that there are some Arminians who will be saved in spite of their theology. I just feel that is some instances we could take a stronger stand against, in more public or vocal way.
> I am by no means implying that we burn them at the stake or personally and viciously attack proponents of Arminianism. Rather I would like to see us soberly and Biblically combat this vicious and pervasive error. Not that to some degree this isn't already done. The problem is that we are all to often ready to engage Arminianism is a safe zone like our local Presbyterian church, or on the PB, but when it comes to the public condemnation of the doctrine sometimes we shrink back.
> I worry that we are forgetting an obligation that we may have. Again I am using the general "WE" as Reformed Christians and am not accusing anyone on the PB specifically.



 I can certainly agree with that. 

I know a problem I have personally is that I know some people are Christians and I don't want to "start arguments" or something -- simply because I don't like it when people don't like me. But in all honesty, I should be more vocal about the sovereignty of God when I'm on campus. "Blessed are you when people persecute you."

Thanks for the reminder.


----------

