Does Arminianism present a false Gospel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ed Walsh said:
A phrase I use a lot about Armianian Christians is--blessed inconsistency.
We are all inconsistent with what we believe to some extent. Necessarily so because we are fallible human beings. Knowing this about ourselves, this is helpful, but it still does not deliver us from our many inconsistencies. Haven't we all heard Arminian Christians on their knees praying for God to save a friend or family member? There's a little inconsistency even in that isn't there? To be consistent, I guess they should work consistently to change the emotions and feelings of the person to whom they want to see saved. But they don't they pray to God. When their mother is sick, they pray to God for Him to heal. And they repeatedly thank God for saving their own soul. Ah, blessed inconsistency.

But I also have also said that if an Arminian is consistent in believing that he and he alone makes the final decision about his salvation. And that he and he alone maintains his salvation throughout his life at the peril of losing it. This man resembles much more the arrogant and self-righteous Pharisees who Jesus condemned as hopelessly lost. An entirely consistent Arminian cannot be saved.
Click to expand...
I would agree with your last paragraph. Still, i must confess, that sounds like full blown pelagianism to me, verses modern day decision theology
 
To be honest, I should not have used Arminianism in the thread title. This is really inaccurate to be honest and a mistake on my part. Most modern Christians ( outside reformed circles ) really hold to a form of decision theology and not so much Arminianism. Some think they are Arminian but I don’t think they really understand what Arminianism is.
 
Reformed Apologist said:
Yes...when I say "Gospel" I mean from a salvific standpoint. All I'm trying to say is, it is only necessary to believe in Christ as Lord and savior in order to be saved. That, in it's most basic sense, is the Gospel.I don't see how modern decession theology makes that false.

"And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." ( Acts 16:31)
Click to expand...

Fiducia, Ascentia and Notitia.

The above items are present in all true believers. However, these components have as well, internal and external distinctions. That being, these components MUST be carried about, for the true believer, by the Holy Spirit. It is the gas that makes real what the scriptures show are in all the faithful. A man can have faith in earthly things; He can have ‘faith’ in faith. He can ascend to mathematical propositions and he can possess much knowledge of God and the scriptures and yet, still be unregenerate.

In other words, the converted man must have some information that is compiled within the archives of the gospel to be converted. This distinction is important as many people are possibly just regenerated and not yet converted, based on a simple confession; One might say, 'Scott, but are regenerated men, saved?'. Yes and no; they are no longer true enemies of God any longer, but they are in a process.

Many disagree with my definition of the ordo as I describe above; but when we think through the equation, and the problematic outcomes of the other rationale, it makes better sense to me.

Regeneration is monergistic; no work makes it effectual. It is of God only. Conversion, on the other hand, it a result of assenting to certain biblical facts. For example, the thief on the cross was most likely a schooled Jewish believer, circumcised on the 8th day and reared by his parents unto these biblical facts.

https://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/
 
Scott Bushey said:
Fiducia, Ascentia and Notitia.

The above items are present in all true believers. However, these components have as well, internal and external distinctions. That being, these components MUST be carried about, for the true believer, by the Holy Spirit. It is the gas that makes real what the scriptures show are in all the faithful. A man can have faith in earthly things; He can have ‘faith’ in faith. He can ascend to mathematical propositions and he can possess much knowledge of God and the scriptures and yet, still be unregenerate.

In other words, the converted man must have some information that is compiled within the archives of the gospel to be converted. This distinction is important as many people are possibly just regenerated and not yet converted, based on a simple confession; One might say, 'Scott, but are regenerated men, saved?'. Yes and no; they are no longer true enemies of God any longer, but they are in a process.

Many disagree with my definition of the ordo as I describe above; but when we think through the equation, and the problematic outcomes of the other rationale, it makes better sense to me.

Regeneration is monergistic; no work makes it effectual. It is of God only. Conversion, on the other hand, it a result of assenting to certain biblical facts. For example, the thief on the cross was most likely a schooled Jewish believer, circumcised on the 8th day and reared by his parents unto these biblical facts.

https://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing against the sovereign work of God. We all know the regeneration precedes faith. Still, is it necessary to believe in regeneration? I would say no. Look at the the thief on the cross or Abraham. There are a plethora of examples in Scripture of men being saved purely by faith, despite their imperfect understanding.
 
Dear C. Ryan (Reformed Apologist),

I apologize this is such a long reply but your thread has me thinking about so many things!

Would you please share in brief what you think is the "True Gospel" is?

In other words, when you proclaim the Gospel what to you proclaim?

For Arminians to believe free personal choice is the "hinge" upon which their salvation turns, they must therefore not be able to believe in Sin Nature, Total Depravity, Limited/Particular Atonement, Election, Omniscient Predestination, and other important doctrine as explained in the 5 points.

They also don't believe Romans 9 about Pharaoh, Esau, vessels for destruction, and that "God mercies whom He mercies".

This is all about Hell. They can't imagine God creating a human vessel for destruction.

Arminians (Semi-Pelagians) exist because they think they are defending God by saying God is good and loving, and would never throw someone in Hell unless that person rejected Him and "chose" against Him. It is true that all in Hell hate God, but they are also not God's elect. So there is much more to the story and things are not as simple as Arminians believe wrongly.

They believe it is a human being's "choice" that damns them to Hell, so then it must be a human being's "choice" that earns him eternal life in Heaven.

They don't believe that "Jesus Saves his People from Their Sins" Matthew 1:21. Instead, they think Jesus stands crying & begging & pleading for them to accept Him into their hearts. But God Almighty revealed long ago in ancient days that it is He who "makes the heart of stone fleshy". A stony heart can not choose Him. Reformed Theology teaches that God Save Us, rescues us who are DEAD, and literally breathes eternal life into us.

Arminians think "Come to Me'" is an invitation, but it is an imperative!

The Gospel is an imperative! It commands us to "Repent and Believe", and carried within this command is the Power of God unto Salvation that enables us to repent and believe.

Furthermore, the Omnipotent Ex Nihilo Creation Power of God is seen in the conversion of a sinner. Ex Nihlo mean "out of nothing". Just as all of creation was brought forth Ex Nihilo, the sinner is made alive from the nothingness of death. He is recreated. He is regenerated.

But how do Arminians explain the countless millions throughout history who never hear the Gospel, and therefore are never presented with a choice to make? How do those who affirm Reformed Theology explain what happens to those who are not regenerated because they don't hear the Gospel? How do you explain it?
 
Reformed Apologist said:
There are a plethora of examples in Scripture of men being saved purely by faith, despite their imperfect understanding.
Click to expand...

Faith=information. Faith is never empty.

R scott Clark writes:

"So, there are thee aspects to faith: knowledge, assent, and trust. A proper definition of faith cannot omit any of the three. There are some Protestants who seek to re-define faith purely as knowledge and assent to propositions. They omit trust. In so doing, they deny the Reformed confession, even as they set themselves up as the arbiters of the Reformed faith. That is why we have an objective definition of the adjective Reformed. It is the teaching of the Word of God as confessed by the churches. If the churches have erred by teaching three aspects to the definition of faith, then let the revisionists make their case to the churches, from God’s Word (sola Scriptura) but until then, they are just QIRC-ers.

Others would truncate the definition by omitting knowledge and assent and holding only to trust. That makes faith blind, which is a contradiction in terms. We know whom we have believed. Faith isn’t comprehensive, it is apprehending, if you will. It lays hold of the Triune God, who has revealed himself in Christ, who has made us alive by the Spirit, through the gospel. It knows the Trinitarian persons and it knows and affirms truths about those persons. God has revealed those truths about himself, about us, about our salvation, and about how we are to live in light of that salvation. Just as it is arrogant to omit trust from the definition of faith, so it is blind to omit knowledge and assent."
 
Scott Bushey said:
Faith=information. Faith is never empty.

R scott Clark writes:

"So, there are thee aspects to faith: knowledge, assent, and trust. A proper definition of faith cannot omit any of the three. There are some Protestants who seek to re-define faith purely as knowledge and assent to propositions. They omit trust. In so doing, they deny the Reformed confession, even as they set themselves up as the arbiters of the Reformed faith. That is why we have an objective definition of the adjective Reformed. It is the teaching of the Word of God as confessed by the churches. If the churches have erred by teaching three aspects to the definition of faith, then let the revisionists make their case to the churches, from God’s Word (sola Scriptura) but until then, they are just QIRC-ers.

Others would truncate the definition by omitting knowledge and assent and holding only to trust. That makes faith blind, which is a contradiction in terms. We know whom we have believed. Faith isn’t comprehensive, it is apprehending, if you will. It lays hold of the Triune God, who has revealed himself in Christ, who has made us alive by the Spirit, through the gospel. It knows the Trinitarian persons and it knows and affirms truths about those persons. God has revealed those truths about himself, about us, about our salvation, and about how we are to live in light of that salvation. Just as it is arrogant to omit trust from the definition of faith, so it is blind to omit knowledge and assent."
Click to expand...

Dear Scott Bushey,

Many theologians rightly see "Saving Faith" as a faculty, and also as a receptacle.

God creates the spiritual faculty within us, and also forms it as a receptacle into which He continues to pour faith.
 
Col33 said:
Dear C. Ryan (Reformed Apologist),

I apologize this is such a long reply but your thread has me thinking about so many things!

Would you please share in brief what you think is the "True Gospel" is?

In other words, when you proclaim the Gospel what to you proclaim?

For Arminians to believe free personal choice is the "hinge" upon which their salvation turns, they must therefore not be able to believe in Sin Nature, Total Depravity, Limited/Particular Atonement, Election, Omniscient Predestination, and other important doctrine as explained in the 5 points.

They also don't believe Romans 9 about Pharaoh, Esau, vessels for destruction, and that "God mercies whom He mercies".

This is all about Hell. They can't imagine God creating a human vessel for destruction.

Arminians (Semi-Pelagians) exist because they think they are defending God by saying God is good and loving, and would never throw someone in Hell unless that person rejected Him and "chose" against Him. It is true that all in Hell hate God, but they are also not God's elect. So there is much more to the story and things are not as simple as Arminians believe wrongly.

They believe it is a human being's "choice" that damns them to Hell, so then it must be a human being's "choice" that earns him eternal life in Heaven.

They don't believe that "Jesus Saves his People from Their Sins" Matthew 1:21. Instead, they think Jesus stands crying & begging & pleading for them to accept Him into their hearts. But God Almighty revealed long ago in ancient days that it is He who "makes the heart of stone fleshy". A stony heart can not choose Him. Reformed Theology teaches that God Save Us, rescues us who are DEAD, and literally breathes eternal life into us.

Arminians think "Come to Me'" is an invitation, but it is an imperative!

The Gospel is an imperative! It commands us to "Repent and Believe", and carried within this command is the Power of God unto Salvation that enables us to repent and believe.

Furthermore, the Omnipotent Ex Nihilo Creation Power of God is seen in the conversion of a sinner. Ex Nihlo mean "out of nothing". Just as all of creation was brought forth Ex Nihilo, the sinner is made alive from the nothingness of death. He is recreated. He is regenerated.

But how do Arminians explain the countless millions throughout history who never hear the Gospel, and therefore are never presented with a choice to make? How do those who affirm Reformed Theology explain what happens to those who are not regenerated because they don't hear the Gospel? How do you explain it?
Click to expand...
When I am out sharing the Gospel, I’m going to start with the Law, sin, God’s sovereignty and so on. But, I’m reformed so, of course I’m going to include all that. Let me try to explain it this way. You have a headache and decide to take an aspirin. I realize that you have picked up a cyanide tablet ( thinking it’s aspirin ) and before you can eat it, I slap it out of your hand. Your disbelief in that poisonous pill, doesn’t undue the fact that I saved your life. Likewise, God is sovereign and he elects who he wills. Their unwillingness to acknowledge God’s electing work, doesn’t undue God’s sovereign work. It only means they have a skewed or faulty understanding of what’s really going on. In my experience, most protestants do believe in preservation of the saints and total depravity. They also believe in God’s electing Grace, they just err in thinking they can refuse that Grace. I am against the unchecked expansion of the plain, precious truth of the Gospel, into all facets of doctrine. Failure to believe in all the 5 points does not equal false Gospel. It only equals an incomplete or faulty understanding of the sovereignty of God.
 
Col33 said:
Dear Scott Bushey,

Many theologians rightly see "Saving Faith" as a faculty, and also as a receptacle.

God creates the spiritual faculty within us, and also forms it as a receptacle into which He continues to pour faith.
Click to expand...

The above is a description of regeneration, not conversion.

A man cannot see, unless what? he is born again? What is it that regeneration does? Men see? Yes, they are able to understand certain facts, before they are converted.
 
Reformed Apologist said:
Tom, the Gospel is the Gospel. It is what a person needs to believe in, in order to be saved. A person does not need to believe in limited atonememt, preservation of the saints or un conditional election in order to be saved. They simply need to believe in Christ's atonement. Still, in all these forementioned doctrines, decision theology still presents heretical beliefs.

No bodies theology is perfect ( just look at paedo baptist....j/k)
Click to expand...

Another aspect which hasn't been addressed is the difference between teachers and lay persons. A lay person may have an inadequate view of the work of salvation and that is regrettable. However if we have teachers who are teaching Arminianism that is something quite different (and is the context from which your question arises, I think). Dordt was quite clear that Arminianism was not the Gospel and therefore those who teach it should be avoided and called out as teaching heresy.

Does that mean that one who has Arminian beliefs cannot be saved? Of course not, which I think gets to one of the points you have made: the Gospel is the Gospel. It is objective. But one's understanding might be impaired. A.A. Hodge made the point (similar to what was said above) that often what we find amongst Arminians is that one is an Arminian theologically but a Calvinist devotionally (e.g. look at the hymns they sing). But that deficient knowledge should be corrected because it is wrong.

As was also said above we need to know who Jesus Christ is. Is it sufficient to say "I believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins" if we do not have a true knowledge of who Jesus is and what He has done for us, as the Second Person in the Trinity? Can we divorce our belief in Jesus from our understanding of the work of the whole Trinity in salvation? That may not require that a Christian has a thorough understanding of the theological intricacies of limited atonement and the perseverance of the saints. But I would also be concerned if a Christian's understanding of salvation led him to believe something contrary to those teachings. What is their understanding of the Gospel if they think they can lose their justification or that Christ died for people who are never saved? They may never have consciously thought through these matters, and that is one thing; to actively deny these Biblical teachings is another.
 
Last edited:
Scott Bushey said:
The above is a description of regeneration, not conversion.

A man cannot see, unless what? he is born again? What is it that regeneration does? Men see? Yes, they are able to understand certain facts, before they are converted.
Click to expand...

Sinners are not able to believe upon Jesus or have any kind of saving faith prior to conversion/regeneration, correct?
 
Scott Bushey said:
Faith=information. Faith is never empty.

R scott Clark writes:

"So, there are thee aspects to faith: knowledge, assent, and trust. A proper definition of faith cannot omit any of the three. There are some Protestants who seek to re-define faith purely as knowledge and assent to propositions. They omit trust. In so doing, they deny the Reformed confession, even as they set themselves up as the arbiters of the Reformed faith. That is why we have an objective definition of the adjective Reformed. It is the teaching of the Word of God as confessed by the churches. If the churches have erred by teaching three aspects to the definition of faith, then let the revisionists make their case to the churches, from God’s Word (sola Scriptura) but until then, they are just QIRC-ers.

Others would truncate the definition by omitting knowledge and assent and holding only to trust. That makes faith blind, which is a contradiction in terms. We know whom we have believed. Faith isn’t comprehensive, it is apprehending, if you will. It lays hold of the Triune God, who has revealed himself in Christ, who has made us alive by the Spirit, through the gospel. It knows the Trinitarian persons and it knows and affirms truths about those persons. God has revealed those truths about himself, about us, about our salvation, and about how we are to live in light of that salvation. Just as it is arrogant to omit trust from the definition of faith, so it is blind to omit knowledge and assent."
Click to expand...
I qouted scripture from 1 Cor and Acts, expounding on the plaim truth of the Gospel. Why, do you insinst on reading your tradition into the plain truths of those cited verses?
 
alexandermsmith said:
Another aspect which hasn't been addressed is the difference between teachers and lay persons. A lay person may have an inadequate view of the work of salvation and that is regrettable. However if we have teachers who are teaching Arminianism that is something quite different (and is the context from which your question arises, I think). Dordt was quite clear that Arminianism was not the Gospel and therefore those who teach it should be avoided and called out as teaching heresy.

Does that mean that one who has Arminian beliefs cannot be saved? Of course not, which I think gets to one of the points you have made: the Gospel is the Gospel. It is objective. But one's understanding might be impaired. A.A. Hodge made the point (similar to what was said above) that often what we find amongst Arminians is that one is an Arminian theologically but a Calvinist devotionally (e.g. look at the hymns they sing). But that deficient knowledge should be corrected because it is wrong.

As was also said above we need to know who Jesus Christ is. Is it sufficient to say "I believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins" if we do not have a true knowledge of who Jesus is and what He has done for us, as the Second Person in the Trinity? Can we divorce our belief in Jesus from our understanding of the work of the whole Trinity in salvation?
Click to expand...
I would not argue that they are teaching heretical doctrine, that's not my point.
 
alexandermsmith said:
Well if they are teaching heresy how is that not a Gospel issue? Whether or not they are themselves saved seems almost irrelevant if they are teaching heresy to others.
Click to expand...
Scott Bushey said:
“Tradition”? This is the Reformed understanding, Sir. Is belief empty?
Click to expand...
So, let me get this straight. Paul comes along and says “ Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1Cor:15) and again "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." ( Acts 16:31) and you have the audacity to say, “not so sir, Paul forgot to mention T.U.L.I.P? I mean, how dare you! How can you sit there and corrupt this very simple truth?
 
Reformed Apologist said:
So, let me get this straight. Paul comes along and says “ Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1Cor:15) and again "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." ( Acts 16:31) and you have the audacity to say, “not so sir, Paul forgot to mention T.U.L.I.P? I mean, how dare you! How can you sit there and corrupt this very simple truth?
Click to expand...

Who is the Lord Jesus being referred to? Is He one who took upon Himself the sins of His people and made a full and final atonement for their sins and imputes to them His perfect righteousness by which they are justified and not for anything in them but only by His own free and sovereign grace and thus ensuring that those He died for will be saved? Or is he one who died in order to make it merely possible for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins to, by his own will somehow, choose to believe but who might also fall away from that salvation wrought at least partially by himself (in his own co-operation with God's grace)?
 
alexandermsmith said:
Who is the Lord Jesus being referred to? Is He one who took upon Himself the sins of His people and made a full and final atonement for their sins and imputes to them His perfect righteousness by which they are justified and not for anything in them but only by His own free and sovereign grace and thus ensuring that those He died for will be saved? Or is he one who died in order to make it merely possible for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins to, by his own will somehow, choose to believe but who might also fall away from that salvation wrought at least partially by himself (in his own co-operation with God's grace)?
Click to expand...
look Sir, you know what the scripture says. quit obfuscating so you can simply win an argument
 
Reformed Apologist said:
Ok, what does Paul say the Gospel is in 1 Cor 15? What does Paul says saves you in Acts 16:31? Show me one single verse where it says a person must believe in unconditional election or preservation of the saints. Just one will do.
Click to expand...

I've already "spoken" to that above. I specifically said that a person doesn't necessarily need to understand those concepts theologically, but that I would also be worried if they believed things contrary to them.
 
Reformed Apologist said:
Tom, the Gospel is the Gospel. It is what a person needs to believe in, in order to be saved. A person does not need to believe in limited atonememt, preservation of the saints or un conditional election in order to be saved. They simply need to believe in Christ's atonement. Still, in all these forementioned doctrines, decision theology still presents heretical beliefs.

No bodies theology is perfect ( just look at paedo baptist....j/k)
Click to expand...
I fail to see how this serves as a reply to my post. I specifically said that "it is not theology that saves men."

I would add my agreement with @alexandermsmith that a full understanding of these things is not necessary for salvation, but an outright denial of them would certainly raise concerns.

Meanwhile, as Scott Bushey has said, "faith is not empty."
 
RA,
Sir, I ask again, is Belief empty? For example, I believe I live in Florida. Florida is located in the southern area of United States of America. How is that I have come to these conclusions in relation to geography. Are my conclusions not based on factual data I have obtained?

Paul makes mention of ‘preaching’. Was his sermon only based on ‘to believe’? Or was his gospel message full of biblical truth of the gospel and Christ?

These are basics of apologetics, by the way.
 
alexandermsmith said:
I've already "spoken" to that above. I specifically said that a person doesn't necessarily need to understand those concepts theologically, but that I would also be worried if they believed things contrary to them.
Click to expand...
Sir, my point is simply this. If Paul clearly lays out for us what the Gospel is; why are we accusing some of teaching a false Gospel, simply because they don't hold to all 5 points? Thats my only point. If they are teaching the Gospel according to 1 Cor 15, then we can't allege they are teaching a false Gospel, despite the fact that they teach other heretical doctrines
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

shackleton
  • Locked
Does this song teach a false gospel?
Replies
21
Views
4K
PuritanCovenanter
PuritanCovenanter
Haeralis
  • Locked
Christians visiting churches which preach a false gospel?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Dachaser
D
Eoghan
  • Locked
Christmas present suggestions
Replies
11
Views
2K
Grant
Grant
JM
  • Locked
Present Day Evangelism
Replies
1
Views
2K
Pergamum
P
B
  • Locked
Homeschool Graduates Present?
Replies
24
Views
4K
Covenant Joel
C
Back
Top