# Are Arminians cult or not?



## Dao

Where do we draw the fine line in Arminianism and not call them "Cult"? We call JW, Mormons, Roman Catholics and many others "Cults" (at least those names are listed under cults in Google). To some, we can call Arminians cult in the same ways as others. Some would say Arminians are not cults. Doesn't those that teach a different doctrine fit in the catagory, "Cult"?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

What do you mean by 'cult'?


----------



## ewenlin

There are arminians who believe in a proper Trinity, view on Scriptures, justification by faith, substitutionary atonement, etc. Wouldn't see them as a cult but again depends on how you define it. 

I mainly see them as confused Christians.  Who was it who said something along the lines of arminians will become calvinists before they go heaven because God will wash their brains before then. It was something of those puritannical jestings which I'm sure will sound better than how I'm phrasing it now.


----------



## jambo

Arminians do not claim to have special revelation or to have discovered a new truth nor would they claim a human leader or authority. I would not see them as a cult and I am sure Arminians would not consider the Reformed to be a cult either. 

I know many Arminian brethren and although would not be at one with them in the head, at least in the heart I consider them to be at one.


----------



## Dao

Reformed Thomist said:


> What do you mean by 'cult'?



Since at least the 1940s, the approach of orthodox, conservative, or fundamentalist Christians was to apply the meaning of cult such that it included those religious groups who used (possibly exclusively) non-standard translations of the Bible, put additional revelation on a similar or higher level than the Bible, or had beliefs and/or practices that were not held by current, mainstream Christianity.
click here for the encyclopedia:Cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do we mean by mainstream Christianity?

-----Added 8/23/2009 at 12:17:05 EST-----



ewenlin said:


> . . . proper Trinity, view on Scriptures, justification by faith, substitutionary atonement, etc. . . .



So we'll need to go back to square one. We'll start with the Bible. I've seen Calvinistic views on "God chooses you first" in plain view and also seen Arminianistic (is that a new word?) views on "You chose God first" in plain view (face value of the Bible). They sound equal but totally different foundation.They both sound like mainline Christianity. The Calvinist tells Arminians they're dead wrong and the Arminians tell the Calvinist they"re dead wrong. Some say I'm neither Calvinist nor Arminians. How is that possible? Suppose the Calvinist AND Arminians are ~NOT~ cults (or something not taught in the Bible) and the rest of the religious organizations are cults.
Perhaps the word "Cult" and "Mainline Christianity" doesn't do us any good. Translating the Bible as best we can sounds good. I really don't like calling Arminians "heretics" or "cults" in religion like Rush Limbaugh does in politics. Sometimes "Cult" or "heretics" is useful as a strong word.


----------



## Edward

jambo said:


> Arminians do not claim to have special revelation or to have discovered a new truth nor would they claim a human leader or authority.



I think these are the keys. They just don't meet the definition of a cult. They look to Scripture (they read and interpret it wrongly, but they are looking in the right place). 

If I were to add a 4th test, it would be manipulating their members. 

This is not to say, however, that some Arminians aren't in cults. But Arminianism itself is not a cult.


----------



## Philip

My personal definition of what would constitute a cult is a denial of the Nicene Creed.


----------



## Hungus

I have said this in other places, but I truly believe you will be hard pressed to find an actual arminian today. That given, arminianism is error and many who claim to be arminian teach a different Gospel, but true arminianism is not a cult just erroneous.

Philip which version of the Nicene Creed would you use at a litmus test? There are 3 versions in circulation that I know of. example the Filioque was not added until well after Nicea (like a couple hundred years).


----------



## Dao

Hungus said:


> . . . I truly believe you will be hard pressed to find an actual arminian today.



Are you saying Arminianism is outdated and mainline Christianity evolved into something different?


----------



## Hungus

Dao said:


> Hungus said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . I truly believe you will be hard pressed to find an actual arminian today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying Arminianism is outdated and mainline Christianity evolved into something different?
Click to expand...


I am saying that if you look at people who claim to be arminians you will find they are really semi pelagians. So evolved no, devolved yes.

Remember all the good heresies are old heresies, we just give them new names. (JW => Arianism, Emergence => Gnosticism etc.)


----------



## Philip

Hungus said:


> Philip which version of the Nicene Creed would you use at a litmus test? There are 3 versions in circulation that I know of. example the Filioque was not added until well after Nicea (like a couple hundred years).



The Chalcedonian version--the filioque is moot, as its substance is at least strongly implied by the text (at least in my understanding).


----------



## AThornquist

(Even though it is not accurate, I will lump Arminianism, semi-Pelagianism, and to a lesser extent Pelagianism into one word in my post: Arminianism.)

Is Arminianism a cult? _No._ As someone mentioned, there may be some Arminian congregations that are cults but the same could be said of some self-proclaimed Calvinistic congregations. Listen, Arminianism is definitely doctrinal error. However, there are brothers and sisters in Christ who sincerely see it in Scripture (like many of us did at one point!) and who don't qualify for a cult status any more than we on the PB do, despite many theological disagreements. While on one hand it is vital to distinguish truth from error, it should be for the purpose of correcting our brethren so they may know the ways of God more accurately. If that is the fruit of this discussion, great! However, much of this separate gospel/cult status talk serves mainly to divide the body of Christ rather than unite it.


----------



## Hungus

Was it Spurgeon who said we are all saved as Arminians? Or was that some other theologian or aspect of my twisted imagination?

In any case I believe the statement was meant to reflect immaturity in the faith which will eventually be grown out of (hopefully)


----------



## Idelette

When most people think of the term "cult" this is the definition that comes to mind:

"followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." Definition taken from here: WordNet Search - 3.0

I think the key is "false religion". Anything apart from salvific truth should be considered a false religion, and I don't think that Arminianism in and of itself is a false religion. Of-course their theology is erroneous but nevertheless, they have a biblical view of the gospel (perhaps not a deep understanding of the doctrines of grace) but JW's, Mormons, RC's and other groups teach a completely different gospel! I wouldn't lump Arminianism as a whole with them!


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> . . . I truly believe you will be hard pressed to find an actual arminian today.



I always thought it was funny how arminians become calvinists when it comes to marrying "the one." Suddenly, God had everything planed out from the begining who they would marry.


----------



## AThornquist

Aaron:

and how "all things have a purpose" or "there is a reason for everything" ...


----------



## Dao

What makes Arminianism not a cult and JW or Mormans a cult?

-----Added 8/23/2009 at 08:10:15 EST-----



AThornquist said:


> To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!



Thats AWESOME! I had to put that on my facebook's thoughts. We ought to start a topic with one liners such as this one.


----------



## MMasztal

In error? Yes. A cult? No. I think one reason that Arminiasm is so popular in today's "church" is that it compliments man (self esteem), and also that so many churches are headed by pastors with no formal theological training leading independent churches where accountability is non-existent.


----------



## LeeJUk

I would never consider an arminian a member of a cult. That would be like saying the methodists were a cult and the Wesley brothers were the cult leaders. Nuff said.


----------



## Scott1

I think we are getting to an understanding of this in this thread- we ought not overuse the word "cult."

(In the non theological realm, the radio talk show host you mention has done an excellent job reminding us words have meanings, ideas have consequences. How much more this applies when handling biblical truth.)

Arminianism as a belief system is but a part of an overall system, not at all meeting the definition of that word.

A step-down form of the word is "sect" indicating a peculiarity of belief that identifies the whole group. I wouldn't even use that term to describe Arminianism.


----------



## AThornquist

Dao said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats AWESOME! I had to put that on my facebook's thoughts. We ought to start a topic with one liners such as this one.
Click to expand...


Thanks  It came to mind when I was writing out my testimony.


----------



## Dao

AThornquist said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats AWESOME! I had to put that on my facebook's thoughts. We ought to start a topic with one liners such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks  It came to mind when I was writing out my testimony.
Click to expand...


I've noticed that some of my Arminian friends liked that line on my Facebook, "To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!" Seems like some were blind to what it said unless they think, God made the decision to save ~ALL~. I was hoping they would notice that but I guess they didn't.
Should I put, "Note: I didn't make that decision". Do we make that decision after the regeneration and would it be proper to say, "I didn't make that decision"?


----------



## ewenlin

Hungus said:


> Was it Spurgeon who said we are all saved as Arminians? Or was that some other theologian or aspect of my twisted imagination?
> 
> In any case I believe the statement was meant to reflect immaturity in the faith which will eventually be grown out of (hopefully)



I think it is Spurgeon in his Defense of Calvinism sermon..



Hungus said:


> I have said this in other places, but I truly believe you will be hard pressed to find an actual arminian today. That given, arminianism is error and many who claim to be arminian teach a different Gospel, but true arminianism is not a cult just erroneous..



Hungus is absolutely right. This is what Dr. McMahon says,



> 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.


(emphasis mine)
See here for the full article.

You will be hard pressed to find arminians that are historically arminianistic.


----------



## Herald

Arminianism, in all it's branches, can be the _precursor _to becoming a cult or cult-like. Bad theology, if left unchecked, leads to more bad theology. In some cases erroneous doctrine can go all the way to it's logical extreme. This is why theology and apologetics is important.


----------



## ewenlin

I thought you were gonna push for confessionalism, Elder Brown!


----------



## toddpedlar

Dao said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dao said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats AWESOME! I had to put that on my facebook's thoughts. We ought to start a topic with one liners such as this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks  It came to mind when I was writing out my testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that some of my Arminian friends liked that line on my Facebook, "To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!" Seems like some were blind to what it said unless they think, God made the decision to save ~ALL~. I was hoping they would notice that but I guess they didn't.
> Should I put, "Note: I didn't make that decision". Do we make that decision after the regeneration and would it be proper to say, "I didn't make that decision"?
Click to expand...


It is not appropriate to say "I didn't make that decision" because you *did*. You didn't regenerate yourself (a popular Billy Graham way of stating the connection between choosing Jesus and being born again - i.e., regenerated - is to say that "You chose Christ, and then he caused you to be born again."), but you have willingly chosen Christ - something you were unable to do before God regenerated you.


----------



## Herald

ewenlin said:


> I thought you were gonna push for confessionalism, Elder Brown!



Ewen,

It's also why confessionalism is important. No need to worry.


----------



## OPC'n

No, most of them just haven't come to a learning of the 5 points yet. If you get one to say that he chose Christ because he was righteous before salvation, then you have a person who should fear for his soul. Not many of them will say this. Otherwise, they are just like the rest of us......learning more everyday! God doesn't give each new believer the whole of His truth at once....we learn as we go. BTW, I wouldn't call the RCC a cult either.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Herald said:


> Arminianism, in all it's branches, can be the _precursor _to becoming a cult or cult-like. Bad theology, if left unchecked, leads to more bad theology. In some cases erroneous doctrine can go all the way to it's logical extreme. This is why theology and apologetics is important.



Any one can develop a cult, not just non-calvinists. Would we consider EVERY non-calvinist a cultist? My answer to this question is a resounding no! In all honesty I would be very comfortable betting that there are Arminians that know plenty more about the Bible are are more godly that just about any of us here. I heard a college professor say once "no matter what side of the fence you are on, there is always someone that is more godly than you on the other". I say we need to stop holding arminians in contempt and love them like the fellow heirs that they are. I know this is a  statement but I will say it anyways: I bet there are just as many lost calvinists as there are lost arminians.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 09:55:57 EST-----

Let me put it this way: I am credo-baptist but I do not look at paedo-baptists as being cult members.


----------



## Dao

toddpedlar said:


> It is not appropriate to say "I didn't make that decision" because you *did*. You didn't regenerate yourself (a popular Billy Graham way of stating the connection between choosing Jesus and being born again - i.e., regenerated - is to say that "You chose Christ, and then he caused you to be born again."), but you have willingly chosen Christ - something you were unable to do before God regenerated you.



At first, I thought the Calvinism documents claimed that God regenerated the elect as if the elect didn't have a choice to accept or reject. As I struggle with the definition of HyperCalvinist, It seems I'm back to square one. With all the documents combined and over time, it seemed like I'm back to the Arminian theory that it's really you that makes a decision or do the action. As I can see in this topic of this forum, I'm getting clues that historical and traditional Arminianism might be outdated and Christianity involved to new things and new ideas. 
"Behold, I stand at the door and Knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me." Revelations 3:20
One opens the door when he hears Jesus knocks. If Jesus knocks and the door don't open, then this wouldn't be possible since all calls respond. Is it possible that some don't respond to a knock? If so, then ~All~ would include the goats and tares. To me, the outdated Arminian imagines there's a knock and opens his own door and imagines Jesus standing there when they never heard the knock or saw Jesus and claim their own salvation. Some say,"I'm neither Arminian nor Calvinist". Seems to me that they can imagine the knock and imagine Jesus entering until they understand the the knock/entering was real, ~later~. What theory does a non-Arminian/non-Calvinist follow, anyway?


----------



## ewenlin

Dao, Rev 3:20-22 should not be interpreted soteriologically. They are talking about a church.


----------



## Dao

ewenlin said:


> Dao, Rev 3:20-22 should not be interpreted soteriologically. They are talking about a church.



Oh, What would be the quote that would fit something like I said? Something the Arminians use frequently.
Soteriology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I had to look that word up: Christian soteriology is the study of how God ends the separation people have from him due to sin by reconciling them with himself.


----------



## Michael Doyle

I thank God that he does not require perfect or near perfect theology for our salvation. If this were the case, we would all be in serious trouble. Albeit my brothers and sisters of the "Arminean" ilk are sometimes very frustrating, they are nonetheless, just that, my Christian brethren as they are Trinitarian and believe in the essential doctrines as stated in the Nicene creed.


----------



## ewenlin

Dao said:


> ewenlin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dao, Rev 3:20-22 should not be interpreted soteriologically. They are talking about a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, What would be the quote that would fit something like I said? Something the Arminians use frequently.
> Soteriology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I had to look that word up: Christian soteriology is the study of how God ends the separation people have from him due to sin by reconciling them with himself.
Click to expand...


The Arminians do use that text in the past 50 years or so although I think its less frequent now. It's used to show the need for a unbeliever to "open his heart" to receive Jesus, basically in witnessing.

I think what Todd was stressing was that while Calvinists still *do* chose Christ, we did it after God regenerated our hearts. The difference with arminians is they assert regeneration comes after the so called choice. It basically boils down to one's view of man. Totally depraved or not.


----------



## Dao

Michael Doyle said:


> I thank God that he does not require perfect or near perfect theology for our salvation. If this were the case, we would all be in serious trouble. . . .


 I've studied much about the other so-called cult such as Chinese, Japanese, and India philosophies as well as Taoist, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc and I have put my foot in my mouth on subjects like these. It common for such religions to say that the mind can't comprehend and understand the language of God, if spoken as well as dualities as two spaces being the same space or being at two places at the same time. After learning all this along with Calvinism, I can see something positive about the salvation plan. "Positive" is another word that can be very new age terms. After learning positive thoughts by looking ahead in my imaginary mind, I turn my daydreams into reality. This type of thinking are banned by some Christians. To me, Calvinism gives me a strong positive thinking. Thinking that God does the work and guarantees salvation is certainly is positive and helps me enhance my thoughts about myself. Otherwise, if we think the way Arminians do and try to save ourselves, we won't get positive about that. It's negative thinking to pretend to do something impossible.


----------



## busdriver72

[quoteI thank God that he does not require perfect or near perfect theology for our salvation. If this were the case, we would all be in serious trouble. Albeit my brothers and sisters of the "Arminean" ilk are sometimes very frustrating, they are nonetheless, just that, my Christian brethren as they are Trinitarian and believe in the essential doctrines as stated in the Nicene creed.][/quote]
Thanks for posting that.
I have studied the Arminean vs. Calvinism theologies.
I once read somehere that unless you're an expert in the opposing view, you're not really qualified to pass judgment on it. That convicted me, so I deeply studied each.
I feel very, very lonely now. I don't have a label to stick on myself.
I don't know if I'm a Calnvinist with Arminean tendencies or an Arminean with Calvinist tendencies.
I definitely lean toward being a Calvinist, but I think we are trying to proccess something with out human minds that is a spiritual mystery as far as the way it all works out.
I recall as we studied the book of Acts 13:48 where it said "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." You can dice and splice and parse to thy heart's content....it says what it means and means what it says.
Yet, ACT 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Looking past the sarcasam of his words, he's basically saying "If you don't want eternal life....fine!" Responding, of course, to their own decision to reject the gospel, a decision which they will be held accountable for. Also, ACT 7:51 ¶ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." They are resisting that....which is irresistible?
See what I mean? I'm Calvinist....with _slight_ Armenian tendencies. In other words, the human mind and heart come into play somehow in the equation...there will be a willingness from the human side.


----------



## Scott1

If I am following where you are on this, these thoughts might be helpful:



Dao said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not appropriate to say "I didn't make that decision" because you *did*. You didn't regenerate yourself (a popular Billy Graham way of stating the connection between choosing Jesus and being born again - i.e., regenerated - is to say that "You chose Christ, and then he caused you to be born again."), but you have willingly chosen Christ - something you were unable to do before God regenerated you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important to understand that God only can _initiate_ salvation. His created thing, mankind, cannot initiate it because it first takes a miracle which man cannot do.
> 
> At first, I thought the Calvinism documents claimed that God regenerated the elect as if the elect didn't have a choice to accept or reject. As I struggle with the definition of HyperCalvinist, It seems I'm back to square one.
> In a sense, salvation requires man's choice. But, in context, God first changes man's nature, which God alone can do- God only can change the nature of a human being. A human being can "change" their mind, their will, their emotions and frequently does. But God alone can change the constituent nature of a human being. This is what Jesus is telling Nicodemus in John 3.
> 
> To be saved requires a changed nature. While the mind, the will and the emotions are affected, their change alone does not save someone. One could be of a mind to "accept" Jesus today, and change one's mind tomorrow.
> 
> Lots of people "think" they are Christians but reformed theology says the reality of the changed life tends to prove out over time in the life of believer (e.g. Parable of the Sower). The life is changed because the nature is changed and, over time, the life (thoughts, words and deeds) will more and more reflect the (true) nature of the person.
> 
> It's in that sense, Jesus springs of a tree bringing forth good fruit:
> 
> Matthew 7
> 33Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
> 
> 34O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
> 
> 35A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
> 
> 36But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
> 
> 37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
> 
> The behavior (words) flow from the nature. Man's act cannot change that nature.
> 
> "Hyper Calvinism" is not Calvinism. The term is often used by people who do not understand Calvinism. If it has any basis as a definition, it is used to describe people who, misunderstanding Calvinism, think we are not to evangelize anyone because God will save who he wants, so we just let it be. This is not biblical, and not Calvinism at all.
> 
> With all the documents combined and over time, it seemed like I'm back to the Arminian theory that it's really you that makes a decision or do the action. As I can see in this topic of this forum, I'm getting clues that historical and traditional Arminianism might be outdated and Christianity involved to new things and new ideas.
> Arminian influence says man is capable and able to inititiate his salvation- that's the crucial difference. Often, they say God's "grace" (unearned unmerited favor) is necessary, but then, inconsistently re-define grace to be something that can be accessed by man on demand. An analogy might be demanding a "gift" from someone. It's not a free, unmerited gift if there is an expectation or demand that one is entitled to it. Grace is not grace if one has a right or an expectation to demand and receive it.
> 
> Similar analogy from Dr. Sproul:
> 
> If there is one maverick molecule in the universe,
> God is not sovereign,
> If God is not sovereign,
> God is not God.
> 
> If one can demand something unearned like salvation,
> It's not a gift of salvation,
> If salvation is not by gift,
> salvation is not by grace.
> 
> "Behold, I stand at the door and Knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me." Revelations 3:20
> One opens the door when he hears Jesus knocks. If Jesus knocks and the door don't open, then this wouldn't be possible since all calls respond. Is it possible that some don't respond to a knock? If so, then ~All~ would include the goats and tares. To me, the outdated Arminian imagines there's a knock and opens his own door and imagines Jesus standing there when they never heard the knock or saw Jesus and claim their own salvation. Some say,"I'm neither Arminian nor Calvinist". Seems to me that they can imagine the knock and imagine Jesus entering until they understand the the knock/entering was real, ~later~. What theory does a non-Arminian/non-Calvinist follow, anyway?
Click to expand...


When God first changes the nature, then faith and repentance automatically flow from the changed nature because that is an incident of the new nature.

While I'm not confident in the entire meaning in context of Revelation 3, remember it is right before 7 actual churches in Asia Minor and may have somewhat different application than is assumed.


----------



## Dao

ewenlin said:


> . . .I think what Todd was stressing was that while Calvinists still *do* chose Christ, we did it after God regenerated our hearts. The difference with arminians is they assert regeneration comes after the so called choice. It basically boils down to one's view of man. Totally depraved or not.



Seems we have to chose God after he regenerated our hearts. If we had to choose Him, we didn't have the choice not to choose him. Whatever God Wills, it happens. If God regenerates and His Will, guaranteedly comes in play. We're not able to reject Him. So we had to chose and there only one option to chose. It's like someone telling you to take your pick and you're looking at one and the only apple. How does one use the word "pick" in this case. I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has. It's more like get the apple or get your free gift. The Bible does say, "man has to chose" but I'm not sure the original language of the bible uses "chose" like we do today.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 07:30:40 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> Yes, it is important to understand that God only can _initiate_ salvation. His created thing, mankind, cannot initiate it because it first takes a miracle which man cannot do.


 Is there a case in the Bible where God elects a man and that man turns down the offer?


----------



## ewenlin

Dao said:


> ewenlin said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .I think what Todd was stressing was that while Calvinists still *do* chose Christ, we did it after God regenerated our hearts. The difference with arminians is they assert regeneration comes after the so called choice. It basically boils down to one's view of man. Totally depraved or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems we have to chose God after he regenerated our hearts. If we had to choose Him, we didn't have the choice not to choose him. Whatever God Wills, it happens. If God regenerates and His Will, guaranteedly comes in play. We're not able to reject Him. So we had to chose and there only one option to chose. It's like someone telling you to take your pick and you're looking at one and the only apple. How does one use the word "pick" in this case. I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has. It's more like get the apple or get your free gift. The Bible does say, "man has to chose" but I'm not sure the original language of the bible uses "chose" like we do today.
> 
> -----Added 8/24/2009 at 07:30:40 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important to understand that God only can _initiate_ salvation. His created thing, mankind, cannot initiate it because it first takes a miracle which man cannot do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is there a case in the Bible where God elects a man and that man turns down the offer?
Click to expand...


Nope. It's called irresistible grace. 

Understanding our choices are made in accordance to our will. That is we always chose what we so desire at that given point. Prior to regeneration God is so far down our list of desires He's not even there you could say. It's at regeneration that Ezekiel 36 comes in, where our hearts of stone are turned in hearts of flesh. Following that we have the aptitude and the ability to chose God. Of course, that is because we have been born again and desire all things God!

In this sense, God doesn't force your decision by placing only 1 apple in front of you. He changes your heart so you will chose that apple.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Dao said:


> I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has.



Or could it be that the non-elect are the ones who are 'programmed' (to sin unto death), and the elect those who have been graciously _freed_ from such slavery?


----------



## YXU

Dao said:


> Where do we draw the fine line in Arminianism and not call them "Cult"? We call JW, Mormons, Roman Catholics and many others "Cults" (at least those names are listed under cults in Google). To some, we can call Arminians cult in the same ways as others. Some would say Arminians are not cults. Doesn't those that teach a different doctrine fit in the catagory, "Cult"?



Arminianism is a heresy, it is an error and caused division, and it is a doctrine that we cannot tolerate even when we have to face divisions in the church, for it is crucial. 

Roman Church and the Pope is also a herey and more than that, the Antichrist. Armianism is one of the doctrine of the Roman Church. Those who believe in Arminianism proves that they are the daughters of that great Whore.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

busdriver72 said:


> I recall as we studied the book of Acts 13:48 where it said "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." You can dice and splice and parse to thy heart's content....it says what it means and means what it says.
> Yet, ACT 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Looking past the sarcasam of his words, he's basically saying "If you don't want eternal life....fine!" Responding, of course, to their own decision to reject the gospel, a decision which they will be held accountable for. Also, ACT 7:51 ¶ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." They are resisting that....which is irresistible?
> See what I mean? I'm Calvinist....with _slight_ Armenian tendencies. In other words, the human mind and heart come into play somehow in the equation...there will be a willingness from the human side.


No, you are not a Calvinist if you assume a human element is involved in one's regeneration. 

Judging by your comments with respect to Acts 7:51 and Acts 13:46 you seem to be struggling with the concept of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

AMR


----------



## A.J.

busdriver72 said:


> Thanks for posting that.
> I have studied the Arminean vs. Calvinism theologies.
> I once read somehere that unless you're an expert in the opposing view, you're not really qualified to pass judgment on it. That convicted me, so I deeply studied each.
> I feel very, very lonely now. I don't have a label to stick on myself.
> I don't know if I'm a Calnvinist with Arminean tendencies or an Arminean with Calvinist tendencies.
> I definitely lean toward being a Calvinist, but I think we are trying to proccess something with out human minds that is a spiritual mystery as far as the way it all works out.
> I recall as we studied the book of Acts 13:48 where it said "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." You can dice and splice and parse to thy heart's content....it says what it means and means what it says.
> Yet, ACT 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Looking past the sarcasam of his words, he's basically saying "If you don't want eternal life....fine!" Responding, of course, to their own decision to reject the gospel, a decision which they will be held accountable for. Also, ACT 7:51 ¶ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." They are resisting that....which is irresistible?
> See what I mean? I'm Calvinist....with _slight_ Armenian tendencies. In other words, the human mind and heart come into play somehow in the equation...there will be a willingness from the human side.



Ralph, I think you mean "Arminian" not "Armenian." Armenian is an ethnic group. 

The doctrine of irresistible grace (effectual calling) does not mean that men do not resist the gospel at all. In fact, unbelievers always reject the gospel. 

What it does mean is that in God's own time, His elect will be irresistibly (or effectually) drawn unto Himself. They will be made willing and able to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. Apart from God's prior work of grace in their hearts, they will never come to Christ for salvation. 

As the Wesminster Confession states,



> Chapter 9: Free Will
> 
> 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;a so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,b and dead in sin,c is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.d
> 
> a. John 15:5; Rom 5:6; 8:7. • b. Rom 3:10, 12. • c. Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13. • d. John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-5; Titus 3:3-5.
> 
> 4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,a and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;b yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.c
> 
> a. John 8:34, 36; Col 1:13. • b. Rom 6:18, 22; Phil 2:13. • c. Rom 7:15, 18-19, 21, 23; Gal 5:17.



and



> Chapter 10. Of Effectual Calling.
> 
> 1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,a by his Word and Spirit,b out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;c enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God;d taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;e renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good,f and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;g yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.h
> 
> a. Rom 8:30; 11:7; Eph 1:10-11. • b. 2 Cor 3:3, 6; 2 Thes 2:13-14. • c. Rom 8:2; Eph 2:1-5; 2 Tim 1:9-10. • d. Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 2:10, 12; Eph 1:17-18. • e. Ezek 36:26. • f. Deut 30:6; Ezek 11:19; 36:27; Phil 2:13. • g. John 6:44-45; Eph 1:19. • h. Psa 110:3; Song 1:4; John 6:37; Rom 6:16-18.
> 
> 2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man;a who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,b he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.c
> 
> a. Rom 9:11; Eph 2:4-5, 8-9; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:4-5. • b. Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:5. • c. Ezek 36:27; John 5:25; 6:37.



-----Added 8/25/2009 at 12:52:53 EST-----

Yes, there is willingness involved. But this willingness by the elect to come to Christ is by God's free and special grace. Their willingness is not something produced by their unregenerated human nature.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

YXU said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do we draw the fine line in Arminianism and not call them "Cult"? We call JW, Mormons, Roman Catholics and many others "Cults" (at least those names are listed under cults in Google). To some, we can call Arminians cult in the same ways as others. Some would say Arminians are not cults. Doesn't those that teach a different doctrine fit in the catagory, "Cult"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arminianism is a heresy, it is an error and caused division, and it is a doctrine that we cannot tolerate even when we have to face divisions in the church, for it is crucial.
> 
> Roman Church and the Pope is also a herey and more than that, the Antichrist. Armianism is one of the doctrine of the Roman Church. Those who believe in Arminianism proves that they are the daughters of that great Whore.
Click to expand...



Those are very heavy words for a matter like this. Do you consider those with a different eschatology than you heretics? Look at the groups listed under cults, they were JWs and LDS. Neither of those groups are Christian and yet they claim to be.RCC is a different issue but they are heretics in their own regard. I would be interested in knowing what you consider heresy and what is something simply to agree to disagree over.


----------



## A.J.

Unashamed 116 said:


> Those are very heavy words for a matter like this. Do you consider those with a different eschatology than you heretics? Look at the groups listed under cults, they were JWs and LDS. Neither of those groups are Christian and yet they claim to be.RCC is a different issue but they are heretics in their own regard. I would be interested in knowing what you consider heresy and what is something simply to agree to disagree over.



Hello! I don't think brother Xu is considering those who differ with him on eschatology as heretics. This board is proof that Reformed men can either be amillennial or postmillenial or historic premillennial (not to be confused with dispensational premillenialism) and yet be within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy.

The problem with Arminianism is that it belongs to totally different category altogether. As a system of theology, its errors go right at the heart of the gospel. While I will not describe Arminianism the way Xu did, I agree with him that Arminianism is a heresy.

The first sentences in the introductory paragraph of the Arminianism page of Dr. Matthew McMahon's website explain (note the first sentence),



> _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.



Now back to the topic.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

> While I will not describe Arminianism the way Xu did, I agree with him that Arminianism is a heresy.



I disagree. Have they denied justification by grace alone through faith alone? Or the Trinity and it's other branching doctrines (hypostatic union) or the infalibility of Scripture? Or anything else foundational to the Gospel, I would say no.


----------



## Dao

Dao said:


> . . . We're not able to reject Him. So we had to chose and there only one option to chose. It's like someone telling you to take your pick and you're looking at one and the only apple. How does one use the word "pick" in this case. I've read articles saying, "we're not robots", but the elect seems to be programed to chose or to pick the only choice he has. It's more like get the apple or get your free gift. The Bible does say, "man has to chose" but I'm not sure the original language of the bible uses "chose" like we do today



Just came to my mind, I don't recall seeing any verse that says we "chose". I have never been able to find it.


----------



## Gloria

Dao said:


> Where do we draw the fine line in Arminianism and not call them "Cult"? We call JW, Mormons, Roman Catholics and many others "Cults" (at least those names are listed under cults in Google). To some, we can call Arminians cult in the same ways as others. Some would say Arminians are not cults. Doesn't those that teach a different doctrine fit in the catagory, "Cult"?



No...


----------



## Igor

YXU said:


> Arminianism is a heresy, it is an error and caused division, and it is a doctrine that we cannot tolerate even when we have to face divisions in the church, for it is crucial.
> 
> Roman Church and the Pope is also a herey and more than that, the Antichrist. Armianism is one of the doctrine of the Roman Church. Those who believe in Arminianism proves that they are the daughters of that great Whore.


Are you sure? 98 per cent of all Russian and Ukrainian Baptists (except those whose congregations were set up and influenced by Calvinistic missionaries) are Arminians - do you mean to say that they are all "daughters of that great Whore"? So, when they suffered for Christ during the Communist (and, earlier, Orthodox) persecutions, they suffered in vain?


----------



## Dao

A.J. said:


> busdriver72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is willingness involved. But this willingness by the elect to come to Christ is by God's free and special grace. Their willingness is not something produced by their unregenerated human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't we face that we were "forced" to come to Him? There wasn't any other option but to surrender but surrender is still a choice so "took" is a better word, right? "God took us"
Click to expand...


----------



## A.J.

Unashamed 116 said:


> I disagree. Have they denied justification by grace alone through faith alone? Or the Trinity and it's other branching doctrines (hypostatic union) or the infalibility of Scripture? Or anything else foundational to the Gospel, I would say no.



In your view, what makes heresy heresy? _Historic_ Arminianism is heresy. See the Canons of Dort and note the many times the word Pelagian appears in the Reformed description of the five Arminian articles. Historic Christianinity has held that Pelagianism *is* heresy. 

Thankfully, many men and women who claim to be Arminians in our day are actually _inconsistent_ Arminians. I think we are simply disagreeing on how to define terms. 



Igor said:


> Are you sure? 98 per cent of all Russian and Ukrainian Baptists (except those whose congregations were set up and influenced by Calvinistic missionaries) are Arminians - do you mean to say that they are all "daughters of that great Whore"? So, when they suffered for Christ during the Communist (and, earlier, Orthodox) persecutions, they suffered in vain?



With the exception of the former Soviet Union and China's Communist history, most professing non-Roman Catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox Christians in most (if not all) countries are also Arminians. That would include India where many professing Christians are being persecuted to this day. 

I believe that some of God's elect are within Arminian circles. They are true Christians _in spite of_ their bad theology. They are _inconsistent_ Arminians. They may claim to be Arminian but if they _truly_ repent of their sins and trust Christ alone for their salvation, then their death in the hands of an evil government is certainly not in vain. As Scripture says,

Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.​
-----Added 8/26/2009 at 10:11:14 EST-----



Dao said:


> Then why can't we face that we were "forced" to come to Him? There wasn't any other option but to surrender but surrender is still a choice so "took" is a better word, right? "God took us"



"Force" I think is not a good word to describe the effectual calling of God's elect. God makes them _willing_ and _able_ to rest on and receive Christ alone for their salvation (cf. WCF Chapters 9 and 10). This was described by the prophet Ezekiel, 

Ezekiel 36:25-27 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and *I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh*. And *I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments*, and do them.​
The Canons of Dort (3rd and 4th Heads of Doctrine) explain,



> Article 11
> 
> But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in his elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit,1 that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God;2 but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man;3 He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart,4 and circumcises that which was uncircumcised;5 infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens;6 from being evil, disobedient, and obstinate, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.7
> 1 Heb 6:4-5; 2 1 Cor 2:10-14; 3 Heb 4:12; 4 Acts 16:14; 5 Dt 30:6; 6 Ezek 11:19, 36:26; 7 Mt 7:18; Gal 5:22-25
> 
> Article 12
> 
> And this is that regeneration so highly extolled in Scripture, that renewal,1 new creation,2 resurrection from the dead,3 making alive,4 which God works in us without our aid.5 But this is in no way effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe.6 Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Wherefore also man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received.
> 1 Jn 3:3; 2 2 Cor 4:6, 5:17; 3 Jn 5:25; Rom 4:17; Eph 5:14; 4 Eph 2:5; 5 Php 2:13; 6 Jn 6:63-65



Yes, the Lord "took" us and delivered us from our state of sin and misery.


----------



## Dao

Dao said:


> A.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busdriver72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is willingness involved. But this willingness by the elect to come to Christ is by God's free and special grace. Their willingness is not something produced by their unregenerated human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't we face that we were "forced" to come to Him? There wasn't any other option but to surrender but surrender is still a choice so "took" is a better word, right? "God took us"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that beats me. It's like in the Star Trek movie when a bigger ship beams in the little ship by force or the bigger fish eats the little fish by force.
> When God guarantees our salvation by promise, He'll get us, He'll take us, It's still by force the way I see it. Maybe it don't sound to good but that seems what is happening. Everyone wants free will and the Arminians are getting their free will and it seems God allows them to feel free or forces Arminians to feel like they're not controlled. As I see, God ~IS~ in control and that includes taking the Elects as He see fits. I don't know if this sounds hyper but It seems simple. I want to know is how are we supposed to understand that and say we do have a choice to receive or reject Him. If we can't reject him, then how can we say we have a choice as if would could reject Him. Well. I'm going to have to pray on this one.
Click to expand...


----------



## ewenlin

There's probably a difference between calling someone a heretic and labeling them anathema.


----------



## Dao

ewenlin said:


> There's probably a difference between calling someone a heretic and labeling them anathema.



Thats a new word for me!:

Anathema (in Greek Ανάθεμα) originally meant something lifted up as an offering to the gods; later, with evolving meanings, it came to mean:

1. to be formally set apart;
2. banished, exiled, excommunicated;
3. denounced, sometimes accursed; or
4. a literary term
Anathema - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------

