# Is Arminian conditional-security even remotely *compatible* with the Gospel?



## biblelighthouse (Apr 8, 2005)

Consider the following illustration:

There are two different tribal organizations, called the Scilohtac and the Nainimra. Each group caters to poor families in the heart of Africa. They promise to take the poor and their families to America, give them homes of their own, and give them full scholarships to college. All these benefits are "free of charge", as long as the poor people meet certain conditions. The Scilohtac organization requires that the people put their trust in the organization's leader; they must sign a document stating that they truly believe that the leader of the organization has provided these benefits for them. Also, the Scilohtac group demands that all prospective benefit recepients "shape up" and live "good lives". The Scilohtac organization has a charter, and if any of these poor people break the laws on this charter without saying "I'm sorry" afterwards, then they are disqualified for the benefits. Once the Scilotac boat leaves for America, two documents are required. A person must first present their signed document affirming their belief in the organization's leader. Then a statement must also be signed by the leader, affirming that the person in question has been obedient to the charter. If a person presents both of these documents, then they are allowed to board the ship and go to America.

The Nainimra organization claims that "belief alone" in their group's leader is sufficient for receipt of benefits. Everyone who wants to go to America simply has to sign a document stating that they truly believe that the leader of the organization has provided these benefits for them. There is no condition for following the laws on the Nainimra charter. However, the Nainimra leader keeps track of all the people, and watches to see if they obey the laws on the Nainimra charter. If they break too many of the laws, then their signed document is confiscated. Once the Nainimra boat leaves for America, the people merely have to present their signed document stating that they truly believe in the organization's leader. This document alone is all they need to board the ship. But they must have it at boarding time!

Is there really any difference between the Scilohtac and Nainimra organizations? The first group openly admits to requiring two conditions to board the ship. Both belief and lawkeeping are requirements for receipt of benefits. The second group, however, claims that "belief alone" is required. And sure enough, only one document is required for boarding the ship. But lawkeeping is just as much of a requirement! If someone has a signed document affirming their belief, the document is eventually confiscated from them if they don't keep the law. So even the Nainimra group actually demands "belief plus lawkeeping" for receipt of benefits. They just are not as open about it.

Catholics openly teach that "faith plus works" gets you to Heaven.

Arminians say that "faith alone" gets you to Heaven. But before you "board the boat to Heaven", you have to do lots of good works to keep from losing your faith.

What's the difference?



Source: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/salvation/nainimra.htm


----------



## Robin (Apr 8, 2005)

There is none. Faith is a work to the Arminian IF they truly trust that they must have enough faith. (Christ is missing from the equation.)

This is why there are altar calls and rededication rites in the Arminian system. Trying to get "more" of Jesus....

The Biblical object of faith (Christ) is missing.

R.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 8, 2005)

I can't quote it enough:




> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XIV
> Of Saving Faith
> 
> II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein;[5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon *Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life*, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]






> Westminster Larger Catechism
> Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
> 
> A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, *and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]



Is the Arminian gospel compatible with the Westminster divines view of saving faith? NO! As we are fighting the good fight against the false gospel of the Catholic Church, let's apply the same arguments against the Arminian gospel. We must not go overboard like many today, we must judge rightly. We CANNOT justify the wicked OR condemn the righteous!!! Instead, we must teach the world that their works cannot merit the Salvation from God and that even their faith conjured up by a partially depraved free-will cannot merit Salvation from God. Christ Alone is the end of our salvation, and Christ Alone is the means of our salvation. 

Here is a quote from J.I. Packer's intro to the Bondage of the Will:



> Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide [by faith alone] is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia [by grace alone]; . . for to rely on one´s self for faith is not different in principle from relying on one´s self for works" (59, emphasis added)



Another quote:



> In particular, the denial of free will was to Luther the foundation of the Biblical doctrine of grace, and a hearty endorsement of that denial was the first step for anyone who would understand the Gospel and come to faith in God. The man who has not yet practically and experimentally learned the bondage of his will in sin has not yet comprehended any part of the Gospel" (44-45, emphasis added).



Luther then drive that the ultimate point IS the issue of "free will":



> I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account"“that you alone, in contrast with others, have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential issue. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like trifles. . . . You, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot (319).



Let us treat this matter with the rigorous logic that we use in other areas, and in love proclaim the truth of the Solas to everyone who disagrees!!

Matt has a good section on Arminianism here


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Is the Arminian gospel compatible with the Westminster divines view of saving faith? NO! As we are fighting the good fight against the false gospel of the Catholic Church, let's apply the same arguments against the Arminian gospel. We must not go overboard like many today, we must judge rightly. We CANNOT justify the wicked OR condemn the righteous!!! Instead, we must teach the world that their works cannot merit the Salvation from God and that even their faith conjured up by a partially depraved free-will cannot merit Salvation from God. Christ Alone is the end of our salvation, and Christ Alone is the means of our salvation.
> 
> <snip>
> ...



 brother, you preach it!  

I love Luther's "Bondage of the Will". God graciously dragged me out of Arminianism while I was reading that book years ago. Hundreds of years after publication, the truth is still truth!


----------

