Thread: Results of Arminiamism

Here is a quote from "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner, I am interested in what others think of Boettner's thoughts on the result of Arminiamism.

"History has shown plainly that the tendency of Arminianism is to compromise and to drift gradually from an evangelical basis. Hence it is that to this day there has never been developed a logical and systematic body of Arminiam theology It has in the Methodist Church for instance, a brief and informal creed in some twenty-five articles;. but contract between the statement and the carefully wrought-out Westminster Confession is seen at a glace." Page 48.

That is a very interesting quote from Boettner. I believe I read once that many (most?) of the Remonstrants, after their theology was rejected at the Synod of Dort, later drifted in abhorrent theology (universalism and/or unitarianism). Can anyone confirm me or correct me on this?

LB is right of course. The logical extension of arminianism is universalism and open theism. I appreciate the open theists for they are the only intellectually honest arminians.

Not to mention that the seeker-sensitive, purpose driven, church growth paradigm is a direct result of Arminianism.

Schaff makes the same point: Arminianism is a liberalizing force (Schaff may have thought that was a good thing --not sure).

IT does seem, historically, as if Arminianism always proceeds liberalism. The PCUSA became creedally arminian (redefining predestination) before it embraced modernism (if memory serves).

But, we need to beware the slippery slope, because the crypto-Catholic could say that Calvinism proceeds Arminianism proceeds Universalism, right?

Originally Posted by KenPierce

But, we need to beware the slippery slope, because the crypto-Catholic could say that Calvinism proceeds Arminianism proceeds Universalism, right?

That's exactly what I was thinking. This argument could be turned on its head against us. Not only did Calvinism precede Arminianism, but many Reformed denominations, some which were originally not a part of the remonstration, slid into liberalism and/or heresy almost as quickly as the remonstrants.

But, we need to beware the slippery slope, because the crypto-Catholic could say that Calvinism proceeds Arminianism proceeds Universalism, right?

I didn't know there were any crypto-Catholics anymore, since they no longer get killed or thrown in jail. But since someone who holds to the five points or denies all five points can fit into the Catholic church I think in that case you'd be comparing apples and oranges. At least it would be an argument almost impossible to defend if coming from a Catholic.

Originally Posted by KenPierce

But, we need to beware the slippery slope, because the crypto-Catholic could say that Calvinism proceeds Arminianism proceeds Universalism, right?

Good point, but one could make a better case (to the crypto-Catholic) by pointing out that Augustinian thinking prevailed in the early church and was embraced publicly by the Synod of Orange; however, it was when the church began drifting back into semi-Pelagianism that things really began to fall apart.

Of course, there are always other factors involved. It would seem that the common denominator (coming from a former math teacher here!) is adopting a man-centered theology versus a God-centered theology.

Oops ...I meant paleo-Catholic.

My sole point was one of logical argument. There is always a point above you somewhere on the slippery slope, and a point after you.

IT is better to argue from the standpoint of revealed truth, which is clearly Calvinism