Question for all interested on A Display of Arminianism

TheFleshProfitethNothing · #1 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 07:28 PM

To anyone who has read or reading A Display of Arminianism...What say you of John Owens using the word Atheist in describing Arminians?

If you have not read this book...I would dare to say it is MUST reading for all Elect believers! I had noticed two posts asking which of Owens' works to start with...I would have to say that after the Institutes of the Christian Religion (by John Calvin) that this book would be the next for my Reformed Library...in fact it was...Then Death of Death in the Death of Christ, and On Mortification of Sin in the Believer...in that order.

Absolute Predestination (Jerome Zanchius) was the next and only adds to all the above literature...I can spend the rest of my life with just these books and my Bibles (of course).

Anyway, what say you? Are Arminians, Atheists?

**armourbearer** · #2 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFleshProfitethNothing

To anyone who has read or reading A Display of Arminianism...What say you of John Owens using the word Atheist in describing Arminians?

It must be remembered that there was not a popular variety of evangelical Arminianism in those days. If one reads the Display it becomes apparent that the tenets being maintained by the Arminians could hardly be called evangelical at all. The chapter on the Prescience of God reveals that they denied basic catholic doctrines; in fact, foreknowledge is something which is fundamental to even the heathen conception of God. It suggests that true Arminianism, when consistently carried through, leaves the universe of free agents without a true God. Thankfully many Arminians are not consistent, but believe in the sovereign grace of God despite their Arminianism.

**Jeff_Bartel** · #3 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 09:34 PM

First of all, I agree that this work especially is a VERY important work in understanding Arminianism. It is a must read for all who claim the reformed faith, especially in these days where Arminianism is so rampant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFleshProfitethNothing

To anyone who has read or reading A Display of Arminianism...What say you of John Owens using the word Atheist in describing Arminians?

It must be remembered that there was not a popular variety of evangelical Arminianism in those days. If one reads the Display it becomes apparent that the tenets being maintained by the Arminians could hardly be called evangelical at all. The chapter on the Prescience of God reveals that they denied basic catholic doctrines; in fact, foreknowledge is something which is fundamental to even the heathen conception of God. It suggests that true Arminianism, when consistently carried through, leaves the universe of free agents without a true God. Thankfully many Arminians are not consistent, but believe in the sovereign grace of God despite their Arminianism.

Rev. Winzer, I am by no means an expert on John Owen, but I believe his position was stronger than the one you have stated. A close reading of his Dedicatory I think proves he would not agree that the Arminians of his day are fundamentally different than those who profess that same religion today. Please note especially the underlined portion:

Quote:

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

**armourbearer** · #4 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 10:08 PM

Jeff, that the dislike of reprobation or the assertion of voluntarist freewill consistently leads to an acceptance of the rationalist-Arminian scheme, I don't deny. The fact that Dr. Owen draws a distinction between these individual errors and the eventual acceptance of the system suggests to me that he discerned the difference between the two.

charliejunfan · #5 (**permalink**) 11-05-2008, 11:18 PM

John Owen was just so far above the Arminian "Theologians" at that time that he was annoyed with them, as we all have been lol, but I would be very afraid if we were in Christ because of our untainted trust in Him, my trust falters alot. That is why I'm so thankful that Christ is seen instead of me, I have never met an Arminian who was consistent with their theology, like Roman Catholics there are those who rest in Christ and those who add to Christ's work. So, it depends I think most Arminians are going to heaven.

TheFleshProfitethNothing · #6 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 10:31 AM

I don't have my Display handy (it is in storage right now) but I believe that the very foundation of Owens' calling them Atheists IS because they hold to their idol, freewill.

Am I wrong? Also, his English was soooo...precise...that it is sometimes difficult to read it...I like that, because it makes me have to think harder and longer at what he is stating.

With that, I don't believe I am wrong...and at the very foundation of even today's Arminianism is free-will and synergism in Salvation...is that not denying God's Sovereignty in Election...for which there would be no Gospel, nor Salvation to begin with?

I wish I had my book right now. Will have to go get it out of storage soon...will be needed for further discussion it looks like.

**Prufrock** · #7 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

With that, I don't believe I am wrong...and at the very foundation of even today's Arminianism is free-will and synergism in Salvation...is that not denying God's Sovereignty in Election...for which there would be no Gospel, nor Salvation to begin with?

True, without God's election there would, in fact, be no gospel; but this is not the same as to say that without if a person does not know of election nor understand election, then there is no gospel for them. I'm sure there are many who have never contemplated God's sovereign election who yet abide faithfully in Christ. Here is a John Owen quote from another place, which, though lengthy, I hope you will all read, as I think would do us all well to consider what happened in the heart of that great divine (note, the quote is in reference to justification and the imputation of Christ's righteousness; yet materially, it applies to this context as well:

Quote:

These things greatly differ. To believe the doctrine of it, or not to believe it, as thus or thus explained, is one thing; and to enjoy the thing, or not enjoy it, is another. I no way doubt but that many men do receive more grace from God than they understand or will own, and have a greater efficacy of it in them than they will believe. Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which, in opinion, they deny to be imputed: for the faith of it is included in that general assent which they give unto the truth of the gospel, and such an adherence unto Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of the way whereby they are saved by him shall not defraud them of a real interest therein. And for my part, I must say that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about justification (some whereof are full of offense and scandal), I do not believe but that the authors of them (if they be not Socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ) do really trust unto the mediation of Christ for the pardon of their sins and acceptance with God, and not unto their own works or obedience; nor will I believe the contrary, until they expressly declare it.

TheFleshProfitethNothing · #8 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 07:26 PM

[ And for my part, I must say that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about justification (some whereof are full of offense and scandal), I do not believe but that the authors of them (if they be not Socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ) do really trust unto the mediation of Christ for the pardon of their sins and acceptance with God, and not unto their own works or obedience; nor will I believe the contrary, until they expressly declare it.[/quote][/QUOTE]

I believe these men were two of the men Owen was speaking, Downame and Davenant, and if I'm not mistaken, they were of the Church of England, and if there were others, they aren't mentioned as Arminians even once. Would he not have mentioned this if it were?

I mean, have you read "A Display..."? He isn't soft in his refutation of the doctrines nor of those who held to them.

I, in fact, see no reference of Arminians in the book you quoted, at least not as yet...so using deductive reasoning, I don't see that he was concerned with them at all at this point.

I will look further over the next few days...to help me understand some more...but, A Display of Arminianism is not putting John Owens' right hand of fellowship into any Arminian's hand.

Thanks for that quote though...I want to read that book now...THANKS A LOT!!!

Quickened · #9 (**permalink**) 11-06-2008, 09:18 PM

If it werent for my plate being so full at the moment with reading material this would be most likely my next purchase. I have read good things about this work and am excited to dive into it.

I've often heard that Owen's work can be rather difficult to read. Is that the case with this piece?

TheFleshProfitethNothing · #10 (**permalink**) 11-07-2008, 10:41 AM

Quick answer: YES
It is something in which one must give diligence to when reading...I sometimes re-read whole paragraphs but generally one to two sentences to make sure I am getting the sense of his statements...and it doesn't hurt to have a dictionary and access to an etymology dictionary either.

It is WELL worth the purchase though...I wish I had mine as I type...it is stored at an in-laws and I can't just drop-in anytime and get it...he is a very busy person.

TheFleshProfitethNothing · #11 (**permalink**) 11-07-2008, 10:45 AM

I am in the midst of looking for work, and sometimes type "off-the-cuff" much of my postings...so, bear with me, and if the Spirit gives you an unction, please pray for me...that the job will be just the right one for my character, temperment, and liking (both monetarily and simply for the pleasure of the work it's self).

Appreciate it, and look forward to reading more of your posts!