The Arminian "god" is not Worshippable

[Civbert]

Matt,

Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?

Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates?

If I have the order correct, the elect will eventually become regenerate. And some present Arminians may be elect and will eventually be corrected in their false beliefs by God's grace, but while they really believe Arminianism, they are not yet regenerate.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Civbert
Matt,

Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?

Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates?

If I have the order correct, the elect will eventually become regenerate. And some present Arminians may be elect and will eventually be corrected in their false beliefs by God's grace, but while they really believe Arminianism, they are not yet regenerate.

After a 14 hour shift I believe I can still answer the above accurately:

Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?

Yes!

Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates?

Yes!

Only truth can set one free. The above will only damn. Blindness is still in place............

Regeneration allows for sight. It is possible that there are some people holding to a false theology that Gods spirit will free them of eventually, once regenerated. Once the truth is brought to light, conversion will take place. The elect will not carry the error to their grave!

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God......


[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by 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.

Yet, we know that those who are truly born again, and truly saved will not be a son of darkness, but of light. Now, I will not say that all who sit in Arminian churches being taught error are sons of darkness. I just won't. I was there. So was Spurgeon. I will not say that my conversion only came about 5 or 6 years ago, because it is simply not true. I was converted when I learned that Jesus was to be my master, and I His disciple. And that happened almost 30 years ago. Did I know truth? Absolutely. Was I taught error? Absolutely. But to lump me in with the sons of satan because I believed what I was taught, all the while holding to some of the same truths I still do, is not even close to accurate. God had his hand on Paul's life long before he became a disciple of Christ. Do you think he was taught pernicious errors? Do you think he was a son of satan?

There is too much dogma in this for me, and I will bow out now. I will not have part in this because it is going too far. Please reconsider. This is the beginning of hyper-calvinism. I know because I have seen it before.

The ultimate conclusion to this is that only Calvinists are saved and excuse me, gentleman, but that is just wrong. Not only do you exclude every saint from the OT, but you have taken out a fair portion of godly men and women who truly believed that Christ saved them.

You're painting with too broad a brush, I think. Again, no one is saying Arminianism is right, or that those who propagate its tenets are without fault. But condemning all that are under its teaching is wrong.

May I also say that we who are without error should by all means hurl theological stones. What have we that we have not received?

In Christ,

KC

 

[ReformedWretch]

So Scott...your thoughts on Wesley?



[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Not only do you exclude every saint from the OT, but you have taken out a fair portion of godly men and women who truly believed that Christ saved them.

Kevin,
I appreciate what you are saying. For the life of me, I have no idea where you have come to the conclussion that holding to this idea excludes the OT saint??? The elect OT saint held to these truths. All Matt is saying is that if you hold to Arminianism, in the clinical senses, you cannot be 'godly'; at least in the way you believe.

All for now.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by 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.

Dan,

Great example of a gracious critique. The method of presentation is certainly debatable. I appreciate the tenor of your post.

For what it's worth, I do think that we need to distinguish here between actual people, who are more or less Arminians, and saying they are consigned to hell and criticizing each point of Arminianism and showing that it is false according to what Scripture teaches.

Many people are interpreting the article in this light: "Dr. McMahon says that each point of Arminianism is idol worship point by point. I know John who holds to that view or I know C.S. Lewis who holds to that view. Matt is saying they are idol worshippers and hell bound or in hell already."

Perhaps they could interpret it in this light: "Dr. McMahon is calling each tenet of Arminianism a form of idol worship. Does he make a compelling case that it presents a false view of God that can have soteriological consequences? If so, then like the Trinity, some people miss the boat but can be saved in spite of it. Most people don't know enough to be full-orbed heretics in any one doctrine so this tells them: 'Hey, that's hot, NO TOUCHY!'"

Both are inferences that can be drawn from Matt's article. One has caused this reaction:

while the other has caused this reaction:

I don't agree with all the conclusions of those who support the tenor of the article, but I tend to take the latter approach to the article rather than the former. If I thought he was consigning all partial practioners of Arminianism to the abyss then I would be as vocal as others. I also attend a Southern Baptist Church with many who, more or less, are confused by the teaching. I'm there because I consider them brothers and want to help them and prevent the damage that some of those doctrines inflict on the sheep.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Scott Bushey]

I have no Idea about Wesley; God will judge him as he will me. I do know that if anyone holds to Arminian theology on thier deathbed, that person outwardly denies the Christ of the scriptures as the god of Arminianism is at odds with Gods word and promises.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Civbert
Matt,

Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?

Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates?

If I have the order correct, the elect will eventually become regenerate. And some present Arminians may be elect and will eventually be corrected in their false beliefs by God's grace, but while they really believe Arminianism, they are not yet regenerate.

After a 14 hour shift I believe I can still answer the above accurately:

Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?

Yes!

Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates?

Yes!

Only truth can set one free. The above will only damn. Blindness is still in place............

Regeneration allows for sight. It is possible that there are some people holding to a false theology that Gods spirit will free them of eventually, once regenerated. Once the truth is brought to light, conversion will take place. The elect will not carry the error to their grave!

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God......


[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]

Thanks you Scott.

I hope Matt will answer the two questions as unequivocally as you have.

 

[pastorway]

posted by Dan....
the way the article is written, it appears that 95% or more of fundamental baptist churches are worshipping a false "god".

Dan in his selection of quotes shows what I have been saying the whole time. The way the article is written - and based on previous articles and posts and emails from Matt McMahon - he makes the case that to be saved and to be worshipping the true God one must be holding to the whole of calvinism and none of arminianism. I mean good grief, I have heard Chuck Swindoll preach on predestiniation, election, irresistible grace, perseverance, and total depravity - and yet he is listed as one leading the church in worship of a false god!! He is labelled a false prophet, the blind leading the blind!!

posted by KC
Please reconsider. This is the beginning of hyper-calvinism. I know because I have seen it before.

You're painting with too broad a brush, I think. Again, no one is saying Arminianism is right, or that those who propagate its tenets are without fault. But condemning all that are under its teaching is wrong.

Exactly KC. Exactly.

As for accusations about my own motives or words - if I did not love Matt I would not have said anything. If this is seen a uncharitable I am sorry that people in the church do not know how to confront error that encroaches upon the very content of the gospel. I am ashamed the elders in the Body of Christ stand by and allow this kind of stuff to be written without a challange. And to stand up for the simple pure GOSPEL of Jesus Christ and be labelled a heresy defender, that takes the cake.

Many of us have seen the slide in this direction for several years now. Each new article and each new thread reveals more of the truth about what Matt has come to believe. And there is apparently nothing we can do to stop it or challenge it without acquiring a label that discredits all we have written in debate.

Hence many, many godly and good men and women have left this forum and resigned as members and moderators and I as an administrator. It is simply too much to be identified with the leanings of this forum and further even worse to see those you love enclose themselves in a system of theology that limits the gospel and cuts the church off at the knees. It is sad beyond words.

So, as the newly crowned king of putting words into people's mouth's, as the knight appointed for the uncharitable defense of arminianism and other various Christ denying heresies, and as the Jester in the Court suppossedly winking at that which denies the gospel itself, I bid you all good bye.


Phillip

[Edited on 2-11-06 by pastorway]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by pastorway

posted by Dan....
the way the article is written, it appears that 95% or more of fundamental baptist churches are worshipping a false "god".

Dan in his selection of quotes shows what I have been saying the whole time. The way the article is written - and based on previous articles and posts and emails from Matt McMahon - he makes the case that to be saved and to be worshipping the true God one must be holding to the whole of calvinism and none of arminianism. I mean good grief, I have heard Chuck Swindoll preach on predestiniation, election, irresistible grace, perseverance, and total depravity - and yet he is listed as one leading the church in worship of a false god!! He is labelled a false prophet, the blind leading the blind!!

posted by KC
Please reconsider. This is the beginning of hyper-calvinism. I know because I have seen it before.

You're painting with too broad a brush, I think. Again, no one is saying Arminianism is right, or that those who propagate its tenets are without fault. But condemning all that are under its teaching is wrong.

Exactly KC. Exactly.

As for accusations about my own motives or words - if I did not love Matt I would not have said anything. If this is seen a uncharitable I am sorry that people in the church do not know how to confront error that encroaches upon the very content of the gospel. I am ashamed the elders in the Body of Christ stand by and allow this kind of stuff to be written without a challange. And to stand up for the simple pure GOSPEL of Jesus Christ and be labelled a heresy defender, that takes the cake.

Many of us have seen the slide in this direction for several years now. Each new article and each new thread reveals more of the truth about what Matt has come to believe. And there is apparently nothing we can do to stop it or challenge it without acquiring a label that discredits all we have written in debate.

Hence many, many godly and good men and women have left this forum and resigned as members and moderators and I as an administrator. It is simply too much to be identified with the leanings of this forum and further even worse to see those you love enclose themselves in a system of theology that limits the gospel and cuts the church off at the knees. It is sad beyond words.

So, as the newly crowned king of putting words into people's mouth's, as the knight appointed for the uncharitable defense of arminianism and other various Christ denying heresies, and as the Jester in the Court suppossedly winking at that which denies the gospel itself, I bid you all good bye.


Phillip

[Edited on 2-11-06 by pastorway]

That is very sad.

I wish you would acknowledge your own failings even as you rightly criticize errors in others.

There's baggage here from a history past that I was not a part of but the evidence of it is unmistakable. It is hard for me to take this resignation as a credible critique of the board when I've seen you lament mean-spritedness in others and then display it unrepentantly to others. Neverytheless, I do wish you well and think you've probably made a good choice. If you've gotten to the point where you can no longer say "Peace" to some brothers then it probably is time for you to leave.

I don't see the slipperly slope to hyper-Calvinism while I acknowledge that there are some on this forum who have such leanings or leanings in other imperialistic directions. I take the good with the bad.

Good bye and God Bless You in your ministry. I pray you will bless your congregation with Godly, humble service to His Glory.


In Christ's Love,

Rich

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Dan,

The article does work on a couple of levels. First and foremost, I think it is quite obvious, even from the quotes you gave, than in outlining simple Arminianism as Arminius taught, it very blatant to the lead in on every paragraph with, "œArminius also taught"¦" In the beginning of the article, if you note, I directed people to his works published by Baker Book House. So the outline of "œwhat Arminius" taught is very blatant. The article is directed toward 1) the history of Arminianism, 2) Arminius´ teachings, and then those who, today, follow some of his ideas. If you notice, I was very careful to continually depend on Arminius´ ideas for the content of his theology, though I specifically did not quote him on purpose. I did not want to weigh the lay reader down with a "œscholarly paper", rather, a more practical paper. It leads to "œwhat do you believe "“ are you thinking like Arminius thought?"

I also agree with you that people (most) do not hold to all of Arminius´ tenants. As a matter of fact, most contemporary theology is an aberration of what Arminius taught, what Pelagius taught, and lots of liberalism affected by the Enlightenment. Dave Hunt is a good example, along with some of the others mentioned, because they follow critical portions, knowingly, and publicly, of Arminius´ teachings.

No one following any of the tenants of Arminius is exempt from the article. Its point is to ruffle their feathers to think about how much or how little they will follow Arminius´ "œgod."

It would probably be helpful to write another article that deals with how we change or reinterpret the Doctrine of God as Christians, and thus fall into idolatry. For some reason, it seems, we are not so concerned about the first commandment as much as we are not committing adultery or not lying. But unless our theology is perfect, then we have to wonder how deviant our view of God actually is. Even there, that is a scary thought. Arminius not only deviated from orthodoxy, but delivered false doctrine. If we hold to, say, a deviant idea that is not essential, that is error. Holding a deviant idea that is essential (like salvation) is heresy. Dordt, in no unconditional terms, called both Pelagianism and Arminianism heresy. Using their words - Arminius and the Remonstrants "summon back from hell the Pelagian error." Dave Hunt, in follow Arminius in much of his theology is also deviant on those issues, though he is an inconsistent Arminian, not an inconsistent Christian in that regard, by holding to Perseverance.

If one holds to one tenant of something that overthrows salvation, then there is a serious problem for that overthrows the whole of salvation. But in the discussion one must differentiate the difference between regeneration and God saving an individual in an Arminian church, where, with Kevin, I would certainly say that person is saved, with their exercise of faith and what they actually have faith in, which could come to fruition over a long period or even years as they learn more about Christ. That is why I was VERY explicit in the end of the article to warn the reader. I even said "œthese Arminians, if we can call them that"¦" That was specifically because of the degrees of those people (I wouldn´t even call them Arminian) who are regenerated and changed under the Word (the reading of the word in an Arminian church) and then come to faith later. I too, along with you and Spurgeon and lots of other people, were converted under Arminian and liberal preaching in spite of the preaching, but in light of read WORD OF GOD.

So those in camp #3, which I pointed out, the hard core Arminians like hunt who may have inconsistent Arminians according to Arminius, but are Arminian according to most of the tenants of that heresy, are propagating and believing it, and that will damn them. As Anthony rightly said "“ you are a hamburger just because you go to McDonalds. However, you are a hamburger if you are cut from a cow and served up as a beef patty. Hunt, for example, is cut from the same cow that the Remonstrants were.

Anthony asked:

Would you agree that anyone who believes the doctrines of Arminianism to his grave is bound for hell?

Yes. If Dave Hunt dies in his unbelief, and continues to worship a false god, he will go to hell if he does not repent.

Secondly: are true doctrinal Arminians unregenerates?

Biblically, someone who believes and has given themselves over to a false theological system is damned. Paul is explicit about this in Galatians 1:8-9. They are not only unregenerate, but God says in 1 Thess. 2 and in Kings under the "œlying spirits" that He sent them a delusion to believe a lie.

If I have the order correct, the elect will eventually become regenerate. And some present Arminians may be elect and will eventually be corrected in their false beliefs by God's grace, but while they really believe Arminianism, they are not yet regenerate.

Maybe, but not necessarily. I would agree with your first sentence. The elect will become regenerate and justified. Some present Arminians may be unregenerate and may come to faith and reject their Arminianism. Others may be converted in an Arminian church, may not "œreally" be Arminian, although they are simply abused sheep. As with a Roman Catholic church, so in an Arminian church, if they are converted, God will rescue them. For example, John Wesley (not Charles) told Whitefield that "œYour God is my devil." If he believed that to the grave, he is in hell. John was known for cutting up big portions of Edwards´ sermons as they came to England and republishing them because he hated the God Edwards´ served and preached about. I pray he repented of it.


Kevin,

The ultimate conclusion to this is that only Calvinists are saved and excuse me, gentleman, but that is just wrong.

I don´t think anyone is saying that at all. That, I think, is where others are getting heated for no reason.

I´m also not condemning all those under that teaching. That is certainly not what I said, or what the article says.

I would though ask what kind of leeway Christ gave the Pharisees. Could ti be that the Jews taught under the Pharisees that some were saved? Could it be that of those they taught that some were regenerate? Could it be that some of the "œunknowing" sheep of God´s pasture were converted by hearing the Word of God read to them in the synagogue even thought the Pharisees where teaching heresy and blind leaders? It is interesting to me that Christ gives no leeway here, though it could be true that some were saved. Christ says in Matthew 23:15, "œWoe 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."

It seems He thought that those converted to the Pharisee way of thinking were not simply deceived, but actually sons of hell, worse than the Pharisees themselves. Phillip, how would you deal with this and Jesus? Is Christ being too strong and "œhypercalvinistic"?

 

[kceaster]

Dr. McMahon...

Thanks for the clarification. It eases my mind greatly to read it.

On the same token, I would like to take the opportunity to at least give a word of caution.

As I see it, almost every major theological rift in and out of the Reformed church over the past 30 years has had to do with who is a Christian and who isn't. Lordship salvation to the current justification fiasco all have to do with this question. But it is not just now. The Docetists were early nitpickers, too. And I think it is a form of Pharisaism that we continue to want to answer this question.

I understand the need to point out heresy and also to warn against it. I also understand the need to "denominate," because it counts who is on the Lord's side. But at the very epicenter of this quake of our own making is pride. If we want to determine who is a Christian and who isn't; who has the right doctrine and is thereby saved as opposed to those who still dwell in darkness; it is an exercise in utter futility. It can only lead to further division and disease within the Church of God.

What is commanded of us? Are we to determine who is a Christian and who isn't? Are we to write treatises about the 'god' of Arminian worship? Where is it written? I understand your zeal. But I think it came off (obviously) a bit more harsh than what it needed to be. You haven't gotten this much heat in quite a while, have you?

If I'm out of line, I certainly ask your forgiveness, publicly. You are an elder in God's church and I am not. I am certainly not telling you anything you do not know. I am merely suggesting that the question of who is a Christian is moot. Frankly, we do not know; it is not given us to know. We are to preach the Word. We are to warn, and rebuke, and reprove, and to teach all those who would hear us.

So, in your article, you took a heresy to task. But, if I did not overreact, I took it as you blasting those who are not under good teaching at the moment. And let's face it, there are many, as you, yourself have lamented on more than one occasion on this board. But if I may humbly say, blasting the sheep isn't going to win them. We can't blame a sheep for what they're eating, if their shepherd, who's really a wolf, is the only one feeding them. That's what I thought you were doing. And I know that it isn't what you set out to do, but I think it may have been a byproduct.

And it isn't as though we should not call a spade, a spade. It is healthy in the church to point out false teaching. But we have to be careful in doing so that we do not paint with too broad a stroke. You have written things in the past that I'll bet you wish you hadn't. If your life had ended before now, what would your epitaph be? I know mine would not be something I'd be proud of. It ain't lookin' too good right now, either.

The point I'm trying to make is that while warning is good, and separation from error is a needful thing, I think we just saw that you were being a bit too harsh in it. And it may not have been your best work, either. I'm not sure how many eyes saw it before you put it on the web, but I would encourage you to bounce what you write off of people you know will not agree with you, but will give you an honest opinion as to how you come across. I do that, but not quite as often as I should.

I'm glad to see that you weren't making such broad accusations after all.

I think we all get bogged down from time to time with what's wrong with the church. But instead, we ought to dwell upon what is right in her. It's not easy having the Reformers as guides, because they lived in a time a bit darker than our own. I'm not saying we go around with our heads in the clouds, oblivious to the disease running rampant. But we need to see that the light we've been given is never going to be snuffed out. The revelation we have now will never diminish. It may be forgotten for a time, but another generation will pick up where we left off, just like Luther and Calvin did with Augustine.

We need to remember that glorious things are spoken of Zion, the city of our God. And we need to look at her, even in the darkest of times, as a glorious thing.

There will always be heresies. There will always be enemies at the gates. We must be vigilant and ready. But we need to remember that our best defense is not offense, but praise. Battles are won by the songs of the saints. If we keep our eyes focused upon the object of our faith, even the Lord Jesus Christ, then all of these other things will take care of themselves. We won't need to answer who is a Christian, because we will be so caught up in preaching the gospel of peace, praise, and thanksgiving, and petition for the lost, that we won't have time to wonder about it. It's a delicate balance to be sure, but I just don't see much joy in looking at the darkness and numerating the people in that darkness. It's sort of like taking a census of a city by counting graves in the graveyard instead of the living people. The population of heaven is living, not dead. We are living, not dead. We need to let the dead bury their dead and get on with worshipping God in spirit and truth and let these other things be answered by our worship and the gospel that frames it.

I'm sorry I've gone on so long. I hope you will see that I'm not trying to point fingers. I'm preaching to myself as much to anyone else. May God give us wisdom in the way we handle those things in the dark. We want His light to shine, but we can't be a hindrance by causing a shadow to fall where light would shine.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by kceaster
What is commanded of us? Are we to determine who is a Christian and who isn't? Are we to write treatises about the 'god' of Arminian worship?

Kevin,

With respect, I wish to say that I believe that in some sense, we are called to make an outward, private judgment on the gospel that people profess to make. Is the gospel a saving one, or is it a damning one?

I am by no means suggesting that we make ecclesiastical judgements and take upon ourselves the yoke of a synod or the likes, but I do think it important that Christ has said "You will know them by their fruits."

It is a very important point in this regards that both sides are making a judgment about the salvation of one who truly believes the gospel of Arminianism....one side says their saved...the other side says their not. Either way, it is equally a judgment call. When I look at Joe Arminian down the street, I don't think "I know the secret will of God and Joe's in for it!" But I do think that we are called to treat Joe as either a christian to whom we can extend the right hand of fellowship, or a lost man, desperately in need of the gospel.

In my personal judgment, I rest on (in no particular order) 1) The Synod of Dort, 2) The Westminster Standards, 3) Quotes from historic theologans of old and ultimately 4) the anathema of Paul in scripture.

All of these have been quoted at length either in this thread or in the article written by Matt, and they seem to be in harmony with one another.

 

[Bladestunner316]

Shoudnt we presume them to be Christians until they spout of heresy as eternal truth?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Shoudnt we presume them to be Christians until they spout of heresy as eternal truth?

Nathan,
No one is really pointing the finger at anyone personally (well, outside of Hunt and his ilk), but the illicit system.

 

[kceaster]

Jeff....

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by kceaster
What is commanded of us? Are we to determine who is a Christian and who isn't? Are we to write treatises about the 'god' of Arminian worship?

Kevin,

With respect, I wish to say that I believe that in some sense, we are called to make an outward, private judgment on the gospel that people profess to make. Is the gospel a saving one, or is it a damning one?

Quite right, systematically. In other words,, we look at the systematics or the biblicity of a gospel in order to determine whether or not it is in line with Scripture. The Bereans did that.

But would you not agree that while we may pronounce their gospel to be an anathema, we would not say that all who hear it are anathema?

It is very well for us to show Arminian heresy as deep and profound error. But along with this, we must care for the sheep under its telling. We can't very well go around scolding the sheep for what they're being fed, can we? If they are God's sheep, they are in the pasture He's led them to, are they not?

And for the other point, let's treat them like sheep until they show themselves to be goats. Sheep require gentle care, that's why God used them as an example. Remember, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." And these are the same that Paul pleaded with in tears. He was harsh with the teachers, and that is commendable within Dr. McMahon's article. But if we say that the sheep are worshipping the teacher's false god, we need to reevaluate that. Many are too weak and sick to go to another pasture, yet their God is sustaining them with what little they get.

In "Arminian" churches tomorrow, many will gather. And many false teachers will stand and attempt to lead these little ones astray. But what did Jesus say about it? Woe to the one who does such things. But He doesn't blame the little ones, does He?

That's all I'm getting at. And I'm quite ready to admit that I've misread the article, if that is not a good assessment of it.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Scott Bushey]

Kevin,
Do you care to expound upon your previous statement about the OT saint?

 

[youthevang]

Pastor McMahon, I want to thank you again for your article.

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Some present Arminians may be unregenerate and may come to faith and reject their Arminianism. Others may be converted in an Arminian church, may not "œreally" be Arminian, although they are simply abused sheep.

I truly concur with your above statement. I, myself was converted in an Arminian church and have been under Arminian teaching for years. When I think about it, what came out of my mouth did not line up with what I believed. I would say that we have a choice, but deep down I did not believe that mumble jumble. In 1993 when I decided to confess Christ as Lord, a friend of mine said that I would never change but continue to be the same person I was. I then replied, "no I will not because when He saves a person, He does not fail." I was even taught the doctrine of the "carnal Christian." I could not buy into that craziness. I would always butt heads with people because there are verses in the Bible that you cannot just write off with regards to God being in total control. It wasn't until I studied the doctrines of grace that I began to realize why I always butting heads with people.

Pastor McMahon, may our Father continue to grant you peace and the boldness to proclaim the Gospel of Christ.

 

[kceaster]

Scott...

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Kevin,
Do you care to expound upon your previous statement about the OT saint?

What I meant was that if we are determining that one who is saved is a full-orbed Calvinist, then it would exclude the OT saint. In fact, any who came before the Reformation would be excluded in that sense. Although the tenets (not to be confused with tenants or tenents) were certainly there, they were not as well thought out and defined. Therefore, we need to be careful when we take our understanding of a particular point and foist it back upon those who came before the point was made. The one who sows but is gone before harvest will attest to the fact that they planted wheat. But unless they see the harvest, they have limited understanding of that wheat. Only when it is harvested and made into bread has the wheat been really developed for its created use. But the one who eats the bread cannot fault the one who sowed the wheat for their limited understanding. Nor can the one who eats consider the sower as having no part in the process just because of the limited understanding.

If we expect, as most hyper-calvinists do, that in order to be saved one must know fully the doctrine of salvation, then we exclude many upon whom that light shined, but only dimly. We cannot make Calvinism the litmus test of salvation. Because 3000 souls were added on the day of Pentecost and were converted without full-orbed Calvinism.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by kceaster

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Kevin,
Do you care to expound upon your previous statement about the OT saint?

What I meant was that if we are determining that one who is saved is a full-orbed Calvinist, then it would exclude the OT saint. In fact, any who came before the Reformation would be excluded in that sense.

Kevin,
Thanks for your thoughts. Again, one of the pitfalls here is that we are not all on the same pages when itcomes to definitions. Knowing Matt, when he speaks of Calvinism, he is speaking of the theology that existed since Adam. Calvin was one of the first, outside of the Word, to summarize the system. Hence, the OT saint assuredly had and understood the ideas calvin penned.

Although the tenets (not to be confused with tenants or tenents) were certainly there, they were not as well thought out and defined.

I disagree. Are you telling me that men like Noah and Abraham, Jacob, Samuel did not understand this?

If we expect, as most hyper-calvinists do, that in order to be saved one must know fully the doctrine of salvation, then we exclude many upon whom that light shined, but only dimly. We cannot make Calvinism the litmus test of salvation. Because 3000 souls were added on the day of Pentecost and were converted without full-orbed Calvinism.

Kevin,
Thats the point; we are not saying that calvinism is the litmus test, but scripture, and since there is only one gospel, to have something else is heresy.

 

[doulosChristou]

Unregenerate Calvinists

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

So you are saying that 'many' Arminians are regenerate?

I would say that there are about as many regenerate Arminians as there are regenerate Calvinists around today. Conversely, I'd say that there are about as many unregenerate Calvinists who know nothing of the love of Christ, charity and its fruits, as there are unregenerate Arminians. I certainly do not believe that those who read or teach John 3:16 or 1 John 2:2 -- "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" -- as meaning that Jesus paid for all sins are, therefore, unregenerate idolaters. They are necessarily wrong but not necessarily unregenerate. The regenerate Arminian pastor could be more godly a believer than Cornelius Van Til or Meredith Kline. In comparison to himself, George Whitefield thought that of John Wesley (who was just as Arminian on the 5 points as was Arminius). I disagree with Matt and his disciples that the 5 points are essential to salvation. In their defense, they are following many Puritans in this view. There have always been bigots on both sides. I relegate this type of bigotry to the dark side of Puritanism. And yes, there is a dark side to Puritanism.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Greg,
To begin with, the above quote was not mine. Someone asked me the question and I was posing back to the poster for clearity his position. Again, clearity of definition is important here. Arminianism is heresy.

If Arminius died holding to the theology he subscribed to, do you believe he was regenerate and now in glory?

Scott
~A disciple of Christ, not Matt

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Since learning biblical doctrine is a matter of time and effort and degree (is a process and imperfect in this life) would it be wrong to see it as part of sanctification?

I realize conversion (which happens after regeneration) needs biblical knowledge and a basic degree of biblical understanding (faith and repentance need biblical knowledge of what we are to have faith in and what we are to be repentant of), but it's hard to see that necessity and then take it to mean a Christian needs to have the understanding contained in John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ for conversion and justification.

Can we not see that regeneration, conversion, and justification can rest on a degree of doctrinal understanding that is short of understanding the doctrines of grace, yet then if a person truly has regeneration and has converted they will then strive, in time, to see the truth and develop more and more understanding of biblical doctrine and accept it (which to me sounds like part of the imperfect and progressive process of sanctification)?

And the main point I'm making is even if a regenerated person never gets to the 5 point Calvinist level of understanding they still have justification, just as degree of sanctification doesn't effect a person's foundation which is justification by faith alone.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Although the tenets (not to be confused with tenants or tenents) were certainly there, they were not as well thought out and defined.

I disagree. Are you telling me that men like Noah and Abraham, Jacob, Samuel did not understand this?

Did they understand that salvation was of the Lord? Absolutely. Did they understand that they are sinners and that He is holy? Absolutely. Did they understand that they did nothing by which to merit the grace of God? Absolutely. Did they understand that Christ came to die ONLY for the sins of the elect? No. They did not understand Christ's death, because they did not see it and know about it. They had faith in the object of Christ, but they had no knowledge of the redemption wrought by His blood. By faith they saw very blurry, what we now, by faith, see more clearly. Did they believe that all of those to whom salvation comes, God would ordain. Absolutely. Did they believe that all of those to whom salvation comes would persevere to the end. Absolutely.

So, I would say they're 4 pointers, just in the limited sense of Dordt.

But to say that they had the knowledge of Paul according to salvation is a logical fallacy. Christ had not yet been revealed. Why did the disciples not understand all that Paul came to understand about salvation while Christ was with them? Because the Spirit had not yet been given, because Christ had not yet been glorified.

We can't claim, just because the veil has been lifted, that there was no veil to begin with. There was a veil. And that means that there was limited understanding as to what the OT saint knew about salvation. That in no way lessens their salvation. They are just as saved as you or I. It does mean that we are more responsible than they for what we know. There is a greater burden upon us because Christ has been fully revealed, than there was upon them.

Kevin,
Thats the point; we are not saying that calvinism is the litmus test, but scripture, and since there is only one gospel, to have something else is heresy.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that Arminianism is not heresy. I'm simply stating that not all who are being taught it are heretics.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Scott Bushey]

Did they understand that Christ came to die ONLY for the sins of the elect? No. They did not understand Christ's death, because they did not see it and know about it.

Kevin,
What Gospel did they have? Surely, it was not another gospel. What was comprised in the gospel that was preached to Abraham? The sacrificial system was in place in Jobs day.

Job 19:25 For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

The term 'redeemer' is used in the pages of Job. The redeemer in job was 'messiah'; Job knew this.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by youthevang
Pastor McMahon, I want to thank you again for your article.

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Some present Arminians may be unregenerate and may come to faith and reject their Arminianism. Others may be converted in an Arminian church, may not "œreally" be Arminian, although they are simply abused sheep.

I truly concur with your above statement. I, myself was converted in an Arminian church and have been under Arminian teaching for years. When I think about it, what came out of my mouth did not line up with what I believed. I would say that we have a choice, but deep down I did not believe that mumble jumble. In 1993 when I decided to confess Christ as Lord, a friend of mine said that I would never change but continue to be the same person I was. I then replied, "no I will not because when He saves a person, He does not fail." I was even taught the doctrine of the "carnal Christian." I could not buy into that craziness. I would always butt heads with people because there are verses in the Bible that you cannot just write off with regards to God being in total control. It wasn't until I studied the doctrines of grace that I began to realize why I always butting heads with people.

Pastor McMahon, may our Father continue to grant you peace and the boldness to proclaim the Gospel of Christ.

I have a very similar story! I could never figure out why I couldn't get along with many in my church or with the people at Rapture Ready (where I used to post A LOT) until I discovered the DoG and then it hit me!

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by kceaster
Quite right, systematically. In other words,, we look at the systematics or the biblicity of a gospel in order to determine whether or not it is in line with Scripture. The Bereans did that.

Originally posted by kceaster
But would you not agree that while we may pronounce their gospel to be an anathema, we would not say that all who hear it are anathema?

Certainly not, but would we not say that all who believe it are anathema?

Originally posted by kceaster
It is very well for us to show Arminian heresy as deep and profound error. But along with this, we must care for the sheep under its telling. We can't very well go around scolding the sheep for what they're being fed, can we? If they are God's sheep, they are in the pasture He's led them to, are they not?

I think that this is pressupposing that Arminians (ones who actually believe the stuff they're being taught) are sheep.

Originally posted by kceaster
And for the other point, let's treat them like sheep until they show themselves to be goats.

This is exactly where I think the discussion needs to focus. If all a person professes is Arminianism, then there is no good reason to threat them as sheep. We wouldn't do that with Jehovah's witnesses or other false gospels would we? Their profession that they give us is the only thing we have by which to fall upon.

Luk 6:43 "œFor a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
Luk 6:44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.
Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart[7] brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

I think that as long as what comes out of their mouth is nothing but a false gospel, we should treat them as unconverted people, until they show us otherwise.

Originally posted by kceaster
Sheep require gentle care, that's why God used them as an example. Remember, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." And these are the same that Paul pleaded with in tears. He was harsh with the teachers, and that is commendable within Dr. McMahon's article. But if we say that the sheep are worshipping the teacher's false god, we need to reevaluate that. Many are too weak and sick to go to another pasture, yet their God is sustaining them with what little they get.

It sounds to me like there is some confusion (again) on the definition of an Arminian.

Is an Arminian one who simply goes to an Arminian church? No. (Just as one is not a Calvinist simply because he goes to a Calvinist Church)

One is an Arminian when the believe the gospel of the remonstrance. One cannot believe Arminianism and the true gospel at the same time. They are incompatible. This doesn't mean that you have to openly know and profess the five points of Calvinism....but it means that you can't hold to the doctrines of Arminius, precisely because they are incompatible with the gospel of salvation by Christ Alone.

Originally posted by kceaster
In "Arminian" churches tomorrow, many will gather. And many false teachers will stand and attempt to lead these little ones astray. But what did Jesus say about it? Woe to the one who does such things. But He doesn't blame the little ones, does He?

Kevin,

If you post a response to anything in my post to you, please answer how you can say this in light of the verse Matt posted earlier:

Mat 23:15 "œWoe 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.

Surely this does not excuse the false gospel of Arminians (again ones who believe, and not simply go to an Arminian church) simply because they are students and not teachers, no?

I think this thread is becoming even more an more profitable. Thanks for your interaction Kevin.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by kceaster
I'm simply stating that not all who are being taught it are heretics.

Agreed, but you do realize that absolutely nobody on this board is saying that.

It is the believers of the heresy of Arminianism that is being addressed, not just simply people sitting under that type of preaching.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by kceaster
I'm simply stating that not all who are being taught it are heretics.

Agreed, but you do realize that absolutely nobody on this board is saying that.

It is the believers of the heresy of Arminianism that is being addressed, not just simply people sitting under that type of preaching.

Kevin, Jeff is on point. That is the difference.

That is also why I said that one MUST make a difference between being regenerate and converted. Phillip said that was smoke and mirrors. Clearly he was misunderstanding. Those "sitting" under Arminian preaching may be regenerate, and it may take them much longer to enact faith under heretical preaching, but they will. The teachers of the heresy, who have given themselves over to it, are indeed false teachers. No one has, or is, saying that all who sit under Arminian teachers are Arminian heretics. Even in the article I specifically said, "Such Arminians, if they may even be called that, are newly regenerated, but as they spend time in God´s word, they will see the error of those who preach and teach a different Gospel, maybe even the errors that they are currently holding."

I think a lot of this is not being able to classify the categories the article deals with. 1) Arminius and the Remonstrance, 2) newly converted people under Arminianism, 3) Those struggling with seeing the difference between Arminianism and the Gospel, and 4) staunch contemporary Arminians following enough of Arminius to be heretics.

KC - also, thank you for your loving concern with proofreading articles and the like. Certainly you are right, I've not had this much heat in some time, and frankly, I was very surprised to see it on this subject from Reformed Christians. I do, though, appreciate your desire to see the Kingdom advance in love. Yet, sometimes (many times in recent days), we find the Kingdom under attack, and as John Owen pleaded in "A Display for Arminianism" he wished that many more preachers would have picked up their pens to write against it. Yes, the article may have a harsher side, quite on purpose mind you, that rubs people the wrong the way. Certainly, I thought through that and desired to have something a bit more poignant that usually is written or read. But I think there are people out there who will read it (and as a matter of fact I already had some emails to that affect) that have helped them understand things more clearly. Though collateral damage is inevitable (see this thread!) I think at times books like "An Alarm to Unconverted Sinners" and "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" need to be written and preached. I am of the opinion of Edwards that there is great justification in the "scare tactic", and that it may be the most useful tool in converting those from opposing views. I have found, personally, that people have much more been converted under my own preaching by sermons on hell, than they have about heaven.

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

 

[Mayflower]

Iam just jumping in this discussion, but than it absolute must mean that Thomas Aquinas must be dammed, and also the puritan John Davenant ((1572-1641, famous commentary on Colossians) and also Albert Barnes (1798-1870) who (if iam right) did not hold to limited atonement, that mean that they would not be a fivepiont calvinist, and not be saved ???????????? Hard to believe!???????????