The Arminian "god" is not Worshippable

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I think some on the PB have a hard time pinning down what they think the Gospel means, but have emptied it of its content and are confusing certain parts of what makes grace and faith exist or separate. As I said before, I think many are confusing regeneration (sovereign grace that regenerates the heart apart from exercising anything on your behalf) and conversion (knowing a content filled understanding of the Gospel and exercising that assensus, notitia and fiducia).

Again, I still see people trying to pit the straw man of "The Five Points" vs "The Contemporary Church" where I never went there in the article.

I'm with Adam at this point on what many of you are arguing against on this one - I just ain't seein it!

You cannot have faith in anything devoid of essential meaning, no matter how small in degree. It must have content. Not a Ph.D. You need Gospel CONTENT. As a matter of fact, you need the LAW, a knowledge of GOD the Father, a knowledge of the work of the Son, Sin, the cross, - CONTENT.

Think about this - are you agitated or angry at this paragraph?:

If I write a an article on the heresy of anti-trinitarianism, and follow Chalcedon, Ephesus and Nicea, would people have a rough time with that? I mean, can you be a Christian and deny the Trinity? How can you know God without knowing Christ without knowing the Trinity? Impossible. Again, to deny it is to fall into a TRINITARIAN heresy. But that seems basic enough. Are you agitated that people must know God, must know the Trinity, must know Jesus (God's Son) to be saved? Those who deny the Trinity are lost. What if you do not know the Father? Well, Jesus says that to know God the Father is to know and vice versa. If one does not know the Trinity, they cannot know God. If they cannot know God, they can't be saved. (Don't get mad at me get mad at Christ, He said it). Those who deny those things or are ignorant of those things in their system of "salvation" are lost. They don't know God. But wait - are you agitated that I said that?

If the above bothered you, then you are simply missing the point of the article I wrote, and you missing the point in that paragraph as well. You are confusing regeneration (being born again and saved) and conversion. My article was not about regeneration or how that works. My article was about an invalid system of idolatry, and whether one believes it or not. Some do.

The Gospel matters and what Gospel you believe matters. John's Gospel alone uses the term "believe" so many times it unfathomable that one should "know" the Gospel without "believing" it (remember we are talking about faith and conversion, not regeneration - stop confusing your categories.)

Someone said to me today:

I can't even believe what your boys are arguing about on the Puritanboard. I mean, its the PURITANboard, and they are angry that you called Arminianism heresy? What is that all about??

He is a wonderful, loving Southern Baptist brother who believes the doctrines of grace. I'm as confounded as he is on this thread.

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

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
(remember we are talking about faith and conversion, not regeneration - stop confusing your categories.)

There has been no confusion of categories.

The simple Gospel is quite sufficient for both faith and conversion.

Arminians affirm monotheism.
Arminians affirm the deity of Christ.
Arminians agree that our sin merits eternal punishment.
Arminians agree that we can do nothing to wash away our own sin.
Arminians believe that only Jesus can pay for sin.
Arminians believe that Jesus did pay for their sin by His death on Calvary.

Arminians believe the Gospel well enough to be saved. Do they understand it perfectly? No. But then again, we don't understand it perfectly either.

A simple belief in the simple Gospel is quite enough for salvation.




By the way, Matt, you are way off-base if you require Chalcedonian-compliant belief in the Trinity in order for someone to be saved. It took the church centuries to work out the doctrine of the Trinity. It is NOT a requirement for salvation.

Early Christians knew that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. But did they really have a clue how it all fit together? Not really. I do not believe that the very early church had a handle on Chalcedonian Trinitarianism. And frankly, most Christians today don't have a handle on it either.

In fact, as I think back on my own thoughts regarding the Trinity a few years ago, I would now say that I used to be a modalist. I used to say, "God is one, but sometimes He shows Himself to us as the Father; sometimes He shows Himself to us as the Son, and sometimes He shows Himself to us as the Holy Spirit." I was certainly in error. But was I therefore unregenerate? Not by a long shot. In my case, God cleared up my Arminian error before He bothered to clear up my Trinitarian error. And I thank Him for rescuing me from both errors! I am now Chalcedonian compliant, as well as TULIP friendly. But neither of those things are what make me a Christian.




I am a Christian for very simple reasons:

1) I believe in monotheism.
2) I believe Jesus is God.
3) I believe I naturally stand condemned by my sin, and that I cannot atone for my own sin.
4) I believe Jesus paid the debt for my sin on the cross.
5) I believe Jesus rose from death.

That's all there is to it. That is a Gospel message that even a little child can understand. And it is perfectly sufficient to save an adult, as well.

If you believe these simple truths, then you are not only regenerate, but you also have faith, and you have been converted.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by 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?

Common grace.

Dr. Matt you are on the right side of history!

A word of advice to those on the wrong side:
If Pelagianism is heresy and Arminianism is semi-Pelagianism, you will be on record as compromising with semi-heresy.

 

[pastorway]

Matt,

I am not surprised that you do not see it. This is not the first time you have anathemized part of the Body of Christ based on Reformed Theology and the Westminster Confession. Perhaps that is why this is generating so much heat. It has become a noticeable and recurring plank in your belief system.

If people do not believe your full definition of the gospel then they are damned, even if they are just ignorant and have never been taught.

That is what is most disturbing though. That you actually thought this out and wrote it and don't see what you said!

The words you chose to communicate your thoughts may reveal more about your own heart than you understand. The way the article is built and framed, it is logically clear that you have said that to deny any part of the Doctrines of Grace is to deny the whole content of the gospel and to worship a false god as an idolater.

I cannot put it more simply than this. Your article makes belief in TULIP as a whole unit of doctrine necessary to worship the true God and be saved. It replaces Jesus Christ (who is Himself the content of the gospel) with TULIP.

And don't play this smoke and mirror game that is so popular of late - "you are confusing regeneration and conversion." It won't fly. You have made statements in this article that are clear in condemning people to hell who are ignorant of the doctrines of grace.

KC is right when he writes: "We cannot say that they worshiped a false God because they didn't fully understand the doctrines of grace."

But that is exactly what you have stated in your attack against arminianism. You have gone beyond attacking heresy and have launched a strike against members of the Body of Christ. We do not need any more friendly fire casualties in the battle for the gospel.

Whether you or others see it or not I am saying that this article is an attack on the church and the gospel. Otherwise I would not have given it a second thought.

I am praying that God opens your eyes and that you see what you have written, and repent.


Phillip

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
I think some on the PB have a hard time pinning down what they think the Gospel means, but have emptied it of its content and are confusing certain parts of what makes grace and faith exist or separate. As I said before, I think many are confusing regeneration (sovereign grace that regenerates the heart apart from exercising anything on your behalf) and conversion (knowing a content filled understanding of the Gospel and exercising that assensus, notitia and fiducia).

Matthew, I am having a difficult time seeing this as chronologically separated by any significant amount of time. Pehaps I could see this in infancy, but I don't see that there are regenerate Gospel deniers. That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by raderag

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
I think some on the PB have a hard time pinning down what they think the Gospel means, but have emptied it of its content and are confusing certain parts of what makes grace and faith exist or separate. As I said before, I think many are confusing regeneration (sovereign grace that regenerates the heart apart from exercising anything on your behalf) and conversion (knowing a content filled understanding of the Gospel and exercising that assensus, notitia and fiducia).

Matthew, I am having a difficult time seeing this as chronologically separated by any significant amount of time. Pehaps I could see this in infancy, but I don't see that there are regenerate Gospel deniers. That just doesn't make sense.

I don't think that is what Matt is suggesting. I think what he means is that the attacks on his article are aimed at defending regeneration (an immediate act of God that requires nothing on our part) while Matt's article is about conversion (mainly the content of faith).

Even though they most likely happen at the same time for adults, they are still distinct doctrines.

Am I making sense?

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by raderag

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
I think some on the PB have a hard time pinning down what they think the Gospel means, but have emptied it of its content and are confusing certain parts of what makes grace and faith exist or separate. As I said before, I think many are confusing regeneration (sovereign grace that regenerates the heart apart from exercising anything on your behalf) and conversion (knowing a content filled understanding of the Gospel and exercising that assensus, notitia and fiducia).

Matthew, I am having a difficult time seeing this as chronologically separated by any significant amount of time. Pehaps I could see this in infancy, but I don't see that there are regenerate Gospel deniers. That just doesn't make sense.

I don't think that is what Matt is suggesting. I think what he means is that the attacks on his article are aimed at defending regeneration (an immediate act of God that requires nothing on our part) while Matt's article is about conversion (mainly the content of faith).

Even though they most likely happen at the same time for adults, they are still distinct doctrines.

Am I making sense?

Sure, I understand that, but the only way we are confusing them is if there are regenerate out there that deny the Gospel.

I think Matthew and Scott are saying that Arminians can be regenerate but usually not converted. Perhaps I misunderstood though...

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by raderag

Sure, I understand that, but the only way we are confusing them is if there are regenerate out there that deny the Gospel.

I think Matthew and Scott are saying that Arminians can be regenerate but usually not converted. Perhaps I misunderstood though...

Depends on how you define "Gospel" doesn't it.

 

[pastorway]

posted by Jeff
I don't think that is what Matt is suggesting. I think what he means is that the attacks on his article are aimed at defending regeneration (an immediate act of God that requires nothing on our part) while Matt's article is about conversion (mainly the content of faith).

So you think Matt is saying that to be converted you have to have as the content of your faith the doctrines of grace?

[Edited on 2-10-06 by pastorway]

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by raderag

Sure, I understand that, but the only way we are confusing them is if there are regenerate out there that deny the Gospel.

I think Matthew and Scott are saying that Arminians can be regenerate but usually not converted. Perhaps I misunderstood though...

Depends on how you define "Gospel" doesn't it.

No.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by raderag

Sure, I understand that, but the only way we are confusing them is if there are regenerate out there that deny the Gospel.

I think Matthew and Scott are saying that Arminians can be regenerate but usually not converted. Perhaps I misunderstood though...

Depends on how you define "Gospel" doesn't it.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I am a Christian for very simple reasons:

1) I believe in monotheism.
2) I believe Jesus is God.
3) I believe I naturally stand condemned by my sin, and that I cannot atone for my own sin.
4) I believe Jesus paid the debt for my sin on the cross.
5) I believe Jesus rose from death.

Ok, so there is NO problem if I make my list look like this..(see #3 and #4)

I am a Christian for very simple reasons:

1) I believe in monotheism.
2) I believe Jesus is God.
3) I believe I naturally stand condemned by my sin, and I must act in order to obtain salvation from my sins that Christ awaits for me (and all) to accept
4) I believe Jesus paid the debt for the sins of all who seek Him on the cross.
5) I believe Jesus rose from death.
6) I need never to believe anything else nor is anything else ever required of me.

That's how I once believed. The problem with that was not only #3 but the fact that I went about looking to get others to simply confess the same because of #4 & #6.

Jesus was sort of "out there" with a big stick poking people. Everyone (or most) felt conviction for some sin and all I had to do was point that out and tell the convicted person to "say this prayer". I learned this method from many pastors who preached conviction messages followed by a slow sad song at an alter call and boy was it often effective! I lead many astray I fear I've convinced many that they are saved from their sins who are not.

Some of you are saying I was only in error but truely saved. I have a hard time believing that.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by pastorway
So you think Matt is saying that to be converted you have to have as the content of your faith the doctrines of grace?

I didn't even want to really enter this discussion beyond reading it, which is why I only posted one brief comment very early-on in the thread in hopes of clearing up a then-potential misunderstanding, which clearly did not work. I honestly can't even believe this thread has gotten as long as it has - mainly because it really seems to me that what is at the heart of at least a lot or most (though maybe not all) of the disagreement is a very basic misunderstanding:

That misunderstanding is, namely, that the above-quoted statement is something supported or suggested by Matt's article, or anything him or most of the other people have said in this thread. Both he and many others here have said repeatedly that what is being referred to as heresy is the full system of historic Arminianism, and that if someone's beliefs are truly consistent with that system, they do not understand the Gospel and hence are not converted - but they have also (unsuccesfully, it seems) tried to make it abundantly clear many times that they are not accusing all (or even most) non-Calvinists (even the many who call themselves "Arminians" today) of being in such a state, namely because most of them fortunately do not fully or consistently understand or embrace the whole, actual system of historic Arminianism.

If nothing else, I think everyone needs to at least sit back, cool down and make an increased effort to understand what other people are saying before just typing another umpteenth post.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Phillip, on this board, you take the prize and are the KING of putting words into people's mouth's that just aren't there.

Originally posted by pastorway
I am not surprised that you do not see it. This is not the first time you have anathemized part of the Body of Christ based on Reformed Theology and the Westminster Confession.

Quote me another. Where did I anthematize others that should not be eternally damned?

If people do not believe your full definition of the gospel then they are damned, even if they are just ignorant and have never been taught.

If you think this, I can't see how you read the article 6 times. Did you have your eyes opened when you read it? I specifically designated three kinds of people that may be under Arminian teaching, and three designations of where people may be at. The Arminians you are trying to protect, don't need your protecting - its a straw man you are belaboring.

That is what is most disturbing though. That you actually thought this out and wrote it and don't see what you said!

I know exactly what I said, and that is why Chris Blum, for example, our young but very estute brother, saw immediately that I was not saying what you seem to be putting into my mouth. He called it, rightlyfully, a "straw man". Go read his post.

The words you chose to communicate your thoughts may reveal more about your own heart than you understand. The way the article is built and framed, it is logically clear that you have said that to deny any part of the Doctrines of Grace is to deny the whole content of the gospel and to worship a false god as an idolater.

The Scriptures I quoted, tell me, which ones don't apply to the Gospel? Phillip, I can't even believe you are defending Arminianism. Really. Its amazing. I'm amazed.

I cannot put it more simply than this. Your article makes belief in TULIP as a whole unit of doctrine necessary to worship the true God and be saved. It replaces Jesus Christ (who is Himself the content of the gospel) with TULIP.

This is what seems to be a problem, 1) I never mentioned TULIP, I simply mentioned and explained aspects of the Gospel that people seem to think are not the Gospel. Those who think so need to turn into real redation critics and they needs to cut out of thier bibles those things that don't apply to the Gospel. i'd like to see your bible's when they are finsihed. 2) You are DIS-equating the Gospel with TULIP. I can't see how a Christian who believes the doctrines of Grace could do that. (Although that has no bearing on the article at all).

And don't play this smoke and mirror game that is so popular of late - "you are confusing regeneration and conversion." It won't fly. You have made statements in this article that are clear in condemning people to hell who are ignorant of the doctrines of grace.

You are confusing them and you are mistaking what sovereign grace is for what people actually hold in belief. They are not the same. Its not smoke an dmirrors, its BASIC STUFF that Dordt already outlined.

KC is right when he writes: "We cannot say that they worshiped a false God because they didn't fully understand the doctrines of grace."

Where did I say or not say this anywhere in the article?

But that is exactly what you have stated in your attack against arminianism.

Quote me exactly.

You have gone beyond attacking heresy and have launched a strike against members of the Body of Christ.

No, actually, I said exactly what Ness said, what Leighton said, what Edwards said, what Owen said, what the Synod fo Dordt said....do I really need to remimnd the naysayers in this thread that they are going against everything the church has said about heresy for 500 years? Are you guys really going to jump on THAT side of the fence? Huh?

I am saying that this article is an attack on the church and the gospel. Otherwise I would not have given it a second thought.

So you are saying that the Reformed Faith has basically attacked the church and the Gospel in reguarding Arminianism as heresy for the last 500 years, and Pelagianism as heresy for the last 1800 years? Are you really saying that?

I'm not shocked easily. I am shocked in reading through this whole thread again. How ANYONE Christian could wink at heresy is beyond me. Please, read through the Synod of Dordt and thier descriptions of Arminianism. If you repudiate the artile, you repudiate the Synod's conclusions as well, and the very reason the Gospel was protected at that time FROM heresy.

Do you think this is the Gospel or not:

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ´s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: "œHe that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, "œFor God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: "œAnd he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, incli9nation, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, "œWithout me ye can do nothing."

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neiÂther think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasÂmuch as it is written conÂcerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elseÂwhere in many places.

Article 5

That those who are inÂcorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well unÂderstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ´s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: "œNeither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivÂered them, of losing a good conscience, of beÂcoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, beÂfore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

If you think these are "OK" then you fit right in with these guys.

Are there any others hwo think Arminianism is heresy? Thankfully:

From the Apologetics Group
http://apologeticsgroup.com
A Display of Arminianism by John Owen - This was Owen's first publication (1642) and immediately brought him into notice. It contains numerous useful charts contrasting Arminian doctrines, from some of their major teachers, with those of Scripture (Calvinism) in a side-by-side format. Owen leaves no room for compromise with Arminianism as he shows why this is, when sincerely believed, a dangerous, devilish and damnable heresy!

Monergism has the same thing on thier site.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/displayarninian.html

The Highway
http://www.the-highway.com/arminianismTOC_Ness.html
An easy to read, but totally devastating attack against the heresy of Arminianism.
Recommended reading by John Owen, John Gill, and Augustus Toplady

Crown Rights
http://crownrights.com/store/produc...id=45&osCsid=39a3f4b49d264ab3698db048b6291697
Of the seventeenth-century Puritans, John Owen was by far the most influential. His defences of the Reformed faith were so articulate and precise that they stand unrefuted even to this day. In this volume, Owen meticulously exposes from the Scriptures the heresy of Arminianism, or Semi-Pelagianism, and shows that its doctrine of free will stands opposed to the biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

Reformednet.org
http://reformednet.org/refnet/admin/refnet.htm
The Reformed Churches have Already rejected some of the now prevalent Heresies and Mis-Guided Teachings.
The Heresy of Arminianism: the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) where the largest Reformed church synod, composed of members from various countries, declared Arminianism to be heresy,

Is Arminianism a damnable heresy?
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/pribble/damnable.html
OPC pastor Stephen Pribble says, along with Dordt...
"Having been condemned by the Synod of Dordrecht (Dort) in 1618-1619, Arminianism is indeed a heresy,..."

At the Spurgeon Archives, Spurgeon says:
"And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer?"
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
James White quotes Spurgeon against Arminianism with this same sermon here: http://www.aomin.org/huntvsspurgeon.html

The PRCA website has it numerous times in relation to the Synod of Dordt"
This is the old heresy of Arminianism.
http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/chapter4.html

Herman Hanko says:
At the time when (and up to the time of the meeting of the Synod of Dordt) the State was in the hands of men who favored Arminianism, or at least did not think the entire matter of Arminius' heresy was sufficiently important to create trouble about it in the Church. The result was that Arminius was appointed with the blessing of the State.
http://spindleworks.com/library/brj/brj_nov_99_dort.htm

Gilbertus Voetis
http://vbru.club.fr/src/theologiens/voetius.htm
But the Reformed faith was being threatened by a growing attachment of many ministers and leaders to the evil heresy of Arminianism.

Christian Doctrine
http://www.christiandoctrine.net/about/beliefs_web.htm
"This belief is based on the fact that charismaticism is rooted in the heresy of Arminianism, which directly contradicts God's stated plan of salvation..."

There are so many sites that say this, I can't imagine that you would think I said anything contrary to what even Spurgeon said.

I mean, do I have to list all the greats of church history here? Are you fathoming who openly declared Arminianism as heresy? Entire Confessional documents were written against it.

Please, ask me to make a list for you and I will......

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by houseparent

I am a Christian for very simple reasons:

1) I believe in monotheism.
2) I believe Jesus is God.
3) I believe I naturally stand condemned by my sin, and that I cannot atone for my own sin.
4) I believe Jesus paid the debt for my sin on the cross.
5) I believe Jesus rose from death.

Ok, so there is NO problem if I make my list look like this..(see #3 and #4)

I am a Christian for very simple reasons:

1) I believe in monotheism.
2) I believe Jesus is God.
3) I believe I naturally stand condemned by my sin, and I must act in order to obtain salvation from my sins that Christ awaits for me (and all) to accept
4) I believe Jesus paid the debt for the sins of all who seek Him on the cross.
5) I believe Jesus rose from death.
6) I need never to believe anything else nor is anything else ever required of me.

That's how I once believed. The problem with that was not only #3 but the fact that I went about looking to get others to simply confess the same because of #4 & #6.

Jesus was sort of "out there" with a big stick poking people. Everyone (or most) felt conviction for some sin and all I had to do was point that out and tell the convicted person to "say this prayer". I learned this method from many pastors who preached conviction messages followed by a slow sad song at an alter call and boy was it often effective! I lead many astray I fear I've convinced many that they are saved from their sins who are not.

Some of you are saying I was only in error but truely saved. I have a hard time believing that.

Adam,

Actually the #3 and #4 you added are true!

It is true that you must act in order to obtain salvation from your sins.
It is true that the outward call is given to all --- Everyone who hears the Gospel is outwardly called to accept.
It is true that Jesus paid the debt for the sins of all who seek Him on the cross.

But there is more knowledge needed to explain these truths in a Calvinistic way:

1) A person must learn that their initial act was a result of regeneration, not the cause of it.

2) A person must learn that there is an inward call, not just an outward call.

3) A person must learn that they never would have sought Jesus on the cross, without first being regenerated.


All of these things are important, but none of them is a critical part of the Gospel . . . a person can be saved without knowing these things.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by pastorway
So you think Matt is saying that to be converted you have to have as the content of your faith the doctrines of grace?

I didn't even want to really enter this discussion beyond reading it, which is why I only posted one brief comment very early-on in the thread in hopes of clearing up a then-potential misunderstanding, which clearly did not work. I honestly can't even believe this thread has gotten as long as it has - mainly because it really seems to me that what is at the heart of at least a lot or most (though maybe not all) of the disagreement is a very basic misunderstanding:

That misunderstanding is, namely, that the above-quoted statement is something supported or suggested by Matt's article, or anything him or most of the other people have said in this thread. Both he and many others here have said repeatedly that what is being referred to as heresy is the full system of historic Arminianism, and that if someone's beliefs are truly consistent with that system, they do not understand the Gospel and hence are not converted - but they have also (unsuccesfully, it seems) tried to make it abundantly clear many times that they are not accusing all (or even most) non-Calvinists (even the many who call themselves "Arminians" today) of being in such a state, namely because most of them fortunately do not fully or consistently understand or embrace the whole, actual system of historic Arminianism.

If nothing else, I think everyone needs to at least sit back, cool down and make an increased effort to understand what other people are saying before just typing another umpteenth post.

THANK YOU BROTHER! Maybe they will hear you(?)!

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
I mean, do I have to list all the greats of church history here? Are you fathoming who openly declared Arminianism as heresy? Entire Confessional documents were written against it.

Please, ask me to make a list for you and I will......

Write a book! I'd buy it in a heartbeat!

It seems the church needs constant reminders of where we have been, and the battles we have alread fought...and won (or at least we thought we won).

 

[Me Died Blue]

Adam, I'll ultimately let Matt speak for himself on this, but frankly, I think you're going beyond what he intended to say in the current article or anywhere else - and you're certainly going beyond what the vast majority of historic Calvinists have said on this issue.

As Jeff noted well above, the Westminster Standards (being one of the representative documents of historic Reformed belief), in defining saving faith do indeed posit a required knowledge that one does not possess the complete ability to wholly redeem himself, and thus that a works-based Gospel cannot save. But you seem to be suggesting that any form of a persistent belief in anything less than historic Calvinism is one-and-the-same with works-righteousness Gospel, which simply does not hold water logically or biblically, and is certainly not supported by the great majority of historic Reformed confessions and theologians.

Remember that George Whitefield replied to his pupils who asked him if he thought he would see Wesley in Heaven by saying no, because Wesley would be too close to the throne of God! And Whitefield is but one example of the like-minded pastors and teachers throughout Reformed history.

 

[ReformedWretch]

1) A person must learn that their initial act was a result of regeneration, not the cause of it.

2) A person must learn that there is an inward call, not just an outward call.

3) A person must learn that they never would have sought Jesus on the cross, without first being regenerated.


All of these things are important, but none of them is a critical part of the Gospel . . . a person can be saved without knowing these things.

Ok, a person has been "saved" lets say for 50 years. Upon his death bed he's heard these things but rejected them. He still believes

1) That he sought out Christ for salvation because God would never interfere with his free will.

2) He believes he had an "inward" call because he decided to hear/accept it while others simply do not.

3) He believes that he sought Christ because he was smart enough to realize he needed to heed the Spirits call instead of reject or fight it.

A person who dies in that state...was he ever saved?

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by houseparent

1) A person must learn that their initial act was a result of regeneration, not the cause of it.

2) A person must learn that there is an inward call, not just an outward call.

3) A person must learn that they never would have sought Jesus on the cross, without first being regenerated.


All of these things are important, but none of them is a critical part of the Gospel . . . a person can be saved without knowing these things.

Ok, a person has been "saved" lets say for 50 years. Upon his death bed he's heard these things but rejected them. He still believes

1) That he sought out Christ for salvation because God would never interfere with his free will.

2) He believes he had an "inward" call because he decided to hear/accept it while others simply do not.

3) He believes that he sought Christ because he was smart enough to realize he needed to heed the Spirits call instead of reject or fight it.

A person who dies in that state...was he ever saved?

I have said it before, but reductionism and theology are a very bad mix. Furthermore, odd examples do not make good systematic theology.

 

[ReformedWretch]

It's not an odd example to me. I know MANY who believe this way. If not for the grace of God I still would.

 

[Arch2k]

Chris,

First, I just want to say I appreciate the posts you have made on this thread in trying to recognize fallacious reasoning. I just happened to see a couple of things in your last post that I wanted to comment on.

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
As Jeff noted well above, the Westminster Standards (being one of the representative documents of historic Reformed belief), in defining saving faith do indeed posit a required knowledge that one does not possess the complete ability to wholly redeem himself, and thus that a works-based Gospel cannot save.

This may be just nit-picking, but for clarifications sake I wanted to comment on the underlined portion of your quote (and especially the bolded words). Interpreting the WLC in these words seem to allow for a synergistic view point that the WLC explicitly does not allow for. The answer says that a belief in the "disability" of himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition. As a part of justifying faith, this necitates a belief in total depravity as prerequisite (or part of even) the gospel. I am not saying that a person must believe all five points to be a christian. Not at all. But I am suggesting that they must believe this one, and I think the catechism agrees with this line of thinking.

Here is just one substantiating point to defend what I have said:

See A Puritan Quiz. Here's the relevant question:

4. The Puritans would agree that a person could be saved without believing and apprehending the Doctrine of Total Depravity. TRUE FALSE

What answer is given?

4. The Puritans would agree that a person could be saved without believing and apprehending the Doctrine of Total Depravity. FALSE

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
But you seem to be suggesting that any form of a persistent belief in anything less than historic Calvinism is one-and-the-same with works-righteousness Gospel, which simply does not hold water logically or biblically, and is certainly not supported by the great majority of historic Reformed confessions and theologians.

Like you said, I will let Adam speak for himself, but I do not see him saying that. What I do see him saying is that Arminians (who reject total depravity and believe their free will saves them) are not saved.

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Remember that George Whitefield replied to his pupils who asked him if he thought he would see Wesley in Heaven by saying no, because Wesley would be too close to the throne of God! And Whitefield is but one example of the like-minded pastors and teachers throughout Reformed history.

Just to be fair on this, Augustus Toplady, another staunch Calvinist during the exact same era had violent exchanges with Wesley which included Wesley saying to Toplady's Calvinist God "If that is your God, then He's my devil!" Needless to say, Toplday did not consider Arminians as brothers. Read several of his works on APM, including Arminianism, The Road to Rome and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Thanks again for your posts Chris.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Like you said, I will let Adam speak for himself, but I do not see him saying that. What I do see him saying is that Arminians (who reject total depravity and believe their free will saves them) are not saved.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by houseparent]

 

[kceaster]

It is one thing to call out the wolf in sheep's clothing and confute his error. It is another thing, entirely, to say that all of the sheep in his particular flock are following him to hell in that error.

We need to be careful here. Again, we're talking about who is saved and who isn't. In my humble opinion, we may be quite surprized on judgment day as to who God has saved in spite of our reservations. Remember, he saves. And where the seed has fallen, some bring forth 30, some 60, and some 100 fold. I think that should tell us that the Spirit does not impart to all of Christ's disciples the same amount of understanding. But we should see that it is the quality of understanding, not the quantity. I am sure we'll see John Wesley in glory. I have no doubt in my mind about this. Did he err? Of course. But can anyone say he was not saved? If one does, one should be judged in the same way he has judged.

I think we're talking above our paygrade here!

It is one thing to show an error for what it is. It is competely different to judge a group of people for where God has them even now. He has them in His hand and He put them there, if they are there. We didn't put them there, and their own level of understanding about God did not put them there.

I think we should abandon this discussion for now. I don't think it is helping. Please consider these things carefully. We do not need to rush to judgment on something that, frankly, God does not need our help in adjudicating.

Suffice it to say that Arminianism is in error. But we go too far when we claim that some darkness is too dark in which God might save someone. May I remind all that the confession says too, that churches are a mixture of truth and error, and that there have been times of darkness as well as light. But, drawing a line in the sand is not going to help anyone. Proclaim the truth as the Scriptures do. But leave it to God by His Spirit to convince, rebuke, exhort, and perfect.

Please consider carefully.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by pastorway
Matt,

...If people do not believe your full definition of the gospel then they are damned, even if they are just ignorant and have never been taught....

You know what Philip? When you post in other forums that you lament the way people communicate on this board I take you at face value.

Originally posted by pastorway
I would suggest asking questions to figure out if the person is understanding the arguments put forth. It is basic communication 101. Ask questions to clarify.

Instead many assume as soon as they see that youy have a different take that you don't get it or understand and immediately move to burn the straw man.

Sometimes a perspective that seems like a straw man really is not. There are several facets to an argument, and none of us can have them all figured out all at once. So we need to COMMUNICATE instead of assume and attack.

We need more dialogue and less debate.

Phillip

Which is the real you?

I've been biting my tongue on a number of forums for a long time concerning your posts. I am a man with much passion but I also repent of my sin when my passion takes me too far. You regularly post things that I would consider quite sanctimonious. I've been trying to be patient with you because we have diverse views on some controversial subjects and I very much want us to get along, perhaps even be friendly toward one another, and not just love each other, as Christ commands, while having to grit our teeth to do it.

Let me quote myself:

Originally posted by SemperFideles
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.

From Matt's own hands:

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Think about this - are you agitated or angry at this paragraph?:

If I write a an article on the heresy of anti-trinitarianism, and follow Chalcedon, Ephesus and Nicea, would people have a rough time with that? I mean, can you be a Christian and deny the Trinity? How can you know God without knowing Christ without knowing the Trinity? Impossible. Again, to deny it is to fall into a TRINITARIAN heresy. But that seems basic enough. Are you agitated that people must know God, must know the Trinity, must know Jesus (God's Son) to be saved? Those who deny the Trinity are lost. What if you do not know the Father? Well, Jesus says that to know God the Father is to know and vice versa. If one does not know the Trinity, they cannot know God. If they cannot know God, they can't be saved. (Don't get mad at me get mad at Christ, He said it). Those who deny those things or are ignorant of those things in their system of "salvation" are lost. They don't know God. But wait - are you agitated that I said that?

In other words he IS talking about a system of doctrine, Arminianism, that leads people in a bad direction.

When are YOU going to apply Communications 101 principles. I've been leading men and women for over 18 years. A primary maxim is to Lead by Example. If you want others to apply grace on this forum then you ought to begin by leading others in that direction. I see no grace exhibited by you toward Matt, a real brother sitting in front of you. Instead, you exhibit concern for hypothetical brothers that you are sure are offended and led astray but cannot produce a single case of actual harm that his article has produced.

Further, you are unwilling, apparently, to let Matt speak for himself as to what the article actually means to him. How about you say, "Please explain this to me Matt because I don't want to jump to conclusions...." Instead you jumped into a full-orbed condemnation and when Matt finally expressed his real motives you would not accept them. You repeatedly use STRAW MAN arguments completely twisting what he said. There I USED THE WORD because you are being very uncharitable.

If you truly want to help Matt then begin by accepting Matt's intentions and quit ascribing to him false motives and, by extension, accusing him of bearing false witness. THEN demonstrate to him how he might get his intent across with better words. Instead, I see you focusing on Matt's thoughts as if you can divine what he intends. I can get on board with some of you concern regarding how it is crafted and might be received. What I find fault with is that you are using the very method you condemn in others to condemn Matt.

So I say to you, that it is not everyone on this board, excluding Philip M. Way, that needs to learn a bit of brotherly love, lonsuffering, and charity. I think you need to consider your own words and be convicted by them. You are among those who contribute to the poisonous mood of this forum and need to repent of your pride in this matter.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Kevin,

Heresy breeds children. Though I didn't ever make a blanket statement that all the disciples of a heretic are necessarily heretics in that article, we would have to admit that Jesus actually did.

Matthew 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Christ was angry at them because He knew heresy breeds children that are even worse than the former. A false teacher creates worse chidlren becaue all they know is the heresy and believe it to be true.


Maybe a more helpful paper should be written as to why Arminianism is Pelgianism repackaged. Would we all have a problem with Pelagianism?

The Synod said in RE 2:3 - That Arminius and the Remonstrants "summon back from hell the Pelagian error."

That seems a bit harsh eh? According to Phillip, these men are waging war against, not only the church, but the Gospel too!

They said that Arminianism:

"deceive(s) the simple" (Rejection of Errors 1:1)
"is an invention of the human brain" (RE 1:2)
is a "pernicious error" (RE 1:3)
"smacks of Pelagius" (RE 1:4)
"runs counter to the entire Scripture" (RE 1:5, 3:4)
is "gross error" (RE 1:6)
"militate(s) against the experience of the saints"
"is contrary to Scripture" (RE 2:1)
"contradict(s) Scripture" (RE 2:4)
"attempt(s) to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism." (RE 2:6)
"contradict(s) the apostle" and "contradict(s) the Savior" (RE 2:7)
"is an insult to the wisdom of God " (RE 3:1)
"are opposed to the plain testimonies of Scripture" (RE 4:4)
" this teaching is entirely Pelagian and contrary to the whole of Scripture" (RE 3:7)
"the early church already condemned this doctrine long ago in the Pelagians," (RE 3:9)
"this view is obviously Pelagian" (RE 5:2)
"nullifies the very grace of justification and regeneration " (RE 5:3)

Listen closely, those who are for defending Arminianism, to what the council concluded:

"That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, with its associated points, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads the minds of men away from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally pierces many with darts both of despair and security; that this same doctrine makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes. And conversely that, in this Reformed doctrine of predestination, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that this same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestined the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them." And they go on to suggest many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge but detest with their whole soul.

Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, entreats as many as reverently call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to judge the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the slander which on every side is heaped upon it, nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted and taken to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from this declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod. Moreover, the Synod warns slanderers themselves to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak, and for laboring to render suspect the society of the truly faithful.

Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father's right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth; bring to the truth those who err; shut the mouths of the slanderers of sound doctrine, and endow the faithful ministers of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. Amen."

Edit in:

Thanks Rich for that last post.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Civbert]

I'm sure someone has noted this, but there has been a problem of definitions here - of what is an Arminian. To put a new spin on a stale metaphor - going to an Arminian church does not make one an Arminian any more than going to McDonald's makes one a hamburger.*

If an Arminian is someone who believes the Arminian doctrine, then it seems that Arminians are heretics - and bound for hell if they never reform. But if an Arminian is someone who is a member of an Arminian church (and this is the most common use of the term), then not all Arminians are heretics. Indeed, some Arminians (maybe most) do not believe all the heretical doctrines of Arminianism.

Not all Jews are Jews at heart. Not all who claim the WCF truly believe it.

As it often is the case, much hinges on what definition you are using.

...

Now I'm going to find a hamburger. :bigsmile:

*P.S. The stale metaphor is pretty bad because I think in most cased, we do mean people who are members of Arminian churches when we say someone is an Arminian. So please take that bad pun with a heavy dose of salt and french fries. (Yes I really am hungry).

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Puritanhead]

For the record, my scant remarks were not directed at Dr. McMahon's articles, but was a general statement in light of some comments that followed.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[Dan....]

Both he and many others here have said repeatedly that what is being referred to as heresy is the full system of historic Arminianism, and that if someone's beliefs are truly consistent with that system, they do not understand the Gospel and hence are not converted - but they have also (unsuccesfully, it seems) tried to make it abundantly clear many times that they are not accusing all (or even most) non-Calvinists (even the many who call themselves "Arminians" today) of being in such a state, namely because most of them fortunately do not fully or consistently understand or embrace the whole, actual system of historic Arminianism.

The article doesn't say that one must hold "the full system of Arminianism" to be worshipping a false God. Rather the article implies that to hold any one of certain particular doctrines is to worship a false god:

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.

***********************************************

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. Not only is this "œgod" later to be deemed the "œgod of deism", but it demonstrates that Arminius´ "œgod" plans salvation in a way that may not be effectuated. 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." With Pelagius, Arminius said that all men are inherently free, and have a "free will".

********************************************

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.


************************************************

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."

One can hold one or more of the above, yet not hold to all of them. For example, Dave Hunt. Dave Hunt is not a full Arminian. He does not hold the "the full system of historic Arminianism" (he does not believe one can fall from grace), but he does hold portions of it. For what you are saying to be true, then Dave Hunt should be exempt from this article, right? No so....

This aberration and deviancy is found in the preaching, teaching and books of such popular authors as....Dave Hunt,....many other "œlime light" (but sorely misguided and misinformed) preachers of today.

Now I wouldn't give two pennies for anything from the pen of Dave Hunt (the copy of his book that I have I received for free from a friend). Moreover, Dave Hunt openly refers to Calvinism as a false gospel and teaches that Calvinists who have always been Calvinists are not saved. By claiming that the true gospel is a false gospel, I seriously doubt that he can be considered a believer (yet I leave it to the orthodox church to officially call him to the plate).

However, my point here is that Dave Hunt does not hold "the full system of Arminianism," yet he is included in this article as one who is worshipping the false "god" of Arminianism.

It is implied by this article that if you, with understanding, hold any one of the doctrines that I quoted above from the article, then you are following a false "god" and will be suffer God's wrath. If this is not what Dr. McMahon is saying, then someone please correct me. I'd like to believe that Dr. McMahon is refering specifically to full Arminianism, but the way the article is written, it appears that 95% or more of fundamental baptist churches are worshipping a false "god". Dr. McMahon, please correct me, but I don't see how does not necessarily follow. If it is specifically "the full sytem of Arminianism" being refered to, then maybe you should consider writing that into the article so it is abundantly clear, because, considering the length of this thread, it is not clear to many of us.

Thanks.