Does Arminianism present a false Gospel?

[Reformed Apologist]

Simple hermeneutics:


39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Lk 23:39–43.

Much to unpack here....but the answers are right in front of you.

The thief lived where?
Under what Rule and Authority?
Where was he actually crucified?
Did Rome hang their people on crosses?
He called Christ, "Lord" and "God"...how did he know that?
He knew Christ was sinless. How did he know that?
He knew Messiah's kingdom existed.
How did he know of 'paradise' as described by Christ?

I forgot to mention, the charges were written above his head and the Jewish leaders were leveraging allegations right up to Christ death. We can only assume so much, i think you go overboard with your assumptions

 

[Scott Bushey]

Lol...simple hermeneutics? laughable. We are given no biblical context for that thiefs background. For all we know he grew up in the diaspora and had pagan beliefs. Not every jew was orthodox. That is plain crazy, i can't believe you would submit that, hermeneutics...what a joke ( and not a funny one )

Sir,
You fail to dialog, which comes across as desperate, not to miss mentioning, boring. You talk, but u don't interact. I will not waste anymore of my time. I should have followed Tom's move.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Mr Ryan,
I never even addressed the Arminian issue; I have never met a Remonstrance Arminian-well, one, but she is now reformed. Arminianism is not your everyday theology; most all people in this country that are not reformed are inconsistent Arminians; there is a difference; the clinical Arminian, i.e. one who holds to the remonstrant position, reject a biblical view, intentionally. The inconsistent Arminian is just ignorant and can be of the elect.

The point being, even the inconsistent person has the basics of the gospel. That being, belief and acceptance; repentance. Faith. These things are based on facts. One cannot say that one could walk into the jungle and tell a native to just haphazardly believe in this Jesus and they will be saved. He would need to understand sin. Repentance, and believe in something, right?

again, if I have misscharacterized your stance ( i am highly frustrated) then i am sorry. I feel like I have been very clear with what I am trying to say about the Gospel and i'm being told i'm wrong. Then, later on i'm told they never said that. Again, i'm not arguing the truth of reformed theology or that regeneration preceeds faith. I'm only saying that's its faith in Christ and his work that saves ( in the most basic way). I'm not arguing the doctrines of Grace that undergird our faith in that simple promise. Thats it, thats all im trying to say

 

[Reformed Apologist]

I think, more exactly, one might claim the Arminian says something more like this: "Christ and his finished work on the cross—plus your wise and freely-chosen decision to believe in him—saves you." The concern, then, is with the inclusion of any plus your... in that statement. And because Galatians is addressing requirements that add to Christ, and applies the false gospel label to such teaching, the Arminian's plus also deserves that label. So goes the argument.

We could debate whether or not this is a proper view of Arminianism, or a too-careless use of the label. But can you see how a person might reach that conclusion? And how this particular use of the label doesn't mean they claim Arminians are unsaved? It just means Arminian teaching adds an element of works to the free grace of the gospel, and thus deserves the label. (I probably would not use that label myself in general conversation about Arminianism, but I can see why some might.)

Your initial question here was about the use of the term false gospel. I'm not sure you should look to 1 Corinthians 15 to define that term, since it isn't used there. I think you would understand others better if you looked to Galatians.

Ok...if that is true and they are putting their faith behind their choice instead of behind Christ, then that is for sure a heretical an damnable teaching

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Scott,
I have been less then generous with you in my frustration. please forgive me

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Sir,
You fail to dialog, which comes across as desperate, not to miss mentioning, boring. You talk, but u don't interact. I will not waste anymore of my time. I should have followed Tom's move.

Scott, please forgive me. It's true that I am highly frustrated and I have been less then gracious in my response.
I stand behind my convictions ( which i believe are biblical) but that doesn't give me license to disrespect you. I sincerely apologize

 

[Reformed Apologist]

I thought it would help to provide some back story. I grew up in a traditional baptist church that taught decision theology. I was taught that God draws us be we must accept him. I was also taught total depravity and preservation of the saints. I don’t think I ever put faith in my choice to accept Christ but the teaching was corrupt none the less. My point is, to say Armenians preach a false Gospel is a drastic over simplification. Of course, there are denominations ( that are in the decision camp ) that clearly do preach a false Gospel. There are many non denominational Christians ( including some baptist) that claim to be Armenian, but in reality, they are 2 or 3 pointers who teach decision theology. So, to leverage the allegation that all Armenians/ decision theologies preach a false Gospel is misleading and reckless. It is simply not a one size fits all situation. I hope that clears it up.

 

[De Jager]

I guess this all depends on what definitions we use. What is Arminian Theology? What is the gospel?

If one thinks that they contribute anything to their salvation, even 2%, I don't see how that person can be saved. However, most people we would call Arminian these days believe that salvation is by grace, but don't believe or understand that even their choosing of Christ is by grace. It is a misunderstanding of the bondage of the will that they have.

As for the bare facts of the gospel, even the demons know that. They know that Christ lived a perfect life, died, rose again, etc, but it is not good news to them. But that gospel is only good news where one trusts that the work of Christ summarized therein is 100% sufficient for their right standing with God. Not 95%, Not 98%, but 100%. The basic gospel truths are not good news if one still has to contribute to their own salvation.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

I guess this all depends on what definitions we use. What is Arminian Theology? What is the gospel?

If one thinks that they contribute anything to their salvation, even 2%, I don't see how that person can be saved. However, most people we would call Arminian these days believe that salvation is by grace, but don't believe or understand that even their choosing of Christ is by grace. It is a misunderstanding of the bondage of the will that they have.

As for the bare facts of the gospel, even the demons know that. They know that Christ lived a perfect life, died, rose again, etc, but it is not good news to them. But that gospel is only good news where one trusts that the work of Christ summarized therein is 100% sufficient for their right standing with God. Not 95%, Not 98%, but 100%. The basic gospel truths are not good news if one still has to contribute to their own salvation.

Thank you brother, you had said what I have been meaning to say this whole time. I just need to work on articulating my thoughts better.

 

[Dachaser]

I thought it would help to provide some back story. I grew up in a traditional baptist church that taught decision theology. I was taught that God draws us be we must accept him. I was also taught total depravity and preservation of the saints. I don’t think I ever put faith in my choice to accept Christ but the teaching was corrupt none the less. My point is, to say Armenians preach a false Gospel is a drastic over simplification. Of course, there are denominations ( that are in the decision camp ) that clearly do preach a false Gospel. There are many non denominational Christians ( including some baptist) that claim to be Armenian, but in reality, they are 2 or 3 pointers who teach decision theology. So, to leverage the allegation that all Armenians/ decision theologies preach a false Gospel is misleading and reckless. It is simply not a one size fits all situation. I hope that clears it up.

God has elected into Himself some to get saved out of the Catholic Church even, and their theology is really messed up , do why He not be able to save out from among the so called free will churches His own? Spurgeon and Wesley held to different theology on this, yet we're not both saved by same Lord? It's just that Spurgeon had auch better understanding on what it really meant!

 

[Reformed Apologist]

God has elected into Himself some to get saved out of the Catholic Church even, and their theology is really messed up , do why He not be able to save out from among do called free will churches His own? Spurgeon and Wesley held to different theology on this, yet we're not both saved by same Lord? It's just that Spurgeon had auch better understanding on what it really meant!

Brother, I am having a really tough time understanding your post. It's too disjointed and garbled

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Sir,
You fail to dialog, which comes across as desperate, not to miss mentioning, boring. You talk, but u don't interact. I will not waste anymore of my time. I should have followed Tom's move.

Brother, help me out here. After checking your profile, I see you were saved out of an arminian church ( i say that loosely) like myself. So, you know what I am talking about when I say" simple truth of the Gospel". We both have first hand knowledge of this truth. Knowing this, why buck me on it? Seriously? Help me understand

 

[Scott Bushey]

First of all, thank u for the kind words. Let's start over. Interact and answer my questions. Thats dialoging.

I was saved in a Calvary Chapel. Since I now understand the order of salvation, I don't know when I was actually converted; I do know when I was regenerated, however because the preaching and the word of God made sense to me, whereas, in the past, it didn't. It was like hitting it rich or finding, 'the pearl of great price'. I bought the field! I left CC soon after.

Dordt concluded that Arminianism is heresy and those holding to it are perishing. Do u agree?

 

[Reformed Apologist]

First of all, thank u for the kind words. Let's start over. Interact and answer my questions. Thats dialoging.

I was saved in a Calvary Chapel. Since I now understand the order of salvation, I don't know when I was actually converted; I do know when I was regenerated, however because the preaching and the word of God made sense to me, whereas, in the past, it didn't. It was like hitting it rich or finding, 'the pearl of great price'. I bought the field! I left CC soon after.

Dordt concluded that Arminianism is heresy and those holding to it are perishing. Do u agree?

Yes, I agree with Dort and their stance on Arminianism. I'm just not sure that "some" denominations actually teach full blown Arminian theology. I think people throw Arminian around too loosely. That is why I switched to calling it decision theology.

 

[De Jager]

Yes, I agree with Dort and their stance on Arminianism. I'm just not sure that "some" denominations actually teach full blown Arminian theology. I think people throw Arminian around too loosely. That is why I switched to calling it decision theology.

You could also call it bad theology.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Thanks for your response; Do u believe a person can hold to some of Arminian principles as described by the 5 articles of the Remonstrance and still be saved?

 

[Reformed Apologist]

You could also call it bad theology.

I don't want to be unnecessarily divisive. Most people who claim to hold to Arminian theology, really don't understand what they are saying. It's almost as if Arminianism has grown to include all forms of decision theology and thas is inaccurate.

When throwing around strong words like false gospel and heresy we really need to be more surgical and understand exactly what it is they are believing. If not, we will shut them down and potential growth is lost

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Thanks for your response; Do u believe a person can hold to some of Arminian principles as described by the 5 articles of the Remonstrance and still be saved?

Scott, I don't like pretending like I hold the keys to the Kingdom. In all fairness, I'm not fully informed on all aspects of Arminian doctrine and to answer that question would be to answer in ignorance.

I would venture to say, if they are consistent in their beliefs, salvation is unlikely

 

[Scott Bushey]

Got you. Thanks.

Your opening statement says:

"I recognize that Arminian theology is heretical in many respects, but I do not see a need to translate that into presenting a false Gospel".

Then u say in post 104:

Yes, I agree with Dort and their stance on Arminianism.

So just for clarity, would u change your opening statement, given that you are now saying that u agree with Dordt?

Do u understand that Dordt's whole emphasis is in regards to the gospel, that being that Arminianism is a false gospel.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Thanks for your response; Do u believe a person can hold to some of Arminian principles as described by the 5 articles of the Remonstrance and still be saved?

I'll be 100% honest with you Scott. There is a piece of me that wonders, can a man really be saved without belief in the doctrines of grace

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Got you. Thanks.

Your opening statement says:


Then u say in post 104:



So just for clarity, would u change your opening statement, given that you are now saying that u agree with Dordt?

Do u understand that Dordt's whole emphasis is in regards to the gospel, that being that Arminianism is a false gospel.

I would ( like i mentioned earlier ) replace Arminianism with "decision theology". I think my use of Arminianism in the title is missleading

 

[Dachaser]

Brother, I am having a really tough time understanding your post. It's too disjointed and garbled

Sorry , my main point was that since His even saves some Catholics despite them having real theology issues, and since He saved both Wesley and Spurgeon, would not He still view Arminians and Cavinists as teaching same Gospel?

 

[Dachaser]

Scott, I don't like pretending like I hold the keys to the Kingdom. In all fairness, I'm not fully informed on all aspects of Arminian doctrine and to answer that question would be to answer in ignorance.

I would venture to say, if they are consistent in their beliefs, salvation is unlikely

Can they be saved and still have misunderstandings? Yes, see all saved Catholics for example!

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Got you. Thanks.

Your opening statement says:


Then u say in post 104:



So just for clarity, would u change your opening statement, given that you are now saying that u agree with Dordt?

Do u understand that Dordt's whole emphasis is in regards to the gospel, that being that Arminianism is a false gospel.

Just to clarify, I do believe that real Arminianism is completely heretical. I stand behind Dort. My mistake was using the term Arminianism to really talk about decision theology. Or better yet, people who are really 2 or 3 pointers.
I used Arminianism cause everybody not holding to reformed theology is usually tagged arminian.

 

[Dachaser]

I'll be 100% honest with you Scott. There is a piece of me that wonders, can a man really be saved without belief in the doctrines of grace[/QUOTE

You could also call it bad theology.

Depends on if they hold that their faith saved them, or was it Jesus, object of that faith? What about those of us who were saved, and then accepted Calvinism much later in after being persuaded and convinced by scriptures and authors?

 

[De Jager]

Depends on if they hold that their faith saved them, or was it Jesus, object of that faith? What about those of us who were saved, and then accepted Calvinism much later in after being persuaded and convinced by scriptures and authors?

Whether the person was converted in an arminian or decisionist setting or not, it is still bad theology.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

 

[Scott Bushey]

Moving along; Now, essentially what I have gotten u to do was admit that there are things, that a person must understand to have the correct, biblical gospel. This is exactly what Dordt did in response to Arminius. That being, the Remonstrance were wrong and they have a heretical gospel and the reformed, given what Dordt confesses, a sound biblical one. .

Now, are there people out there that are elect, that are regenerated, holding to some of these false teachings? Yes. However, I would doubt that they are actually converted yet as they do not posses the truth of the gospel (yet).

When I earlier mentioned hermeneutics and the fact that u have 'apologist' in your signature, parts of being an apologist is uncovering minutia as the smaller things are important. For example, would u agree that historical context is important in apologetics and is a basic hermeneutic?

 

[Scott Bushey]

I'll be 100% honest with you Scott. There is a piece of me that wonders, can a man really be saved without belief in the doctrines of grace

Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the gospel. Much like a cliff notes of God's word. They are at the heart of the gospel.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the gospel. Much like a cliff notes of God's word. They are at the heart of the gospel.

I want to be able to agree with you Scott, I really do. I just don't know that scripture would agree, I really don't. I am open to being convinced.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

When I earlier mentioned hermeneutics and the fact that u have 'apologist' in your signature, parts of being an apologist is uncovering minutia as the smaller things are important. For example, would u agree that historical context is important in apologetics and is a basic hermeneutic?

Yes, I agree that historical context is very important. I just disagree over how far to take historically based assumptions.

Also, I never intended to argue against what you were saying in your 1st paragraph. I agree with you on that point in certain respects