Arminians Denying the Substitutionary Atonement

[biblelighthouse]

That Arminian forum I mentioned recently is even worse than I originally thought.

At least a lot of Arminians affirm the substitutionary atonement. But many of the chief Arminians on this forum even deny that! (I assume they lean more towards the heretical Governmental theory touted by Grotius, Finney, etc.)

Once again, if anyone wants to jump into the fray against heretics, feel free to join me. This battle for the atonement is going on here: http://www.eternalsecurity.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=932

Thank you for your assistance.

In Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[LadyFlynt]

It sounds as though you are casting pearls before the swine. They don't care to listen, they are an arminian forum for a reason just as we are a reformed board for a reason.



[Edited on 4-29-2005 by LadyFlynt]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
It sounds as though you are casting pearls before the swine. They don't care to listen, they are an arminian forum for a reason just as we are a reformed board for a reason.

However, they do not ban Calvinists from their board. They allow *anyone* to post on their forum, even if they don't have a login/password. In fact, one of the main guys on the board even said that they are glad to allow everyone to participate.

Also, these Scriptures come to mind:

"Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:20)

And also consider Ezekiel 33:3-9. It is important to warn people of their error, regardless of whether they listen or not.

I also realize that many people may read posts on that forum, even if they themselves do not participate. So even if the forum moderators are not convinced of their error, perhaps some of the "less staunch Arminians" reading the posts will see the truth when the Scriptures are presented correctly.

I'm not saying that you personally need to go debate on that forum. I just realize that some Calvinists may wish to go do so. If they want to, great. If not, that's ok too.

I think it's important for some of us to expose their error, but I certainly don't expect everyone to jump over there to make posts.

In Christ,
Joseph

 

[tdowns]

Joseph

I think it's great what you posted on that site. Very nicely done. And as far as casting pearls, I don't think that applies at all here, we must continue to proclaim the truth to those willing to listen. And I guarantee many reading on that site have not fully thought out their theological positions, so giving them truth is awesome!

 

[john_Mark]

I have run across Wesleyan-Arminians who hold to the Priestly-Sacrificial model of atonement. Can anyone give me a description of this model?

 

[blhowes]

Joseph, you're doing a great job over there. Keep up the good work.

There's one thing about that site that is puzzling. The doctrine over there is, of course, is VERY different from the reformed teachings. Its interesting how focused these folks are against Calvinism. What's puzzling to me is what one of the head guys said in one of the threads. He said that many of the people on that board were at one time Calvinists, but thought it through and have now realized that Calvinism is a teaching straight from the pit of hell!

What could possibly make a person change their thinking so drastically? Have any of you ever met anybody like this? What caused their change and what caused them to be so focused against Calvinistic teachings? A bad experience with a Calvinist, perhaps?

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by blhowes]

 

[doulosChristou]

They call themselves Arminians, but they appear to be historically ignorant of what Arminianism actually teaches. I mostly see Pelagianism over there.




[Edited on 4-29-2005 by doulosChristou]

 

[blhowes]

Is it really true that Wesley and Arminius both held firmly to the Scriptural doctrine of Total Depravity?

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by blhowes
Is it really true that Wesley and Arminius both held firmly to the Scriptural doctrine of Total Depravity?

Yes. As anyone who has ever studied Arminius and Wesley know, this is the one place where they disagree with Pelagius and agree with Scripture. It is commonly thought today that Arminians deny all 5 points of Calvinism, when they actually only deny 4. Pelagians deny all 5.

John Wesley, who welcomed the title Arminian and asserted that he had no essential differences with Arminius raised the question, "How can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings?" Wesley then offered this advice, "Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means." Wesley noted that Arminianism was usually charged with five errors: 1. they deny original sin 2. they deny justification by faith 3. they deny absolute predestination 4. they deny the grace of God to be irresistible 5. they affirm a believer may fall from grace. Wesley said that Arminians pleaded "not guilty" to the first two charges. In fact Wesley claimed the doctrine of original sin was "the first, grand, distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity." Concerning justification he also wrote that Arminians thought exactly as Mr. Calvin did. "In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth." It's the other three of which they are certainly guilty, and Wesley admits as much.

Pelagius denied total depravity and the whole doctrine of original sin; Arminius affirmed both. Arminius agreed with Augustine that grace was essential because man was totally depraved. Where Arminius errs, and errs terribly, is in nullifying the effects of the Fall to all men through introducing the unbiblical doctrine of prevenient grace to all men. This is how he and his followers (including Wesley) were able to deny the other four points of Calvinism. Here's a taste of Arminius. Regarding the Fall, he wrote:

"By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is under the dominion of sin. For 'to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey,' (Rom. 6:16,) and 'of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,' and is his regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet. 2:19.) In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace: For Christ has said, 'Without me ye can do nothing.' Though we always and on all occasions make this grace to precede, to accompany and follow; and without which, we constantly assert, no good action whatever can be produced by man. Nay, we carry this principle so far as not to dare to attribute the power here described even to the nature of Adam himself, without the help of Divine Grace both infused and assisting. It has become evident, that the fabricated opinion [that he taught Pelagian free-willism] is imposed on us through calumny. Concerning Grace and Free Will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true spiritual good, without Grace."

The Remonstrants, Arminius' immediate followers, wrote a document that Matt has posted here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianArticles.htm

Articles 4 & 5 of the Remonstrants affirm total depravity while explaining away its effects through Arminius' doctrine of prevenient grace. If they outright denied total depravity, they would have no need for a doctrine of prevenient grace because they would basically have been Pelagians.

dC





[Edited on 4-29-2005 by doulosChristou]

 

[turmeric]

Yep, you got Pelagians, not Arminians! That thar is a different kind of critter!
Good job, Joseph!