# Jacobus Arminius, damnable heresy



## ReformedWretch (Dec 25, 2008)

Can one safely assume that Jacobus was teaching such? If so, we can then assume that we will not see him in eternity? Am I going to far in this thinking?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 25, 2008)

I'd hesitate to speculate...


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 25, 2008)

That is between him and the Lord Jesus.


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 25, 2008)

It's this kind of question that causes me to think there is no point in trying to get theology straight.

I recall a sermon by John MacArthur where he stated that the Christian life is the most precise and exacting. I still agree with that. So if Arminianism is merely mistaken theology, it's really no big deal; as with any of our "mistakes" in theology?

Yet, when we read our beloved Puritans and Reformers, they were not shy in exposing and obliterating the scheme.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 25, 2008)

I don't think anyone here believes that the heresy is not "judgeable" as fruit from the tree of Pelagius, however I just don't believe that Arminius' personal salvation is ours to call. He did "confess with his mouth" and his heresy did not go against whether God raised Jesus from the dead or many other orthodox beliefs, thus my hesitation.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 25, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I don't think anyone here believes that the heresy is not "judgeable" as fruit from the tree of Pelagius, however I just don't believe that Arminius' personal salvation is ours to call. He did "confess with his mouth" and his heresy did not go against *whether God raised Jesus from the dead or many other orthodox beliefs*, thus my hesitation.



If someone would claim that standing before God, they would have some action, thought, deed, or merit that God must add to Christ's work on their behalf, then, yes, such a person is damned. Whether or not Arminius actually believed what he said he believed is, as Panta is alluding to, a speculative exercise which seems to have no profit.

Should someone be given the comfort of the gospel while holding to such errors? No. Does that mean that they are perhaps speculating about their beliefs, and that at rock bottom they believe otherwise? I believe this may be the case. As Luther said, there are theoretical beliefs, and then what a man believes at the rock bottom of his feelings. Down in his guts. If J.A. believed the 5 points of Arminianism in his guts, then he's burning in hell. Otherwise, he's not. Really, it makes no practical difference to anyone, except for him.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 25, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> If J.A. believed the 5 points of Arminianism in his guts, then he's burning in hell.
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam


Is the obverse of this that only 5-point Calvinists go to heaven?


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 25, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone here believes that the heresy is not "judgeable" as fruit from the tree of Pelagius, however I just don't believe that Arminius' personal salvation is ours to call. He did "confess with his mouth" and his heresy did not go against *whether God raised Jesus from the dead or many other orthodox beliefs*, thus my hesitation.
> ...



It makes a practical difference for all those who still hold to his conclusions. If he burns, how many has he taken down with him?


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 25, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > If J.A. believed the 5 points of Arminianism in his guts, then he's burning in hell.
> ...



Lance,

It is one thing to have not studied something, or to be ignorant or unawares. It is another thing to come to a conclusion after studying out the matters, but refusing to admit to their truth.

So, I would answer, no, one does not need to grasp the finer points of the finding of Dordt. One may be untaught, or unaware. The point I was making about 5-point Arminianism is that it is a well thought out error. A deliberate choosing to defy the Living God.

However, when one of Christ's sheep hears that he was chosen for nothing in him, and that God will complete His work in us, he doesn't finally reject such truths.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 25, 2008)

Adam Brink, are you THE Adam Brink who did the Reformation and Resistance series? I loved it! I've kept that on my Mp3 for quite a while now to listen through frequently.  It's a small world afterall....


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 25, 2008)

D. Paul said:


> Adam Brink, are you THE Adam Brink who did the Reformation and Resistance series? I loved it! I've kept that on my Mp3 for quite a while now to listen through frequently.  It's a small world afterall....



Donald,

I am the culprit. I'm glad you have enjoyed the series! May I ask how you found out about it? I've been doing a lot of shameless promotion on PB, but I'm curious.

To your earlier post, indeed, it has intense practical value as to the ideas themselves, and their consequences. You are right. However, the status of one man's soul is not relevant to a discussion of ideas. I think that's what I was trying to get at.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 25, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Christusregnat said:
> ...



The reason I ask is that my namesake (Whitefield) was convinced that Wesley would be in heaven.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 25, 2008)

I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.

I don't see how that can be incorrect. Isn't the God of Arminious a different God? I mean believing things in total ignorance is one thing, flat out rejecting Gospel truth when presented with it and taught it clearly is another, especially in regard to salving faith.

Where am I wrong?


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 25, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> If someone would claim that standing before God, they would have some action, thought, deed, or merit that God must add to Christ's work on their behalf, then, yes, such a person is damned.



God decides who is saved and who is damned. Therefore, where is the scripture where God reveals that he damns all who hold to any form of synergistic soteriology? Without such a scripture, the above would be both an unsupportable and an extremely uncharitable assertion to make.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 25, 2008)

I find these words of Spurgeon helpful in this type of discussion. It comes from Spurgeon's sermon preached on the Lord's Day evening, April 4, 1875. The sermon is entitled "Christ's 'New Commandment'". Vol 51. section III.



> _By this test shall your fellow-Christians also know that you are Christ’s disciples._ I do not know of anything which more commends a Christian to his fellow-Christians than a true spirit of love. I have read many controversial works, and I have admired the force of the arguments in many of them; but when I have read them, I have not gathered from the perusal that the writers on either side were very eminently followers of Christ. They may have been; it was no business of mine to judge as to that matter. They may have the showing other precious qualities while they were contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, but the grace of Christian charity has not always been very manifest. For instance, if you read the controversy between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Toplady, — well, I do not know which was the worse of the two; they could both say a thing very sharply- when they tried, and the devil helped them to make it even sharper; yet they were both of them good men, and it was not according to the nature of either of them to say anything bad of the other. It is quite a relief to notice how Mr. Whitefield conducted his controversy with Mr. Wesley; as I have read it, I have said to myself, “This man is a Christian, and no mistake.” It is reported that Mr. Whitefield was one day asked by a partisan, “Do you think that we, when we get to heaven, shall see John Wesley there?” “No,” said George Whitefield, “I do not think we shall.” The questioner was very delighted with that answer, but Mr. Whitefield added, “I believe that Mr. John Wesley will have a place so near the throne of God, and that such poor creature as you and I will be so far off as to be hardly able to see him.” As I read such remarks made by Mr. Whitefield, I have said to myself, “By this I know, as a Christian, that he must be, a Christian;” for I saw that he loved his brother Wesley even while he so earnestly differed from him on certain points of doctrine. Yes, dear brethren, if we cannot differ, and yet love one another, — if we cannot allow each brother to go his own way in the service of God, and to have the liberty of working after his own fashion, — if we cannot do that, we shall fail to convince our fellow-Christians that we ourselves are Christians.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 25, 2008)

John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

Eph 2:1 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespass

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Arminianism must deny all of these passages (I kept it simple). When do those who deny such fit this passage?

Gal 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed”

If one believes that he/she is a Christian because God "for saw" that he/she was going to have faith is that not in violation of Eph 2:8-9? “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9)

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 11:34:29 EST-----

I like what Piper says here-

"There are many today, as in every day, who bring to the Bible the presupposition that sinful man must have the power of self-determination in order to be held accountable by God. This is not a biblical presupposition. It threatens to undermine the gospel because it pushes people away from believing that God can plan and bring to pass the sins that are essential to the death of his Son.

"We don’t usually think about Arminianism as a threat to the atonement. It usually comes in at the point of the accomplishment of the gospel and the offer of the gospel, not the point of the plan of the events of the gospel. But here we see that there is an intrinsic incompatibility between the basic Arminian presupposition and the gospel as including a set of planned sins against the Son of God. That presupposition is that for humans to be morally accountable agents they must have the ultimate power of self-determination at all those points where they are found blameworthy or praiseworthy.

"That presupposition pushes people away from believing that God has the right and power in righteousness and wisdom to infallibly plan the death of his Son through the sinful acts of morally accountable men. But the Bible teaches that he did. There is no atonement and no gospel without God-planned sins against the Son of God. He died at the hands of sinful men by God’s design. That is an essential part of the gospel. 'He died for our sins according to the scriptures.' "


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 25, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
> 
> Eph 2:1 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
> 
> ...



Q.E.D. there will be no Arminians in heaven?


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 25, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.
> 
> I don't see how that can be incorrect. Isn't the God of Arminious a different God? I mean believing things in total ignorance is one thing, flat out rejecting Gospel truth when presented with it and taught it clearly is another, especially in regard to salving faith.
> 
> Where am I wrong?



Do your mother and brother believe that a person can believe all of the following and still be a true Christian?

1. What Arminius taught
2. That salvation is by the grace of God alone, which is neither merited nor secured, in part or in whole, by any virtue or work of man.
3. That man contributes nothing to his salvation.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 25, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.
> 
> I don't see how that can be incorrect. Isn't the God of Arminious a different God? I mean believing things in total ignorance is one thing, flat out rejecting Gospel truth when presented with it and taught it clearly is another, especially in regard to salving faith.
> 
> Where am I wrong?



That presumes that the Holy Spirit has prepared the listener to respond in a certain way and that the truth has been presented in a perfectly clear manner. I think we would agree that the DoG can be presented in such a non-irenic fashion that one could honestly say "What manner of love is this?"

Getting a committed "Free Will"er to acknowledge the love of absolute predestination is not something that can be solved with presenting the DoG once, twice or twenty times - sometimes there is a limited ability to truly grasp the implications of "Free Will" vs the nuances of election. Just as it may be difficult for committed "hyper-Calvinists" to truly grasp the implications of their error, yet one cannot say that God does not select brethren from that fold, as well.

I'd rather take the path of graciousness and not presume to limit the Lord's election and His secret will. Who knows that these brethren are not elect instruments of His will used to reflect His glory through the refinement of His glorious Doctrine of Grace? All things, even the error of our brethren, work together for good.

Praise God that He chooses to save those with limited ability from both sides of the fence! And may we be appropriately humbled by our unearned understanding of His glorious plan through the revelation of the Holy Spirit!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 25, 2008)

That's what I'm sorting out and as I do so, if I must answer right now I suspect there will not be. Not those who believe that last line of my post you've quoted. However, I do leave room for those in total ignorance and I think that covers a lot of people. 

When I listen to hardened, insistent "free will" people I just plainly hear "another gospel". When people bang there fist on a table and announce "That's not my God" when taught about predestination/election, etc. then I can't help but think they are right, it's not their god. They don't want that God, they want the god they've created for themselves. I used to be that way, I wanted "MY" god the way I made him to be. When I finally saw the real God it knocked me for a loop and I truely repented especially of thinking I had anything to do with my salvation.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 11:46:51 EST-----



cih1355 said:


> PuritanBouncer said:
> 
> 
> > I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.
> ...



I don't think so.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 11:51:59 EST-----



panta dokimazete said:


> PuritanBouncer said:
> 
> 
> > I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.
> ...



I understand and somewhat agree with your points here. That said, please keep in mind that I am talking about those who say the Calvinist God, or the D.o.G. God is evil, that He is unworthy of love and devotion, that He is a devil, etc. and die believing that.

I would so love to start a D.o.G. Church plant up this way somewhere and my brother laughed telling me that there is NO ONE in a 75 mile radius that would ever accept Calvinism/D.o.G. and it would be a waste trying to plant such a Church. He said you would be run out of any church in this general (but wide) area and could certainly not find enough people to support a church.

If true, it made me sick to consider such and question the hearts of those who claim to be Christians. Why do we not have such disgust towards those who are total "free willers"? Doesn't that alone tell you something? I am not so disgusted and disturbed by them as they are of me (we). Why is that?


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 25, 2008)

Are you saying that Acts 16:31 has a disclaimer, i.e., "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but if you mistakenly think that you had something to do with having that faith, then the promise is null and void."?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 26, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> Are you saying that Acts 16:31 has a disclaimer, i.e., "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but if you mistakenly think that you had something to do with having that faith, then the promise is null and void."?



I think it seems clear that the bible teaches that. Thinking you had something to do with it is another gospel, clearly in my opinion.

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 12:00:49 EST-----

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."
- John Owen


"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"
- George Whitefield


"God’s predetermination of second causes is that effectual working of his, according to his eternal purpose, whereby though some agents, as the wills of men, are causes most free and indefinite, or unlimited lords of their own actions, in respect of their internal principle of operation (that is, their own nature), [they] are yet all, in respect of his decree, and by his powerful working, determined to this or that effect in particular; not that they are compelled to do this, or hindered from doing that, but are inclined and disposed to do this or that, according to their proper manner of working, that is, most freely"
- John Owen


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 26, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that Acts 16:31 has a disclaimer, i.e., "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but if you mistakenly think that you had something to do with having that faith, then the promise is null and void."?
> ...



Then you have your answer to the question you originally posed.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 26, 2008)

Well, in truth, the battle you are describing seems much more about neo-Pelagian doctrine than classical Arminianism. 

In other words, we aren't dead in sin, just sick from it, so anyone proclaiming that we are dead men is calling what they consider somewhat good, fully evil, basically. No one likes to be told that they aren't just sick, but dead. The DoG message is so contra-cultural that it causes extreme reaction.

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 12:03:43 EST-----



PuritanBouncer said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that Acts 16:31 has a disclaimer, i.e., "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but if you mistakenly think that you had something to do with having that faith, then the promise is null and void."?
> ...



Thinking you have some responsibility is not, though. The nuance of responsibility is where folks stumble on the DoG vs Free Will.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 26, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Well, in truth, the battle you are describing seems much more about neo-Pelagian doctrine than classical Arminianism.
> 
> In other words, we aren't dead in sin, just sick from it, so anyone proclaiming that we are dead men is calling what they consider somewhat good, fully evil, basically. No one likes to be told that they aren't just sick, but dead. The DoG message is so contra-cultural that it causes extreme reaction.



The battle I've described is pretty much the only "arminian" battle I ever face.



> Thinking you have some responsibility is not, though.



Thinking you've contributed to your salvation is not another gospel?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 26, 2008)

Even so, you may be surprised that the Lord is preparing a group even now for you to teach the DoG to those who will respond with true joy. I'd not let nay-sayers interfere with my call, but I'd also prepare myself to be gracious.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 26, 2008)

Oh sure! I'm not going to tell free willers they are going to Hell, well at least not immediately  I am going to slowly explore the Church plant idea as there are so, so, so few Churches in a 100 mile radius of me that believe in the D.o.G.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 26, 2008)

Blessings to you - be a voice crying in the wilderness


----------



## Archlute (Dec 26, 2008)

I think that for this conversation to be fruitful, one would have to become familiar with the writings of Arminius himself. I doubt that many here have ever read his works, but I used to have a copy in my possession, and at least in his pastoral writings he struck me as being a very sincere and Christ-centered minister with his people.

If I remember correctly from our lectures in Church history, Dr. Godfrey wanted us to understand that there was a distinction and a development between the waverings of Jacobus (who was a Reformed minister), and the direction that was taken by his students whose theology would become the driving force behind the five points offered up by the Remonstrants. Arminius' views were more tame than what was developed by the next generation.

I think that this is reflected somewhat in the conversations that you are having with your family. They probably speak in a much more strident manner about their Arminianism, than would have Arminius himself. I thought, when I was reading him, that Jacobus was an intelligent and sincere minister of the Word who let his doubts about certain aspects of theology get the better of him. He was certainly no Servetus, nor Socinus. Those men were truly heretical.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 26, 2008)

That's just it, my family isn't arminian! They we're just going into the whole "we can't know what's right" argument and it frustrated me.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 26, 2008)

I believe that William Ames said that Arminianism is an error tending to heresy. 

In the strict sense it's best to define heresy as that which transgresses the catholic (universal, e.g. Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedon, Athanasian) creeds. Thus, we should drop the H bomb very carefully. 

We should also avoid speculating about who will and won't be in heaven. Apart from public, ecclesiastical judgment on a particular individual, who knows? Even in the case of ecclesiastical judgment the church is only saying that it does not see evidence of true faith. Churches err. Only God knows these things.

Finally, Arminius made serious errors and laid the foundation for a great deal of damage in the Reformed Churches and even for the rise of aspects of modern Unitarianism (later Remonstrants became Unitarians and the UUA--Unitarian Universalist Assoc-- sometimes traces its roots to Arminius) but he was not as radical as his followers became.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 27, 2008)

I agree with Scott, especially given the way that the TFU use the word. 

I've recently written an article that deals with article 16 of the Belgic Confession. Article 16 speaks about the Christological heresy of some of the Anabaptists. This was truly heresy, for it ran into problems with the Athanasian Creed. 

See here for the article.


----------



## CarsonLAllen (Dec 27, 2008)

*This is from the O.P.C. Q&A 

Is Arminianism a damnable heresy?


Answer:


Having been condemned by the Synod of Dordrecht (Dort) in 1618-1619, Arminianism is indeed a heresy, a serious departure from the historic faith of the Christian church. "Arminius, a theological professor at the University of Leyden, departed from the Reformed faith in his teaching concerning five important points. He taught conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace. These views were rejected by the Synod ..." (from the introduction to the Canons of Dort in the Psalter Hymnal, 1959 ed.). 


The Bible teaches that God elected his people in Christ before time began. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world ..." (Eph. 1:4). This election was out of God's mere free grace and love, with nothing in the creature as a condition or cause inducing him to do this. "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ... So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:11, 16).


The Bible teaches that Christ did his atoning work on behalf of his elect people, and no others. "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15). "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (John 17:9).


The Bible teaches total depravity, that is, that man, in every part of his nature (intellect, emotions and will) is hopelessly ruined by the fall. Fallen man is dead in trespasses and sins and cannot give himself spiritual birth. Regeneration is entirely the working of our gracious, sovereign God. "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1). "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).


The Bible teaches that God is absolutely sovereign and all-powerful. "... the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will ... and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:32, 35). "The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power ..." (Ps. 110:2-3). "For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom. 9:19). "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (Rev. 19:6). If God's will cannot be resisted, then his grace cannot be resisted either; his grace is irresistible.


The Bible teaches that Christ's true sheep have eternal life and shall never perish. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:27-29).


Since the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false. They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is only one gospel, not two. Anyone who preaches any other gospel is preaching a false gospel and is accursed. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9).


Jesus Christ is the true and faithful witness (Rev. 3:14). Since he has chosen that his gospel be preached by fallible men (Acts 9:15; Eph. 4:11), it is evident that there is no perfect preacher among the sons of men, born by ordinary generation. A true preacher might make an honest mistake, but he will not intentionally deceive or distort the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only the Lord Jesus Christ is the unerring discerner of men's hearts who will infallibly judge the motivations of all his ministers at the final day. "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Cor. 3:15).


The Oxford English Dictionary defines "damnable" as "worthy of condemnation" or "subject to divine condemnation." Surely all false doctrine, including Arminianism, is both worthy of condemnation and will ultimately be subject to divine condemnation at the final judgment. Since the Arminian doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace are contrary to Scripture, they are false and worthy of condemnation: therefore damnable.


Is Arminianism a heresy? Yes. Are Arminian preachers heretics? In a sense, yes, though most have not been condemned as such by a church council having the authority to make such a determination.


Can an Arminian preacher be a "damnable heretic" who preaches a false gospel of man's free will instead of the true gospel of God's sovereign grace? Yes, surely.


Is it possible for an Arminian preacher to preach the false doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace, while still (inconsistently) calling upon his hearers to trust in Jesus Christ alone, to the saving of their souls? I believe so. 


Is it possible to believe the false doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace, while still (inconsistently) trusting in Jesus Christ alone for one's salvation. Perhaps, but ultimately this is up to God to judge.


Is Arminianism a damnable heresy? Yes. The false doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace originate in the pit of hell with the father of lies (John 8:44). They are contrary to Scripture and worthy of condemnation. This is a serious matter. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet. 2:1).


Are pastors who teach Arminianism damnable heretics who are not Christians and who will certainly go to hell? Ultimately, this is up to God to decide, and he surely will decide—on a case-by-case basis. The only ones who go to heaven are those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation. It would seem to be very difficult, if not impossible, to be trusting in Jesus Christ alone if you hold to conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace. Those who hold to these false doctrines consistently must believe that their salvation depends, in part, on their own merit, and persons who are depending on their own merit instead of the merit of Christ are on their way to perdition.


If you hold, for example, that God elected you because he foresaw that you would have faith, then why do you have faith, while someone else does not? Don't you really believe that your faith is meritorious, that you merited salvation by your faith, while your neighbor did not have faith, and thus did not merit salvation? If you hold this consistently you are not trusting on the merit of Christ alone but upon your own merit, and you are lost. The biblical Christian believes that salvation is all of grace; otherwise all men are lost. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).*


----------



## Archlute (Dec 28, 2008)

It should be noted that the answers found in the Q&A section on the OPC's website are composed by individual ministers (anonymously, if I remember correctly?), and are not authoritative expositions endorsed by the whole church as to the details. Some are well written, and some could be improved.



CarsonLAllen said:


> *This is from the O.P.C. Q&A
> 
> Is Arminianism a damnable heresy?
> 
> ...


----------



## Herald (Dec 28, 2008)

If no one has said it yet, not all of what passes for Armianism today is actually classical Armianism. I know many "Arminians" who are closet Calvinists. While full blown Arminianism is either heresy or on the doorstep of, I tend to view so-called Arminians as Calvinists in training. Don't give up on them. Many PB'ers were in that camp; yours truly included.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 28, 2008)

I just wanted to add that many whom we call Arminians are not Arminians. We tend to group people as either Calvinists or Arminians, but there is a third group. I do not know what to call them, but they are there. Liberty University teaches this third group. Dr. Towns who is their theology professor goes through both the five points of Calvinism and Arminianism and disputes all points for both sides (except for Perseverance of the Saints). He is strongly against Calvinism, but is even stronger against Arminianism. 


I think we should be careful when labeling people and through this label attempting to determine one's eternal resting place.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 29, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I just wanted to add that many whom we call Arminians are not Arminians. We tend to group people as either Calvinists or Arminians, but there is a third group. I do not know what to call them, but they are there. Liberty University teaches this third group. Dr. Towns who is their theology professor goes through both the five points of Calvinism and Arminianism and disputes all points for both sides (except for Perseverance of the Saints). He is strongly against Calvinism, but is even stronger against Arminianism.
> 
> 
> I think we should be careful when labeling people and through this label attempting to determine one's eternal resting place.




From my experience, men of that type should be considered 'equivocators' and not professors of theology. I studied under a man such as this during my brief stay at Western seminary. Every course consisted of presenting 'all the sides', and then letting you 'pick your own theology', with the occasional snide remark against Calvinism/covenant theologians thrown in for kicks. However, after studying at WSC, it was clear to me that he didn't know other than caricatures of historical theology, and often ignored (was ignorant of?) the issues involved in the debates.

For what it's worth, if you are not an Augustinian/Calvinist on issues of soteriology, you are some stripe of semi-pelagian (excluding from Christian discussion the category of full-blown Pelagianism); whether you consider yourself to be an Arminian, or define yourself as "something in between". There really is no middle ground. I've read some works that would take the approach of Towns, but as noted above, they refuse to engage the classic issues of the debates, and come off as equivocators, finally unwilling to commit to any position, not really holding a clearly defined theology of their own.

BTW, isn't Elmer Towns the fellow who defends an unorthodox view of hell? I believe that I heard him in a debate on the issue once, and he came off sounding pretty confused.


----------



## CarsonLAllen (Dec 29, 2008)

Either someone is dead in sin or they are not. Either the blood of Christ saved men, or it made them savable. I don’t see how someone can claim that they are neither Calvinist or Arminian. If you do not embrace limited atonement you are an Arminian period.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Dec 29, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Can one safely assume that Jacobus was teaching such? If so, we can then assume that we will not see him in eternity? Am I going to far in this thinking?


 Alll I know is that the Arminian god is not worshippable.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 29, 2008)

Arminius was mostly concerned about practical holiness.


Also, it is to be noted that Armianism seems to be semi-pelagian at most in most cases and not Pelagian.

I like Dr. Clark's quote of Ames: "error tending towards heresy."


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 29, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I just wanted to add that many whom we call Arminians are not Arminians. We tend to group people as either Calvinists or Arminians, but there is a third group.



There are a lot more than three groups. Where do we put Richard Baxter?



Chaplainintraining said:


> I think we should be careful when labeling people and through this label attempting to determine one's eternal resting place.



This is a good caution, and echos what Dr. Clark said above as well.

Will there be people who were very confused here below, who are nonetheless redeemed by the blood of Christ and ushered into glory? This confused person hopes so.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 29, 2008)

If an Arminian were to consistently hold to his Arminianism, then he would believe that man contributes to his salvation. However, not everyone who claims to be an Arminian consistently holds to Arminianism.


----------



## AThornquist (Dec 29, 2008)

Was I filled with the Spirit when I became a Calvinist? No, but when I was saved as an ignorant Arminian. Many on the PB share this same story. Can one go to hell if they are truly filled with the Spirit of God?


----------



## ReformedChapin (Dec 29, 2008)

Hello Everyone. I have been attending calvary chapel south bay for over 3 years close to 4. If any of you know or you have attended CC you will know that they hold to a middle ground. But as far as to what is being taught in the Pulpit seems like very essence of arminiannism. They have a strong anti-calvinist stance if you check their website:



> While we would not classify Calvinism in the same class as the false religions we address on this website (e.g., Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses), we believe Calvinists have unknowingly made some serious theological errors. Below are a few resources that will help you see where Calvinists have drifted away from "sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1) when it comes to their views of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints.



AlwaysBeReady.com - Reformed Theology: Calvinism

Even through this every member fully adheres to God's soverignty, even inconsistanly. Not one member sees the connection between God's full power and Man's free will to choose. Their main concern I think its out of ignorance. When I have talked to many members they say if God saves the elect why bother preaching to them? Very elementary questions. They, like all of us I think want everyone to have an equal chance, ita a very human stance. Even if they are in error I can't damn this as heresy.

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 04:04:16 EST-----


I would just like to add that I don't know a single arminian or potential arminian that denies God's soverignty. Nor do they assert that man contributes to their salvation. Instead they just want people to have the ability to believe. I also don't know if I would classify all middle views as arminian either. The Luthern view of salvation although it's paradoxial gives full glory to God and allows everyone the ability to believe.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 29, 2008)

> I would just like to add that I don't know a single arminian or potential arminian that denies God's soverignty. Nor do they assert that man contributes to their salvation. Instead they just want people to have the ability to believe.



You have to press them to find out what they believe. I used to believe the foolishness I'm talking about but by the grace of God I came out of it. I do think all of those that are truly God's people will come out of damnable error. 

For example, you say most arminians don't believe they contribute to their own salvation but just want everyone to be able to believe. What happens when you press that idea? You wind up with someone who *insists* that all are called and simply have to decide. It's been my experience that those who feel this way will cling to it no matter what biblical evidence they are shown.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Dec 29, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> > I would just like to add that I don't know a single arminian or potential arminian that denies God's soverignty. Nor do they assert that man contributes to their salvation. Instead they just want people to have the ability to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Brother I agree with you. The logical implications of any arminian/semi-palegian doctrine is works based salvation. However, our arminian brotheren don't see it that way. Many of them actually have never been exposed to the doctrines of grace, they have a very simplified view of Grace.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 29, 2008)

Have you ever heard Paul Washer preach and say "I've turned down requests to preach revival services, and when asked why I tell the Pastor's that if I did that I would split your church right down the middle! Half your members would storm out of the church insisting they could never serve a God like that because there God is nothing like that!"

I encounter that pretty often.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Dec 30, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Have you ever heard Paul Washer preach and say "I've turned down requests to preach revival services, and when asked why I tell the Pastor's that if I did that I would split your church right down the middle! Half your members would storm out of the church insisting they could never serve a God like that because there God is nothing like that!"
> 
> I encounter that pretty often.



Paul Washer isn't one of my favorite preachers. I find his style too combative. And yes I think I have heard that specific sermon online.

I have found that with many my ariminian brothers if you encounter them with love and with a logical argument of scripture it will breach more barriers than attacking them and calling them heretics.


----------



## Theoretical (Dec 30, 2008)

Considering that many of the mis-perceptions of Calvinism that I've encountered have been opposed to it because the god they describe as the "Calvinist" one looks far more like Allah than YHWH, love and logical scriptural arguments are better than sand-blasting. 

That said, how people respond AFTER you do the love and logical arguments does say a lot about their theology. Example: My father (who is a universalist Pelagian) and several other people I know who clearly reject the Biblical God.


----------



## Yodas_Prodigy (Jan 15, 2009)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Can one safely assume that Jacobus was teaching such? If so, we can then assume that we will not see him in eternity? Am I going to far in this thinking?



No
No
Yes


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 15, 2009)

Yodas_Prodigy said:


> PuritanBouncer said:
> 
> 
> > Can one safely assume that Jacobus was teaching such? If so, we can then assume that we will not see him in eternity? Am I going to far in this thinking?
> ...



Well that clears that up!


----------



## Yodas_Prodigy (Jan 15, 2009)

PuritanBouncer said:


> Yodas_Prodigy said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanBouncer said:
> ...



I am glad that you saw the humor in my answers. I do not think that JA taught damnable heresy. I don’t agree with what he taught. But his teachings fall within the Reformed point of view. 

BTW, from what I am told, JA died in good standing with the Dutch Reformed Church

JA taught both Total Depravity and Justification by Faith. From what I understand, he did not discuss perseverance of the Saints. Where he varied in his view was the U, the L, and I.

The starting point of Arminian theology is God’s love. And since Jesus represents God, Arminian theology starts at that point.

Now, I am a five-pointer. My non-negotiable points are the T and the P. Having said that, I see the starting point with God is his holiness. Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God almighty. He is not Love, Love, Love or Justice, Justice, Justice. God’s other attributes flow from his holiness which include grace and justice. People receive grace or justice, but never injustice. They all receive love. This from a Holy God.


----------

