The Arminian "god" is not Worshippable

[raderag]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Ok, then it is time that you admit that Arminians actually know their theology and embrace it.

Thats exactly what I have asserted. However, I have never met an Arminian.

That is what I find troubling, that you seem to imply that this animal doesn't exists.

I never said that! I said, "I have never met an Arminian".

If you think they are damned by their error, I can respect that, but just pretending they are a rare breed of pigmies seems a bit odd.

I never implied that either. If they are out there, I have never met one. I have met people whom are not Calvinist and whom have tendencies that resemble Arminianism in singular components, but a full fledged Arminian- nope!

Ok, have your cake and eat it. ïŠ

On the other hand, for you to say that someone embracing Arminianism can't hold to salvific faith is problematic to the Gospel itself.

The problem is that Arminius held to a works based salvation, to name one of his errors.

Agreed, and that is why his theology was nixed by Dordt. On the other hand, if we ever violate the first commandment, we are guilty of this heresy to some degree. I believe everyone is guilty of not trusting Christ alone. The lynchpin for reformed theology is that we are justified by the object rather than the quality of our faith. To make the quality of our faith the means of justification is to mix law with gospel. May it never be! Someone holding to Arminianism should be warned that their theology is sinful in that it places salvation in Christ + free will, but that doesn´t mean one cannot hold to this and be saved.

Unless you hold that salvation in Christ alone is by intellect alone, and that one must perfectly trust Christ alone.

I hold to the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. The regenerate man may not yet understand that principle, but he will eventually.

Well, it took almost 1500 years for the Church to properly understand this doctrine, and I believe the perversion of the Gospel led to the damnation of many souls, but still many held to a wrong view of justification and yet trusted Christ.

I dare say that a valid criticism of many of the Puritans is that too much emphasis is given to works. I read Pilgrams Progress, and I see almost no mention of justification. I am quite sure that some puritans had too much faith in their own works. Yet their imperfect mustard seed faith was enough to justify them despite there heresy.

The book of James is clear. Show me a man with no works and I will show you a man with dead faith! Are you saying Bunyan was a heretic?

No, I am saying that sometimes the puritans theology tended to be centered more in fruit than it should have been. I am just saying by your standard, we are all damned, because your standard for the Gospel is Law (1rst commandment). If we much have perfect trust in Christ (Christ + nothing), I confess to being a rabid heretic. All I have is an imperfect faith in a perfect Christ.

I would say the same for an Arminian as they hold to the right Christ.

Arminianism is at odds with God as they believe the God of the scriptures is weak and cannot guarantee any of His sheep.

[/quote]

Yes, you are right that it is a sinful theology, but the object of their faith is indeed the right Christ. Also, if you really examine your own theology, you may find that you have not put your trust in Christ alone. That is law. Please don´t mix it with Gospel. That is also heresy.

 

[Arch2k]

Wisdom from the Great Hymns

From "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" by Martin Luther:

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;

From "Rock of Ages" by Augustus Toplady:

Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill Thy law´s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by raderag

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Ok, then it is time that you admit that Arminians actually know their theology and embrace it.

Thats exactly what I have asserted. However, I have never met an Arminian.

That is what I find troubling, that you seem to imply that this animal doesn't exists.

I never said that! I said, "I have never met an Arminian".

If you think they are damned by their error, I can respect that, but just pretending they are a rare breed of pigmies seems a bit odd.

I never implied that either. If they are out there, I have never met one. I have met people whom are not Calvinist and whom have tendencies that resemble Arminianism in singular components, but a full fledged Arminian- nope!

Ok, have your cake and eat it. ïŠ

On the other hand, for you to say that someone embracing Arminianism can't hold to salvific faith is problematic to the Gospel itself.

The problem is that Arminius held to a works based salvation, to name one of his errors.

Agreed, and that is why his theology was nixed by Dordt. On the other hand, if we ever violate the first commandment, we are guilty of this heresy to some degree. I believe everyone is guilty of not trusting Christ alone. The lynchpin for reformed theology is that we are justified by the object rather than the quality of our faith. To make the quality of our faith the means of justification is to mix law with gospel. May it never be! Someone holding to Arminianism should be warned that their theology is sinful in that it places salvation in Christ + free will, but that doesn´t mean one cannot hold to this and be saved.

Unless you hold that salvation in Christ alone is by intellect alone, and that one must perfectly trust Christ alone.

I hold to the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. The regenerate man may not yet understand that principle, but he will eventually.

Well, it took almost 1500 years for the Church to properly understand this doctrine, and I believe the perversion of the Gospel led to the damnation of many souls, but still many held to a wrong view of justification and yet trusted Christ.

I dare say that a valid criticism of many of the Puritans is that too much emphasis is given to works. I read Pilgrams Progress, and I see almost no mention of justification. I am quite sure that some puritans had too much faith in their own works. Yet their imperfect mustard seed faith was enough to justify them despite there heresy.

The book of James is clear. Show me a man with no works and I will show you a man with dead faith! Are you saying Bunyan was a heretic?

No, I am saying that sometimes the puritans theology tended to be centered more in fruit than it should have been. I am just saying by your standard, we are all damned, because your standard for the Gospel is Law (1rst commandment). If we much have perfect trust in Christ (Christ + nothing), I confess to being a rabid heretic. All I have is an imperfect faith in a perfect Christ.

I would say the same for an Arminian as they hold to the right Christ.

Arminianism is at odds with God as they believe the God of the scriptures is weak and cannot guarantee any of His sheep.

Yes, you are right that it is a sinful theology, but the object of their faith is indeed the right Christ. Also, if you really examine your own theology, you may find that you have not put your trust in Christ alone. That is law. Please don´t mix it with Gospel. That is also heresy. [/quote]

Brett,
The god of the Jews is not the God of the scriptures. The god of the JW's is not the God of the scriptures. The god of Arminius, is not the God of the scriptures.

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.


Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,


Joh 5:39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;
Joh 5:40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.

As far as my trusting in Christ:

Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing.

Joh 19:10 Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?
Joh 19:11 Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.

You write:

Well, it took almost 1500 years for the Church to properly understand this doctrine, and I believe the perversion of the Gospel led to the damnation of many souls, but still many held to a wrong view of justification and yet trusted Christ.

This is wrong. Rome tried screwing with it, but Christs church, which has been in place since Adam, which the gates of hell will not prevail against, has always understood this doctrine. The elect have always held to this. I can't imagine where you got that information???



[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[pastorway]

I will refrain from addressing the topic but did want to make one observation - I think this thread wins the award for the most posts that quote other posts within posts around posts including quotes from other posts.

 

[Scott Bushey]

yuk yuk yuk. We're getting good at that! I was trying to see if I could thin the previous posts down to one word columns!

 

[Arch2k]

From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 18-19

The "good news" of the New Testament includes not only an announcement of the person of Christ and his work on our behalf, but a declaration of how the benefits of Christ's work are appropriated by, in, and for the believer.

The issue of how justification and salvation are received became the paramount point of debate. Luther's insistence on sola fide was based on the conviction that the "how" of justification is integral and essential to the gospel itself. He viewed justification by faith alone as necessary and essential to the gospel and to salvation.

From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 36

The Reformers insisted that the righteousness of Christ is the sole grounds of our justification. For Martin Luther justification by faith alone means that justification is by the righteousness of Christ alone, and his righteousness is appropriated by faith alone.

From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 39

The chief point of contact is that both Rome and Mormonism reject an essential truth for salvation. THis statement assumes two things. One is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth for salvation, and the other is that the Roman Catholic Church rejects justification by faith alone. If these assumptions are accurate, then the point of similarity between Rome and Mormonism is that =both deny an essential truth of Christianity. SOme may argue that justification by faith alone is not essential or that it is not as essential as the deity of Christ, and therefore they take umbrage at the comparison.

It is questionable to debate degrees of essentiality. If a doctrine is essential, it is of the essence and cannot be rejected without departing from essential Christianity. Most Christians, I suppose, would agree that the nature of the gospel is essential to Christianity, but in all probability most would as readily agree to this as would agree that the deity of Christ is essential. That is why I state the argument in conditional terms. I said that if justification by faith alone is essential for salvation and if Rome rejects justification by faith alone, then the conclusion follows by resistless logic that Rome rejects an essential truth of Christianity.

When I use the word if here, I do it for the sake of the present argument. In my mind there is no IF about it. I am convinced, as were the Reformers, that justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel and that Rome clearly rejects it.

From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 46

The New Testament makes it clear that there is only one gospel. An "inadequate" gospel is not the gospel. A "gospel" that falls short of its essence is not the true gospel and must be vigorously rejected.

...

I am convinced that any Christian who belongs to a communion that rejects an essential truth of Christianity is duy-bound to leave that communion and break fellowship with it.

From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 67

Luther said of justification: "The article of justification is the master and prince, the lord, the ruler, and the judge over all kinds of doctrines; it preserves and governs all church doctrine and raises up our conscience before God. Without this article the world is utter death and darkness."

Elsewhere Luther wrote: "If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time."

Luther was not alone in regarding justification by faith alone with such singular importance. John Calvin likewise attached crucial importance to it: "The doctrine of Justification...is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment [is] which he passes to you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared."

From "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul, p. 186

Can a person be saved if he has faith in Christ and in his own works and merit? ...We can say yes only if sola fide is not essential to the gospel but is merely fine print. If sola fide is essential to the gospel, however, then we must answer with a resounding no.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by pastorway

I will refrain from addressing the topic but did want to make one observation - I think this thread wins the award for the most posts that quote other posts within posts around posts including quotes from other posts.

Can I quote you on that??

 

[pastorway]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by pastorway

I will refrain from addressing the topic but did want to make one observation - I think this thread wins the award for the most posts that quote other posts within posts around posts including quotes from other posts.

Can I quote you on that??

if you must!!!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The quotes within quotes thing is funny.

My goodness! I looked at this last night and this morning it's 5 pages long! I don't remember seeing a thread grow so quickly (but I've only been here a few months).

A few observations:

1. I think we need to be a bit more charitable to Matt's intentions. He's talking about a system of doctrine and not people. I know this really rubs people the wrong way and many of you know that I'm not the type to cast a ton of people beyond the pale. How many people have you met in Reformed Churches and elsewhere that have a faulty view of the Trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ? I can even grant that some of those people are saved until they fully embrace a Trinitarian error. Don't push what he's trying to say too far. It probably wouldn't float too well in most Evangelical circles because they can't read between the lines but I was trying to do so and give him the benefit of the doubt.

2. As most serious errors go (heresies if you like), not all people influenced by the errors are heretics or damned but the error pushes people in the wrong direction. I attend a Southern Baptist Church right now where elements of Arminiaism are present and constantly pushing people away from Christ even as the Scriptures are pulling them toward him. Every week after the Gospel is preached, there is an altar call that is not just for those who want to give their lives to Christ but also for those that want to "...rededicate their lives to Christ." I've known people that came up under such systems that were rededicated or re-baptized several times.

What does this re-dedication represent? For the person coming forward I suppose it represents to the congregation and the individual that the person is not doing enough to be saved and by coming forward he is getting back on the path. He is not being righteous enough in his daily walk and so he's promising to do a better job. What does it represent to the person not coming forward? I've been doing a good job of walking with the Lord and don't need to come forward at all or until I start faltering in my commitment to Christ.

So the consequence of the doctrine is to create a man-created sacrament that points people in the direction of a system of works righteousness and away from resting in Christ. Are those that do this damned heretics? I don't worship with damned heretics. It simply saddens me that a false doctrine has penetrated the Church and makes it harder for people to see and rest on Christ.

3. Some proponents of portions of the doctrine downright scare me as to their Eternal State. Who has read the book that Dave Hunt co-wrote with James White called Debating Calvinism? James is a friend and sent me a copy a couple of years ago. I almost cried when I read some of the things that Dave Hunt wrote. Without any real historical knowledge or understanding of the spirit he was about, Dave Hunt literally writes some things that seem to be straight from the pen of Pelagius. Is Dave Hunt saved? I hope so but the doctrine that we associate with Arminius has infected his writing and poisons his understanding of the depravity of man and his need for the Gospel. It is not a safe place for him to be.

4. My own family are Roman Catholics. They do not know enough to be able to fully embrace the entire teaching of Rome. Like most Western Roman Catholics they don't worship Mary and idols with the wholesale abandon that those in Latin America do. Because of the charismatic movement within the RC Church, the Church they attend has folks that believe there is no substantive difference between Protestant and RC theology. They read their Bibles regularly and generally understand Biblical ideas of salvation and have had them preached from the pulpit (in a confused manner). Preaching has occurred by Priests in their Church that is anathema to the RC Church. So might they be saved? I have my doubts but I don't rule it completely out as they stick around the RC Church out of a sense of strong Irish loyalty.

I frankly don't have a problem calling the Roman Catholic system heresy while recognizing there might be believers within the system IN SPITE OF THE SYSTEM. So, thus, let's not be so quick to cast away the idea that a system of doctrine can be heresy and call it what it is while recognizing that not all people subscribe fully to it or understand its consequences. I believe one of the ways Christ prevents the gates of hell from prevailing against His Church is by limiting the effect of false teaching and He is doing so even with the teaching of Arminius.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[non dignus]

There are many elect sitting in Arminian pews. Arminian pulpits are another matter. We don't give quarter to men like George Bryson, and Dave Hunt, men-

"..holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power therefore. From these also turn away.
6. For of these are they that creep into houses, and take captive silly women laden with sins, led away by divers lusts,
7. ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8. And even as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth. Men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Tim 3

Pastorway,
Please think a second time.

 

[non dignus]

" For of these are they that creep into houses, and take captive silly women laden with sins, led away by divers lusts, "

Do you think I am overstating it a bit?

I once visited a friend's lady friend at her home. The living room looked like a library- three solid walls of book shelves, full.

Upon closer inspection I could see they were not books at all.
They were binders containing hundreds of audio cassettes with the teachings of Chuck Missler.

 

[pastorway]

I have read the article 6 times in the last 2 days, more slowly each time. And I stand by what I have already written and think maybe I was not bold enough in my stance.

Sure, you can quote sections that seem to allow for converted people in arminian churches - but this does not fit with the tone or content of the rest of the piece. Some may claim to never have met a true arminian, but the article sure is full of them and their churches as it labels anyone who denies one of the 5 points as an arminian heretic. Again, according to what was written, all that reject any of the 5 points are idolatrous and worshipping a false god, not the God of the Bible.

The logical conclusion that must be drawn from this article is to deny that a church that rejects any of the 5 points is a true church, because surely we would never say that a church that worships a false god is a Christian church. And that consigns all non-calvinists to hell.

For a piece fighting against adding works to the gospel, it goes to the other extreme and makes the gospel a message of faith + theologically understanding the 5 points.

Both add to the gospel. That is why I labelled it imbalanced.

I'd like Matt to respond to my questions from earlier if he has the time and can find them amidst the sea of quoted quotes.

Phillip

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by pastorway
I have read the article 6 times in the last 2 days, more slowly each time. And I stand by what I have already written and think maybe I was not bold enough in my stance.

Sure, you can quote sections that seem to allow for converted people in arminian churches - but this does not fit with the tone or content of the rest of the piece. Some may claim to never have met a true arminian, but the article sure is full of them and their churches as it labels anyone who denies one of the 5 points as an arminian heretic. Again, according to what was written, all that reject any of the 5 points are idolatrous and worshipping a false god, not the God of the Bible.

The logical conclusion that must be drawn from this article is to deny that a church that rejects any of the 5 points is a true church, because surely we would never say that a church that worships a false god is a Christian church. And that consigns all non-calvinists to hell.

For a piece fighting against adding works to the gospel, it goes to the other extreme and makes the gospel a message of faith + theologically understanding the 5 points.

Both add to the gospel. That is why I labelled it imbalanced.

I'd like Matt to respond to my questions from earlier if he has the time and can find them amidst the sea of quoted quotes.

Phillip

Respectfully, I don't read him as saying "...Believe on Christ and the 5 points and ye shall be saved...."

Here is how I view the structure:
1. Jesus warns about false teachers
2. A brief history of who Arminius was.
3. A critical examination of Arminius' five points and demonstrating that the Scriptures teach otherwise.
4. A conclusion that Arminianism is heretical based on all these ideas taken together because the god of Arminius is an idol and not a true God.

I think what is missing, for your claim to be true, is for him to positively argue that one must believe the 5 points in order to be saved. I see his assault as being an argument by negation - God isn't this, this, this, this, or this - therefore, the system is false.

I am unsure of the value of adding, after all his criticism of Arminius teaching, the heretic/idol worship bombshell to the introductory Arminian reader. I think we might be in agreement on that. There is probably sufficient weight in the points made before that to get them to draw their own conclusion rather than parking the elephant in their living room. We all agree that Mohammed is a false prophet but beginning a dialogue with a Muslim by saying that Mohammed is a prophet of Satan does not lend itself to a receptive hearer after that statement.

Nevertheless, I think the issue of presenting the conclusion in the way he did is debatable. It's a matter of approach in my estimation. Perhaps the bold statement is what some people need. I'm not sure. What I do know is that Arminius' five points, that Matt negates Scripturally, undermine the Gospel message and have serious soteriological consequences for millions.

I believe Matt is best to answer the real questions you pose.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ok, what's funny to me about all of this is that I get an e-mail ripping Matt for not being against Arminianism enough!! This e-mail demands that he answer how he could so strongly support those within Arminian churches! Yet others here feel he is damning them all to hell.

Here is the e-mail I recieved...

Is the "god" of Arminianism the God of the Bible? No.

Worshippers of a different "god" and different "gospel" are not going to be slapped on the wrist and sent to their room in heaven. Rather, they are going to be sent to hell for being idolaters. Idolaters do not enter heaven, as Paul said in Galatians 5:19_21.

It may be that you are an Arminian. I am very saddened that you have been caught up in thinking that Arminius´ "god" is the real God. However, you have been duped. Satan has used his false teacher to dupe you, along with much of the church today.

If you continue in your idolatry following after Arminius´ deformed "god", and you do not repent, God will judge you on the day of your death for your idolatry. The Scriptures say idolaters do not go to heaven. Thus, according to the Scriptures, you will be damned.

If that is not a scary thought for you, dear reader, I do not know what is more frightful. Not only are you believing a lie, God has sent it to you that you may be blinded and condemned in unrighteousness!

My response: The five paragraphs above were written by Matthew McMahon and are taken from his article "The "god" of Arminianism is not Worshippable".

McMahon says in these paragraphs that 1) Arminians believe a false gospel and 2) All who believe in a false gospel are unregenerate.

Therefore, McMahon must believe that all Arminians are unregenerate, right?

WRONG!

McMahon actually believes that some Arminians are regenerate.

This is simply incredible. Even one of McMahon´s friend´s could see the logical conclusions of Matthew´s statements that Arminianism is a false gospel and all who believe in a false gospel are damned. The name of Matthew´s friend is Ben Duncan and is a student at SBTS. Duncan writes,

"All heresy is damnable. ... If anything but 5_point Calvinism is really heresy, then this means that those who hold to anything but 5_point Calvinism are damned."

My comment: Is damnable heresy damnable or not?? Duncan is right. IF Arminians is heresy, then ALL Arminians will go to hell (unless they are converted to the truth before they die).

Yet, McMahon and Duncan still believe that some Arminians are saved. Neither of these men believe that damnable heresy is damnable.

In the text below McMahon states that some Arminian are saved. McMahon denies that damnable heresy is damnable. He writes,

"Arminians are of different stripes. Some people in Arminian churches may be truly converted, ignorant of their church home, and ultimately the Lord will rescue them out of their ignorance for He promises. .... Secondly, there is the Arminian who knows "enough to be dangerous" and is wrestling with understanding the differences between the "god" of Arminianism and the God of the Bible. If you have just read through this article, and were an Arminian of the first flavor, now you are an Arminianism of the second camp. ...Thirdly, it may be that you are a staunch Arminian. ... Repentance for you is even harder since you have been serving and worshipping an idol for so long. You have been sorely deceived in your idolatry! ... Sure God was right when He rebuked His people for being "destroyed for a lack of knowledge.""



My comment: Clearly, McMahon asserts that God´s people CAN and DO believe in false gospels.

His last words in the paragraph above are very significant. He says that, "...God was right when He rebuked His people for being "destroyed for a lack of knowledge.""

What McMahon is saying is that God´s people can lack the knowledge of the gospel and believe in damnable heresy. This is ever clearer from the following quote when he writes,

"Throughout the Old Testament God warns His church that false shepherds are under His judgment and condemnation. They lead the flock of God astray and teach false doctrines that are "empowered" by demonic lies and satanic ploys to tear people away from God, and rely on their own works for salvation."

My comment: Here McMahon teaches that false teachers can lead the flock of God astray. Next McMahon says that,

"...oftentimes Christians succumb to being children of their age, and the disciples of those that teach them even if they are heretical teachers. They think that since Pastor "so and so" is a godly man, what he teaches "must" be right. ... God´s people have been prone to idolatry as a result of ignorance and accepting the teaching of the "gods" of neighboring cities and peoples."

My comment: Above McMahon says that Christians can accept the teachings of other religions. He also says that the traditions and the reputations of false teachers can lead believers into damnable heresy. This is NOT what the Bible teaches. I challenge McMahon to refute these 10 Biblical arguments.



10 BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS PROVING THAT ALL ARMINIANS ARE UNREGENERATE.

1) John 10:5 says that believers will NEVER follow a false shepherd. But Arminians follow false shepherds. Therefore, Arminians are not believers.

"the sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will not follow a stranger, never! But they will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of the strangers." (Jn 10:4-5).



2) Isaiah 45:20 says that those who pray to a God that cannot save know nothing. Arminians believe that men have free will and the god they pray to cannot save. Arminians know nothing of the Just God and Savior.

"Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, escaped ones of the nations; the ones who set up the wood of their carved image, and the ones who pray to a god who cannot save; they know nothing. Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; who has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none except Me." (Isa 45:20-21)



3) 2 John 9 says that those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ have not God. No Arminian is abiding in the doctrine of Christ since all Arminians believe in a false gospel of salvation by works. Arminians have not God. Of course, if God later converts an Arminian to the true Gospel of salvation SOLELY by Christ´s BARE WORK then it would mean that this Arminian is not reprobate. However, all Arminians who die believing in any of the five points of Arminianism go to hell.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bear this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and do not speak a greeting to him. For the one speaking a greeting shares in his evil works." (2 Jn 9-11).



4) Romans 10 says that the Jews were ignorant of the righteousness of God and went about to establish their own righteousness. Likewise, no Arminian is submitted to the righteousness of God because they do NOT believe the gospel of imputed righteousness. If Paul was alive today he would pray for Arminians to be saved for they have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge.



"Brothers, truly my heart's pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of Israel is for it to be saved. For I testify to them that they have zeal to God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God." (Rom 10:1-3)



5) In Acts 8:20 Peter judged Simon Magnus to be unregenerate because Simon thought salvation could come by human efforts. Arminians are no better than Simon in their beliefs concerning salvation. Both Simon and Arminians believe that man has a role to play in justification. Therefore, Arminians are in perdition, a bond of iniquity and a gall of bitterness.

"But Simon having seen that the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of the hands of the apostles, he offered them money, saying, Give to me also this authority that to whomever I may lay on the hands he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said to him, May your silver be with you into perdition, because you thought to get the gift of God through money. There is neither part nor lot to you in this matter, for your heart is not upright before the face of God. Repent, then, from this wickedness of yours, and petition God if perhaps you will be forgiven the thought of your heart. For I see you being in the gall of bitterness and a bundle of unrighteousness." (Acts 8:18-23)



6) John 4:14 says that believers never thirst for the waters of eternal life. Now, Arminians find their assurance not in the finished work of Christ but Arminians drink from the well of salvation by works (e.g. saving yourself by the work of their "free will"). Therefore, Arminians are not believers.



"but whoever may drink of the water which I will give him will not thirst, never! But the water which I will give to him will become a fountain of water in him, springing up into everlasting life." (Jn 4:14)



7) 1 John 5:10-12 says those not believing God´s testimony have called Him a liar. It also says that those who call God a liar have not the Son and have not life. Arminians do not believe God´s testimony, i.e. that the Father is perfectly well pleased with the work of the Son and that all believers have been given everlasting life. Arminians say that God is a liar and effectively treat Satan as a truth-teller.



"The one believing in the Son of God has the witness in himself. The one not believing God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has witnessed concerning His Son. And this is the witness: that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son. The one having the Son has life. The one not having the Son of God does not have life." (1 Jn 5:10-12)



8) James 1:6-7 says that those who "pray" doubting can expect nothing from God. Arminians do not believe that God controls everything, therefore they cannot pray with faith. Arminians can therefore expect nothing from God (this includes salvation).

"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask from God, who gives to all freely and with no reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, doubting nothing. For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, being driven by wind and being tossed; for do not let that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double_soiled man, not dependable in all his ways." (Jam 1:5-8)

9) (a) 2 Corinthians 13:5 says that people who are not sure whether or not Christ is in them are unregenerate. Arminians cannot know that Christ is in them (by believing in a false Christ they are ignorant of who the real Christ is). Arminians base their assurance on their works and are unregenerate. Of course, if God converts an Arminian to believe that Christ lay down His life for the sheep and fulfilled the Law, then that Arminian is no longer an Arminian. He is now a Christian and will deduce his election from his belief in the bare truth of the gospel.

"Or do you not yourselves perceive that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (2 Cor 13:5)

(b) Paul addressed his letter to the Ephesians with "to the saints and faithful at Ephesus". Paul assumed that the Ephesians knew they were saints and faithful (otherwise, they would not have known the epistle was for them). Arminians do not have the assurance of salvation of the Ephesians because Arminians do not know that the work of salvation is finished. Arminians are ignorant of the fact that NOTHING is required for justification but the imputed righteousness and atoning blood of Christ. By thinking that man has to contribute to justification, Arminians can NEVER be assured of salvation by Christ´s bare work alone. Only those who believe that man is TOTALLY PASSIVE in justification can be assured that Christ COMPLETELY FULFILLED THE LAW. All who believe in the true gospel of imputed righteousness will deduce that they are elect from their assent to the propositions of the gospel.

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, to the saints being in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus." (Eph 1:1)

(c) Peter wrote only to those of "EQUALLY PRECIOUS" to the Apostles (2 Peter 1:1). Arminians do not have the faith of the Apostles, however, because they deny "IT IS FINISHED". By believing that man must do x, y or z to be justified Christ profits them nothing. Of course, if God later on converts an Arminian to the True Gospel (the doctrines of the Finished Atonement and Imputed Righteousness) then that Arminian has BECOME a Christian (the moment he believed the True Gospel) and must be elect.

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like equally precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Pet 1:1)

10) 2 John 9-11 says that those who speak peace to outward heretics share in the heretic´s evil deeds. Matthew McMahon speaks peace to Arminians. You are unregenerate, Matthew McMahon.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bear this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and do not speak a greeting to him. For the one speaking a greeting shares in his evil works." (2 Jn 9-11).

I challenge you Matthew McMahon "“ and every other tolerant and doubting Calvinist in the world "“ to refute the 10 Biblical arguments above.



Andrew C. Bain
Sydney, Australia

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm sorry, did Mr. Bain say something? I couldn't hear him with that loud clanging cymbal sound overpowering everything...

 

[ReformedWretch]

lol....but my point was that someone believe MAtt wasn't against Arminianism enough yet others here feel he was way too strong.....

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
I'm sorry, did Mr. Bain say something? I couldn't hear him with that loud clanging cymbal sound overpowering everything...

Ha ha!!
I received that same email... I wonder how many folks received it. I even started a new thread with the contents of the email as the body... and then I saw that Adam beat me to the punch.

Mr. Bain appears to be a real brainiac. Seriously.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Read his Xanga site if you want some cheap entertainment. I believe his calculations have around 17 people entering Heaven! That may be too liberal of a number too!!!

 

[satz]

I think we run into trouble when we try to say there is a specific set of things someone must believe in order to be saved. Even if we say someone must believe 'the gospel', what exactly is the gospel? The bible never defines the gospel specifically in quite the way people are trying to use it - a minimum set of things one must believe in to be saved.

Isn't turning from and repenting of sin part of believing the gospel? How many of us are perfect in that respect? Does that mean we do not FULLY believe the gospel yet?

Any false doctrine held to, or sin not fully forsaken will weaken a man's profession of faith before others. But every word of God is pure, and we get into trouble when we start to say that is ok to get things like EP, musical instruments in worship etc wrong, but its not ok to get predestination wrong. Where does the bible distinguish issues quite like that?

Again, the fact that a christian is arminian cast doubts on his outward profession of salvation. But if Lot can be saved, and Samson can be saved ( go read Judges, he never repents, not really) if Corinthian christians killed for mocking the Lord's Supper can be saved ( and since a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree bad fruit, what do you think are the chances these same people who dared to turn the Lord's supper into a revel were involved in at least some of the other abuses in corinth Paul was trying to correct) than i have no trouble believing that some arminians, even those who know and reject calvinism can be saved.

 

[pastorway]

from the Article

The "œgod" of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible. For Arminius´ "œgod" loves everyone equally, and sent his "œSon" to die for all men equally. This "œgod" did not decree the salvation of anyone in particular, and "œthe Christ" of Arminianism did not die for anyone in particular. Instead Arminius´ "œgod" decreed and his "œchrist" died for making a "œway" of salvation.

If you believe God loves everyone equally you worshipping a false god. If you believe Jesus died for all men, you are worshipping a false god. If you deny particular redemption (limited atonement) then you are worshipping a false god. If you deny God's elective decree then you are worshipping a false god.

Arminius´ "œgod" relies on man to come to Him, and find salvation.

Arminius also taught that his "œgod" can be frustrated by the will of man because men choose their own destiny and that "œgod" allows them to do what they want to do without interfering.

This "œgod" has offered salvation, but cannot actually bring about the happiness of the creature since man is autonomous and has, as Arminius taught, "œa free will."

Arminius also taught that his "œgod" will not regenerate a sinner who does not first choose "œhim" with his inherent "free will."

If you believe you came to God on your own, of your own free will, and that you can refuse or frustrate the grace of God, then you are worshipping a false god.

Arminius taught hypothetical universalism. This meant that Jesus Christ died on the cross for every individual person making it possible for them to have salvation, and for every person to be saved. However, Arminius affirmed that in Christ´s death no one was actually saved. Christ only made salvation possible through the universal atonement for each man.

Again, reject limited atonement (even if you are a 4 point calvinist) and you are worshipping a false god. Miss the L and you are a Loser.

Arminius also taught that his "œgod" cannot secure salvation for anyone, and thus, those sinners that choose "œhim" may also subsequently fall away from grace after they have taken hold of it. In this way, Arminius´ "œgod" loses people to the devil and to eternal torment, due to their decision to "œstop following" "œhim." These wayward souls simply give up and reject their faith. Thus, salvation can be lost at any time.

Speaking of being a Loser, if you for one moment believe that you can lose your salvation, then you are worshipping a false god.

Worshippers of a different "œgod" and different "œgospel" are not going to be slapped on the wrist and sent to their room in heaven. Rather, they are going to be sent to hell for being idolaters. Idolaters do not enter heaven

Now we are getting somewhere. Hot. Because if you worship a false god you are an idolater and are going to hell.

The contemporary church today is not only accepting Arminius´ teaching, but running after it, selling it in their Christian bookstores (making a profit on heresy), teaching it in their seminaries (so that young and upcoming ministers affect the congregation they will one day pastor), and preaching it from their pulpits to the layman who trusts their pastor´s every word. Arminius taught the secular man´s religion "“ a religion of works by personal merit "“ and America is eating it up.

If you believe anything Arminius taught then you are, with the rest of the contemporary church today in America, going to hell.

This writer, in like mind, calls it heresy. Suitably, the worship of this "œother god" that Arminius created is summarized biblically as idolatry.

Matt McMahon says to you, if you die an Arminian to any degree you die a heretic and an idolater, and idolaters don't go to heaven. They go to hell.

Idolatry is committed when God´s people have wrong thoughts about Him.

Uh Oh. Look Out Now. If you ever had a wrong thought about God in your life then you are worshipping a false God and are going to hell for your idolatry. Only those with a competely perfect vision of who God is will go to heaven.

Even though Arminianism is a theological idea, that idea has filtered down into the "œgod" most people worship throughout Christendom today.

Most of "Christendom" today is worshipping a false god and going to hell.

For the thinking Christian who has had even the most minimal contact with the biblical God and Creator of the universe, the Arminian "œgod" is not worshippable for him. Christians should simply not be able to worship such a gross misrepresentation of the God of the Bible. Many people are ignorantly spending week after week, and worship service after worship service in serving an idol, and the True God of the Bible is angry with them. Does ignorance excuse them? God says "œNo." As a matter of fact, God promises to reject, forsake and finally destroy those who are ignorant about Him.

If you are indeed a Christian and have a brain, you cannot worship this false god, and if you do so in ignorance you have no excuse and you will be rejected and destroyed.

Not only will God forget the one worshipping in ignorance something that ought not to be worshipped, but He will even forget their children and visit the iniquity of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.

And if you hold to any form of arminianism (aka, not all of calvinism) then you are damned and so are your kids for 3 to 4 generations.

God equates idolatry with hating him. Arminius´ doctrine demonstrates that he and his followers hate God. By their ignorance, or willful disobedience in following after an idolatrous "œgod", the Lord Himself says they hate Him.

If you reject any of the 5 points, even out of ignorance, God hates you.

I am very saddened that you have been caught up in thinking that Arminius´ "œgod" is the real God. However, you have been duped. Satan has used his false teacher to dupe you, along with much of the church today.

If you reject any of the 5 points, you and most the rest of the "church" are under Satan's thumb and will be damned.

If you continue in your idolatry following after Arminius´ deformed "œgod", and you do not repent, God will judge you on the day of your death for your idolatry. The Scriptures say idolaters do not go to heaven. Thus, according to the Scriptures, you will be damned. You must recognize the fact now that you are serving a "œgod" that cannot be worshipped, no, that ought not to be worshipped.

Not a Calvinist ? (And there is only one kind, you know, and that is a 5 pointer. There is no such thing as a 3 or 4 pointer). Then sorry, but you are damned, damned, damned.

If you worship the "œgod" of Arminianism, of even the "œchrist" of Arminianism, you must repent and acknowledge the reality that you do not worship the God and Christ of Scripture. You have been sorely deceived in your idolatry!

You deceived idiot. You ignorant fool. Embrace the Five Points or go to hell and take your kids and grandkids and great grankids with you!



Knowing Christ is not enough. You must embrace the 5 points and if you do not that is proof that you were not His sheep, His elect, or His people. If you hear His voice you will be a 5 pointer. Because if you hold to any false doctrine at all, anything that denies the 5 points, then you are worshipping a false god, an idol, and cannot enter heaven.

Oh, one more thing, remember that if you ever think a wrong thought about God you are an idolater and there is no hope, so go eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die and go to hell. Only those with perfect knowledge of God go to heaven.





[Edited on 2-10-06 by pastorway]

 

[Steve Owen]

Mark 1:15. '"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Gospel."'
Acts 16:30-31. '"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved....."'
Rom 10:9. '...If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.'
Rom 10:13.'For "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."'
1John 2:3. Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.'
1John 5:1. Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.'

I do quite a bit of preaching in Brethren Gospel Halls and in other non-Reformed churches, so I meet a fair number of Arminians. I always preach, as well as God enables me, Christ crucified. If I asked these people if they are trusting in Christ alone for salvation, they would reply, "Of course!" If I asked them if they were trusting in their own works, they would say, "Not at all!" They believe in Prevenient Grace; they just have a faulty understanding of it. At least they are not trusting in their blood-line or their baptism for salvation! I do not hold back on the Doctrines of Grace in my preaching, but neither do I make an issue of it. 'Him we preach!' (Col 1:28 ). We preach Christ first and foremost, not a system of theology.

God forbid that we should say that these people are not the Lord's! 'Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own Master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand (Rom 14:4 ). I am a firm 5 point Calvinist, but I'm not going to make my theology the standard for salvation.

The weakest Christian who sees himself as a sinner and throws himself on the mercy of God, trusting in the blood of Christ for salvation will be saved. The gate is strait enough. Let us not narrow it still further lest the condemnation of Matt 23:13 come upon us.

Arminianism is an error, and errors have consequences. Arminaian churches are very open to other forms of error and liberalism as Church history proves. John Wesley's preaching was blessed by God for the salvation of thousands, yet his faulty theology left an unhappy legacy to the Wesleyan churches. But surely it is possible to point out the doctrinal errors of others in love, without committing them to hell?

Matt's article is a good illustration of why I voted that the PB is a poor example of Reformed theology. It was narrow, sectarian and cultic, in the worst sense of that word.

Martin

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Mark 1:15. '"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Gospel."'
Acts 16:30-31. '"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved....."'
Rom 10:9. '...If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.'
Rom 10:13.'For "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."'
1John 2:3. Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.'
1John 5:1. Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.'

I do quite a bit of preaching in Brethren Gospel Halls and in other non-Reformed churches, so I meet a fair number of Arminians. I always preach, as well as God enables me, Christ crucified. If I asked these people if they are trusting in Christ alone for salvation, they would reply, "Of course!" If I asked them if they were trusting in their own works, they would say, "Not at all!"

Hi Martin, when I was an Arminian I paid lip service to Grace alone etc. because that was the language of the Bible, but in my heart I "knew" that I was inherently different from unbelievers- I was a notch better which is why I "found" Christ, and they did not.

They believe in Prevenient Grace; they just have a faulty understanding of it.

Very faulty. They believe they have the human power to resist the Almighty God. Out of their pride they turn God into a wimpy idol and feel they are ultimately justified by their decision for Christ. This is insidious and repugnant to the gospel.

At least they are not trusting in their blood-line or their baptism for salvation! I do not hold back on the Doctrines of Grace in my preaching, but neither do I make an issue of it. 'Him we preach!' (Col 1:28 ). We preach Christ first and foremost, not a system of theology.

God forbid that we should say that these people are not the Lord's! 'Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own Master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand (Rom 14:4 ). I am a firm 5 point Calvinist, but I'm not going to make my theology the standard for salvation.

The weakest Christian who sees himself as a sinner and throws himself on the mercy of God, trusting in the blood of Christ for salvation will be saved. The gate is strait enough. Let us not narrow it still further lest the condemnation of Matt 23:13 come upon us.

Dr. McMahon is defending the gospel, you are defending heresy, and you give the example of the Pharisees?

Arminianism is an error, and errors have consequences. Arminaian churches are very open to other forms of error and liberalism as Church history proves. John Wesley's preaching was blessed by God for the salvation of thousands, yet his faulty theology left an unhappy legacy to the Wesleyan churches. But surely it is possible to point out the doctrinal errors of others in love, without committing them to hell?

Matt's article is a good illustration of why I voted that the PB is a poor example of Reformed theology. It was narrow, sectarian and cultic, in the worst sense of that word.

Martin

Pastorway,
There is no need for hyperbole. I think we can all agree that as we grow, we are responsible for what God has called us to so far. If you are a mature believer, confronted point by point with scripture against a doctrine of works righteousness, and do not yield, the Holy Spirit cannot be in you.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by non dignus]

 

[Dan....]

Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader.



Question for those who consider Dr. McMahon's article as good:

Does this mean that when I visit my sister, and she invites me to attend services with her at her Fundamental Baptist Church, that I should refuse, lest I worship with those who are worshipping a "false god" and partake in their idolatry?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

There are practical questions that should be asked regarding how do we apply such a view; however, do not sidestep the overarching question: is Arminianism truth? Does Arminiansim describe the God of Holy Scripture? If not, then why join in one accord in worshipping a god that is not revealed to us through Holy Scripture?

If a church and any person consistently teaches what their non-reformed view concludes, then they will confidently proclaim from the pulpit, that God is not all-knowing, and/or that man is saved not by Christ alone, but by Christ plus some goodness inside ourselves.

Most churches, will run far away from such a proclamation even though it is the necessary inference of their non-calvinistic stance.

All professing Christians and churches are Calvinist by faith even if they do not understand why or how. We should anathemize the necessary conclusions but not those people who out of shear ignorance do not bother to understand a perplexing; confounding; bewildering; complex doctrine.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Dan....
Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader.



Question for those who consider Dr. McMahon's article as good:

Does this mean that when I visit my sister, and she invites me to attend services with her at her Fundamental Baptist Church, that I should refuse, lest I worship with those who are worshipping a "false god" and partake in their idolatry?

Yes, by all means go.
Just attend as you would a rotary club meeting or a Roman Catholic mass. When it's time to pray, ask the true God if He is being honored in this assembly and what your response ought to be.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Dan....
Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader.



Question for those who consider Dr. McMahon's article as good:

Does this mean that when I visit my sister, and she invites me to attend services with her at her Fundamental Baptist Church, that I should refuse, lest I worship with those who are worshipping a "false god" and partake in their idolatry?

I lean towards historicism amillennial. I wonder if I should beware the god of post-millennialism?

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by Dan....
Mega dittos to Pastor Way, Martin Marprelate, Ben Duncan and Brett Rader.



Question for those who consider Dr. McMahon's article as good:

Does this mean that when I visit my sister, and she invites me to attend services with her at her Fundamental Baptist Church, that I should refuse, lest I worship with those who are worshipping a "false god" and partake in their idolatry?

Yes, by all means go.
Just attend as you would a rotary club meeting or a Roman Catholic mass. When it's time to pray, ask the true God if He is being honored in this assembly and what your response ought to be.

How can you say this and then as your signature have a quote by CS Lewis, a damned heretic?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by non dignus
Pastorway,
There is no need for hyperbole. I think we can all agree that as we grow, we are responsible for what God has called us to so far. If you are a mature believer, confronted point by point with scripture against a doctrine of works righteousness, and do not yield, the Holy Spirit cannot be in you.

First of all, this is a misattribution: Phillip Way did not write the text you quote.

Second, if you are publicly accusing an ordained minister of the gospel in good standing of not being a believer because of this issue you will recant and apologize right now, or you will be banned.

I await your prompt response.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Arch2k]

It seems to me that those who dismiss the idea that Matt is portraying as ridiculous or "cultic" do not understand the historic reformation/puritan stance on Arminians (if today's Arminians are "better" or "worse" than the Arminians in those days is another issue).

Calvin did not treat them as brethren. Dort condemned them and kicked them ministers out of the pulpits, and drove them out of the country. The Puritans wrote viciously against them.

Would those who react against Matt's article react the same against the like of John Owen? If so, they are consistent, if not...they should rethink their position.

I find it all too often that reformed folk find no fault in the reformers/puritans for their zeal in defending the gospel against the heretics of their day, but in today's society, sterness for the sake of the gospel is looked upon as unloving and uncalled for.

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
A Display of Arminianism by John Owen:

One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit,"”"œmors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJerolemon, [4] "œa holy war," to such enemies of God´s providence, Christ´s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters. [5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,"”"œthe depths and crafts of Satan;" we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,"”like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,"”give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed.