Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Graduate
So what exactly is it that caused those of old to say that Arminian Theology was heretical? What exactly is it, that if one believed it they would not be in grace? Thanks!
Last edited:
Arminian Theology
- Thread starter Ryan&Amber2013
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
ArmInian
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Ryan, the problem that led some Reformed folk to claim that it was heretical is that Arminians distort the picture of God. Human choice can limit God's decree. Thus God is less than God, which is idolatrous. Now, that would not be the same as saying that all Arminians are going to Hell, a sentiment with which I am not in agreement. Their teaching is contrary to the Bible, though, especially in its doctrine of God and man. They have too inflated a view of man, too low a view of sin, and too low a view of God.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Graduate
Thank you. Auto fill it was.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Thread title edited.
I have not really found too many classic ones of them, as most who claim to be non cals would be more akin to full free willers, as even Arminans would hold with us to many of the truths of how the fall has affected us, as we usually disagree on the scope and nature of the atonement . Also, they would see God applying Universal saving Grace towards all sinners, and up to us to cooperate with him to get saved now.
They teach a distorted version of salvation, but not to the extent of teaching a false one, as they do affirm sinners, needing grace of God, and by faith alone are now saved.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
They vehemently disagree with the extent of the fall, too......
Definitions are needed if we're going to discuss the merits and demerits of Arminianism.
Most of what's called Arminianism today stands at some distance from the teachings of the Remonstrants, to which the Synod of Dort was a response. Dort uses strong terms, and necessarily so.
Classical Arminianism, in my view, is heresy. I do not see how it could not escape a charge of blasphemy. It makes the Fall of too little account, it cheapens the idea of the sinful nature, it weakens the grace of God such that Christ's work is made (logically) ineffectual. At the most, God only makes salvation possible. The rest is up to the individual. This system, which arose in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, pushes back against the gains made by the Reformation for the recovery of biblical doctrine.
[I found it an interesting note in a biography of Oliver Cromwell that in England in the 17th century Arminianism was viewed with considerable suspicion. How things have changed!]
Today, various people are referred to as Arminian. What that typically means is that they are synergists in their views of salvation. Usually, it does not mean that they hold to the Five Articles of Remonstrance. Speaking from personal experience as an ex-Arminian (though for most of my life I'd never heard the terms Arminian or Calvinist) a majority of modern Christians have given little thought to any theological system, or the nature of sin and the Fall, and most simply assume free will to choose God.
I make a distinction between hardline Arminians, who know their doctrines and reject the teaching of Scripture, and the rest, who (like myself, formerly) are ignorant. The latter are in the majority. Both are wrong, but to differing degrees.
Most of what's called Arminianism today stands at some distance from the teachings of the Remonstrants, to which the Synod of Dort was a response. Dort uses strong terms, and necessarily so.
Classical Arminianism, in my view, is heresy. I do not see how it could not escape a charge of blasphemy. It makes the Fall of too little account, it cheapens the idea of the sinful nature, it weakens the grace of God such that Christ's work is made (logically) ineffectual. At the most, God only makes salvation possible. The rest is up to the individual. This system, which arose in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, pushes back against the gains made by the Reformation for the recovery of biblical doctrine.
[I found it an interesting note in a biography of Oliver Cromwell that in England in the 17th century Arminianism was viewed with considerable suspicion. How things have changed!]
Today, various people are referred to as Arminian. What that typically means is that they are synergists in their views of salvation. Usually, it does not mean that they hold to the Five Articles of Remonstrance. Speaking from personal experience as an ex-Arminian (though for most of my life I'd never heard the terms Arminian or Calvinist) a majority of modern Christians have given little thought to any theological system, or the nature of sin and the Fall, and most simply assume free will to choose God.
I make a distinction between hardline Arminians, who know their doctrines and reject the teaching of Scripture, and the rest, who (like myself, formerly) are ignorant. The latter are in the majority. Both are wrong, but to differing degrees.
Last edited:
That's true. Find me an Arminian who admits that an unbeliever cannot do good!
The classic viewpoint of their theology does seem though to agree that in the fall, Mankind became corrupted and unable to save ourselves, as we have a sin nature that is against God, and that God Himself first starts the saving process, by sending to all sinners his saving grace.
I would say that the majority of Christians in America would hold to a viewpoint somewhere between Calvinism and Armianism, as they would agree that God alone can and does save us, but they do not think it through as to how per the scriptures the calvinistic viewpoint is the only one that makes true sense of how salvation is presented to us in the Bible.
Lost sinners are still able to go good works and deeds though, as they just cannot come to Jesus in order to get saved by him by their own free will, as that will is in bondage to their corrupted flesh.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Their Harmatiology is aborted.....the soul (and will) of man is sick and not dead. That is a chasm of difference.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Today's Arminian is described adequately by Spurgeon:
In other words, all are Calvinists on their knees.
“You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,
"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them."”
Src: Spurgeon, Sermon on John 5:40 “Free Will a Slave” The New Park Street Pulpit, 1855- 1856, Volumes I & II (Pilgrim 1975), 395-402.
In other words, all are Calvinists on their knees.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
The preacher at my parents' church is an avowed Arminian, and he said that Jesus' death on the cross is a testament to our value. He said that "we were worth the shed blood of the Son of God" (not an exact quote but the idea is there). He believes that the cross is what demonstrates our value.
And here I always thought it was a demonstration of God's love, grace, holiness, wrath, etc. etc.
And here I always thought it was a demonstration of God's love, grace, holiness, wrath, etc. etc.
the classic theology of theirs seems to say that we cannot save ourselves apart from God first sending to us saving grace, and that we have enough free will left over to decide to accept/reject that Grace, correct?
His viewpoint is held by many, as many seek to see it not as Jesus died for a worm such as I, but for someone worthy as I am!
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Yes. The synergist believes some "seed" of righteousness remains in all of fallen Adam's progeny, such that they can still reach for the life preserver, rather than being quite dead at the bottom of the sea. They apparently don't quite get it:
Last edited by a moderator:
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
While true, these are the head of the dandilion or, to state it another way, the symptoms, but not the problem. The root is their view of Original Sin. They affirm a lesser degree of corruption and almost always deny federally transmitted guilt.
The really sad state of biblical affai
Some of them deny original Sin, and basically state that Jesus came in the very same likeness as us, so He would have the sin nature in their view, or else they see us as being just like Jesus as to our humanity.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Is his view heresy? It's definitely not the gospel, or even just a little bit 'off' in my opinion.
What do you think?
The cannot come to Christ, ie. They cannot do good.
And no woks of the unbeliver are "good" in a biblical sense, as every thought and deed is wholly tainted by sin. Good in the sight of men, maybe, but not in the sight of God.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
I have heard Calvinists say, "to you we are worth the blood of Jesus." There is truth to it, but it certainly doesn't exhaust the meaning of the cross.
I have had my understanding sharpened by reading Calvin's Institutes 2.16.3:
"For God, who is the highest righteousness, cannot love the unrighteousness that he sees in us all. All of us, therefore, have in ourselves something deserving of God's hatred. With regard to our corrupt nature and the wicked life that follows it, all of us surely displease God, are guilty in his sight, and are born to the damnation of hell. But because the Lord wills not to lose what is his in us, out of his own kindness he still finds something to love. However much we may be sinners by our own fault, we nevertheless remain his creatures. However much we have brought death upon ourselves, yet he has created us unto life. Thus he is moved by pure and freely give love of us to receive us into grace...."
By virtue of being his creatures, we do have worth and value to God, even as rebellious sinners.
I agree with you that lost sinners cannot do good works in the biblical sense of that term, but still go good as in helping others out in need.
We no intrinsic worth that compelled God to save any of us, but that He to save some of us would be due to His divine love, and to bring glory to Himself.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
I think I agree...I think the key is the difference between 'total depravity' and 'utter depravity'. We are not as bad as we could be (utter depravity) but sin does taint everything we do (total depravity). Nothing is pure, or totally good. Sometimes we do reflect the image of God, poorly and incompletely so, even in an unregenerate state.
In Isaiah it says 'our righteousness is like filthy rags'. There is some righteousness there but it is a righteousness that is marred by sin and falls far, far, short of the perfect righteousness required by God. Hence why it is described as 'filthy rags' and not pure white garments.
Do you guys think I am off here?
I understand being totally depraved as a state of being now spiritual dead in our sin natures to God and His ways, blind to the scriptures, and so while we can still do good deeds in the sense of helping others, supporting charities, we cannot come to God in a saving sense apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
brendanchatt
Puritan Board Freshman
When you get into synergism, you just always have problems with grace-based salvation. Like Tom said, now-a-days the views aren’t always so well formed; so I tend to think that there are lots of guys who think about conversion synergistically, but would say they’re saved by grace only, if asked.
I’m not studied on it, but from what I gather, the old school, hardline Arminians we’re adamant about refusing the Calvinist view of the gospel, when you think about it.
I also, while recognizing a difference between the old and the contemporary label, would not be too quick to put up a big wall between the former and all that are called arminian today.
Edit: In this post, I mean synergism in the context of justification and such.
I’m not studied on it, but from what I gather, the old school, hardline Arminians we’re adamant about refusing the Calvinist view of the gospel, when you think about it.
I also, while recognizing a difference between the old and the contemporary label, would not be too quick to put up a big wall between the former and all that are called arminian today.
Edit: In this post, I mean synergism in the context of justification and such.
Last edited:
brendanchatt
Puritan Board Freshman
Great question, btw!
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Graduate
Hypothetical:
Situation 1: A person is in a burning down building, unable to get out. He must be saved. This person falls unconscious and stops breathing because of the smoke. The rescuer saves him, does cpr, and he lives. The rescuer is hailed as a hero by all.
Situation 2. A person is in a burning building, unable to get out. He must be saved. When the rescuer comes he says "reach out and take my hand and I will get you out alive." He lives and all hail him as a hero.
To me they both sound like the rescuer is going to receive His due recognition, not the one rescued. Though one view seems more biblical than the other. Is this not an accurate thought? Thanks!
Situation 1: A person is in a burning down building, unable to get out. He must be saved. This person falls unconscious and stops breathing because of the smoke. The rescuer saves him, does cpr, and he lives. The rescuer is hailed as a hero by all.
Situation 2. A person is in a burning building, unable to get out. He must be saved. When the rescuer comes he says "reach out and take my hand and I will get you out alive." He lives and all hail him as a hero.
To me they both sound like the rescuer is going to receive His due recognition, not the one rescued. Though one view seems more biblical than the other. Is this not an accurate thought? Thanks!
- Status
