Does Arminianism present a false Gospel?

[alexandermsmith]

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

I would just say that if someone is teaching a gospel which allows for people to be justified and then lose that justification; which teaches an atonement which does not accomplish the salvation of all those included in its purview; which teaches that sinners, though dead in trespasses and sins, are somehow able and indeed required to co-operate with God in their justification, then that is not the Gospel that I understand is being referred to by Paul in that passage. Such a gospel is, indeed, not good news.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

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.

I'm not arguing against that, nor am I arguing that reformed doctrine isn't taught in Scripture. I simply pointing out that Scripture tells us what the Gospel is, and despite some heretical doctrines, if they are presenting the Gospel as laid out in 1 Cor 15, then we can't make false assertions that the Gospel they preach is false.

 

[hammondjones]

How are we defining heresy?

 

[Reformed Apologist]

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."

I apopogize, i missed where you said that.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

OK. What?

Gone for real now. I just had to express my exasperation.

nothing, that was my whole point

 

[Dachaser]

I would say there is a distinction between Finney Armianism and Wesley Armianism. Eg, read Wesley's hymn "And can it be that I should gain". Do you see a number of Reformed doctrines in that hymn? But an Armianism that leads to Pelagianism and/or minimises the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation probably is a false gospel.

Great point of distinction, as many holding to more of a free will Gospel would reject full blown version taught by Finnry and his ilk!

 

[Reformed Apologist]

How are we defining heresy?

belief contrary to orthodox doctrine

 

[Scott Bushey]

belief contrary to orthodox doctrine

Exactly. As I have said.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Exactly. As I have said.

I'm not following you. How does a heretical view of...lets say, preservation of the saints, translate into false Gospel? Keeping in mind that Paul lays out what the Gospel is in 1 Cor 15.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I was referring to your point about the ‘gospel’ being based on ‘orthodox doctrine’.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

I was referring to your point about the ‘gospel’ being based on ‘orthodox doctrine’.

ok. when I say Gospel, i mean as laid out in 1 Cor 15. I understand that there is a broader meaning of Gospel in reformed theology, but I am not adressing that. If I were, I would agree with what you and others are saying.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Let me try it this way. Between Lutheranism, Presbyterianism and Reformed Baptist, There are 3 different doctrines on Baptism and the Lord’s supper ( I know, it's more complicated then that). We can’t all be right, though we may all be wrong. So, it stands to reason, that we are all teaching heretical doctrines as far as those in the other denominations are concerned. That said, we would never accuse the others of teaching a false Gospel ( as laid out in 1 Cor 15). Now we know decision theology teaches heretical doctrine, but if they are preaching the Gospel from 1 Cor 15, why aren’t we extending the same courtesy we extend ourselves? I just don’t get it, I really don’t. Christ died on the cross for your sins, believe and accept him as Lord and Savior. Bang…done, that’s the Gospel, that’s what saves, and one’s belief in T.U.L.I.P has nothing to do with that plain and precious truth.

 

[Dachaser]

Let me try it this way. Between Lutheranism, Presbyterianism and Reformed Baptist, There are 3 different doctrines on Baptism and the Lord’s supper ( I know, it's more complicated then that). We can’t all be right, though we may all be wrong. So, it stands to reason, that we are all teaching heretical doctrines as far as those in the other denominations are concerned. That said, we would never accuse the others of teaching a false Gospel ( as laid out in 1 Cor 15). Now we know decision theology teaches heretical doctrine, but if they are preaching the Gospel from 1 Cor 15, why aren’t we extending the same courtesy we extend ourselves? I just don’t get it, I really don’t. Christ died on the cross for your sins, believe and accept him as Lord and Savior. Bang…done, that’s the Gospel, that’s what saves, and one’s belief in T.U.L.I.P has nothing to do with that plain and precious truth.

Many who hold to what is called free will salvation would agree with us that a sinner can not accept Jesus as Lord unless the Spirit Himself grants them His grace to do such, it's just that they would see His enabling all people same grace to say yes, but many keep saying no. You can say that they misunderstand proper Sotierology, but still preach and teach using same Gospel that we do..

 

[Scott Bushey]

Paul says a number of times in 1 Cor 15, 'according to the scriptures'. There is much more packed into this passage than meets the eye.

It seems to me, that the struggle is your understanding of regeneration vs conversion. Most people, in my opinion, believe they are converted when the scriptures become true to them, when in fact, they are just regenerated.

 

[Jack K]

C. Ryan...

I realize I'm late to the party, but if I may, I'd like to encourage you to review the way you use some terms. I think it will help you communicate well with the rest of us. I hope I'm not being simplistic if I suggest the core disagreement on this thread is about how we apply labels. And frankly, your labels sound a bit untypical to me (and, I think, to several others here).

First, you seem to describe the true gospel solely in terms of Paul's brief summary in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Well, if affirming those two verses is all it takes to preach a true gospel, then the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, and the Jehovah's Witnesses all preach the true gospel, because none of them would deny those verses. So your definition of a true gospel is going to put you in a spot where you talk right past most people on this board, because most of us would agree that all of those groups teach a false gospel, by our generally-accepted use of the label.

Conversely, you apply the label heresy to mistaken beliefs about mode of baptism. Again, most of us, along with much of the church through the ages, don't use that term that way. We might call that an error, but we reserve heresy for graver matters—often for false teaching that runs afoul of the historic creeds and results in a person being declared outside of the faith, or perhaps even fit to be burned at the stake!

I think you and we can benefit greatly from discussions on this board. But you can help in that process by taking the time to learn how folks here generally use these and other terms.

As for the term false gospel, I am sympathetic to your complaint that it seems as if too many errors get labeled as "gospel matters" these days. However, to see where the concept of a false gospel comes from, I would direct you to the book of Galatians. There, Paul confronts a form of works-righteous, and he calls it a different and distorted gospel. So when it comes to defining false gospel, many of us are inclined to think first of something like that: a teaching that seems on the surface to affirm 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 but actually puts confidence in the flesh. Using that definition of false gospel, I'm sure you can see why some folks here will argue that the various forms of Arminianism at least lean in that direction.

It doesn't mean these folks claim that Arminians deny the creeds or don't believe 1 Corinthians 15 or can't be saved. Pay attention to the lingo in use here, and your interactions will be more profitable.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Paul says a number of times in 1 Cor 15, 'according to the scriptures'. There is much more packed into this passage than meets the eye.

It seems to me, that the struggle is your understanding of regeneration vs conversion. Most people, in my opinion, believe they are converted when the scriptures become true to them, when in fact, they are just regenerated.

no, I'm sorry, I understand regeneration just fine. Show me one place in Scripture that says or infers, that you must have faith in Christ AND you must also believe in election, preservation and total depravity in order to be saved. Where in scripture does it explicitly say, that these doctrines are apart of the Gospel, as laid out in 1 Cor 15

 

[Scott Bushey]

Show me one place in Scripture that says or infers, that you must have faith in Christ AND you must also believe in election, preservation and total depravity in order to be saved.

I never said that. You should probably refrain from accusing me of something I never said; I am however, standing on the shoulders of all the Reformed in relation to ascentia, fiducia and notia in conversion. Belief is based on biblical truth; Faith is not empty. One needs to understand why Christ died, what sin is, how can God become a man and sacrifice Himself for men, etc. This is the gospel.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

C. Ryan...

I realize I'm late to the party, but if I may, I'd like to encourage you to review the way you use some terms. I think it will help you communicate well with the rest of us. I hope I'm not being simplistic if I suggest the core disagreement on this thread is about how we apply labels. And frankly, your labels sound a bit untypical to me (and, I think, to several others here).

First, you seem to describe the true gospel solely in terms of Paul's brief summary in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Well, if affirming those two verses is all it takes to preach a true gospel, then the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, and the Jehovah's Witnesses all preach the true gospel, because none of them would deny those verses. So your definition of a true gospel is going to put you in a spot where you talk right past most people on this board, because most of us would agree that all of those groups teach a false gospel, by our generally-accepted use of the label.

Conversely, you apply the label heresy to mistaken beliefs about mode of baptism. Again, most of us, along with much of the church through the ages, don't use that term that way. We might call that an error, but we reserve heresy for graver matters—often for false teaching that runs afoul of the historic creeds and results in a person being declared outside of the faith, or perhaps even fit to be burned at the stake!

I think you and we can benefit greatly from discussions on this board. But you can help in that process by taking the time to learn how folks here generally use these and other terms.

As for the term false gospel, I am sympathetic to your complaint that it seems as if too many errors get labeled as "gospel matters" these days. However, to see where the concept of a false gospel comes from, I would direct you to the book of Galatians. There, Paul confronts a form of works-righteous, and he calls it a different and distorted gospel. So when it comes to defining false gospel, many of us are inclined to think first of something like that: a teaching that seems on the surface to affirm 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 but actually puts confidence in the flesh. Using that definition of false gospel, I'm sure you can see why some folks here will argue that the various forms of Arminianism at least lean in that direction.

It doesn't mean these folks claim that Arminians deny the creeds or don't believe 1 Corinthians 15 or can't be saved. Pay attention to the lingo in use here, and your interactions will be more profitable.

Number one, that is a strawman argument. Catholics do not believe in the sufficiency of that promise, and both JW's and Mormons have a heretical understanding regarding the deity of Christ. Frankly, I'm offended that you would even put forward such a claim.

I just told you what scripture says the Gospel is, and you actually sit here and say It's different.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

I never said that. You should probably refrain from accusing me of something I never said; I am however, standing on the shoulders of all the Reformed in relation to ascentia, fiducia and notia in conversion. Belief is based on biblical truth; Faith is not empty. One needs to understand why Christ died, what sin is, how can God become a man and sacrifice Himself for men, etc. This is the gospel.

You are infering it sir! what exactky do yiu think the Gospel is? It's the good news in Christ finished work on the cross...period!!! That's it! You are the ones that are attempting to obfuscate that simple truth by infering that the truth is not that simple and that belief in other doctrine is necessary

 

[Scott Bushey]

Christ finished work on the cross

You want to unpack this idea as if I am a little child? If it is so simple, please, indulge me as I am a 6 year old.

*This is what u miss....one cannot believe in a thing one has no comprehension of. Faith is based on truth and facts.

 

[Jack K]

I just told you what scripture says the Gospel is, and you actually sit here and say It's different.

Not really. I told you what many people will think of when they hear the term false gospel. I did that to try to help you understand where people might be coming from. I was trying to help, not trying to offend or accuse, and certainly not trying to misrepresent you. If I failed to take enough care to avoid that, I am very sorry.

I still think you will benefit by considering what sort of teaching Paul has in mind when he applies the label different gospel in Galatians. I think it will help you understand others here. That's probably enough said from me.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

You want to unpack this idea as if I am a little child? If it is so simple, please, indulge me as I am a 6 year old.

*This is what u miss....one cannot believe in a thing one has no comprehension of. Faith is based on truth and facts.

Then kindky explain the thief on the cross or how the two examples given in scripture of perfect faith, came from gentiles who did nit have the full revelation

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Not really. I told you what many people will think of when they hear the term false gospel. I did that to try to help you understand where people might be coming from. I was trying to help, not trying to offend or accuse, and certainly not trying to misrepresent you. If I failed to take enough care to avoid that, I am very sorry.

I still think you will benefit by considering what sort of teaching Paul has in mind when he applies the label different gospel in Galatians. I think it will help you understand others here. That's probably enough said from me.

I apologize if I heard you wrong. All I'm saying is, an Arminian says, you must choose to have faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross. Some of you come along and say, no, that’s a false Gospel. The only part of it that is false is the belief that we exercise choice. But, it isn’t necessary to believe, that we don’t have a choice in order to be saved. That is my whole point my friends. I’m not arguing against reform doctrine or trying to prop up Armenians. I simply stating, that the belief in Christ “ finished work” is a corps precept of the faith that stands completely on it’s own. Failure to understand God’s sovereignty or other Reformed doctrine, does NOT abrogate that simple promise.

 

[Scott Bushey]

explain the thief on the cross

The thief on the cross was a Jew; circumcised on the 8Th day and most likely tutored in the faith by faithful parents to the covenant.

two examples given in scripture of perfect faith came from gentiles who did nit have the full revelation

You're gonna have to give me the citations so as I can look at them. No one has full revelation. 1 Cor 13:12

 

[Reformed Apologist]

The thief on the cross was a Jew; circumcised on the 8Th day and most likely tutored in the faith by faithful parents to the covenant.




You're gonna have to give me the citations so as I can look at them. No one has full revelation. 1 Cor 13:12

Lol....that is special pleading my friend. We are discussing scripture. We don't get to create assumptions in order to prop up our position.

I'll have to check and get back to you. I forget the verses off the top of my head.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Lol....that is special pleading my friend. We are discussing scripture. We don't get to create assumptions in order to prop up our position.

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?

 

[Reformed Apologist]

The thief on the cross was a Jew; circumcised on the 8Th day and most likely tutored in the faith by faithful parents to the covenant.




You're gonna have to give me the citations so as I can look at them. No one has full revelation. 1 Cor 13:12

Ok Scott, You acknowledge that no one has perfect revelation. So, what’s the percentage then? We get a pass cause we have faith in Christ plus the truth of the reformed position? Those pesky Armenians are just out of luck right? I mean, they have Christ, but they have no t.u.l.i.p so their pretty much screwed. They may as well pack it in right? I mean, there is no way our sovereign Lord couldn’t possibly save someone with Armenian theology. If anyone is going to have the true Gospel, they need to have perfect doctrine like us. Everyone else is just espousing a heretical doctrine. We can all high five each other now, is that what it is?

 

[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?
How did he know of 'paradise' as described by Christ?

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 )

 

[Jack K]

All I'm saying is, an Arminian says, you must choose to have faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross. Some of you come along and say, no, that’s a false Gospel.

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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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?