Does Arminianism present a false Gospel?

[Reformed Apologist]

It’s not uncommon to hear a KJV only type or a fundamental Baptist accuse Calvinism of presenting a false Gospel. I had ignorantly hoped, that the Reformed community did not have this problem. Unfortunately, my ignorance was shattered when I heard a Reformed person leverage this same claim against those holding to Armenian theology.

It seems, that it is becoming more and more common to see people making every issue, a Gospel issue. I recognize that Arminian theology is heretical in many respects, but I do not see a need to translate that into presenting a false Gospel. So I ask, does the mistaken belief that you have a choice, alter or change the fundamental truth of the Gospel? I don’t think it does and if it doesn’t, how can we allege that the Gospel they are presenting is false?

 

[Guido's Brother]

I'd say read the Canons of Dort, especially the Rejection of Errors. It's all explained quite clearly and extensively.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

I am familiar with the Cannons of Dort and their refutation of the Remonstrance. What does that have to do with the Gospel as laid out in 1 Cor 15?
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,”

Quit trying to make every issue a Gospel issue. Unless your epistemological and expository prowess exceeds Paul’s.

 

[Guido's Brother]

I am familiar with the Cannons of Dort and their refutation of the Remonstrance. What does that have to do with the Gospel as laid out in 1 Cor 15?

First Cor. 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. The Canons argue that the good news includes, for example, God's gracious preservation of believers so that they persevere. That's good news that we find hugely comforting.

Perhaps the issue could be clarified by using the classic theological distinction between "gospel" narrowly understood and more broadly understood. If you use it in the narrow sense of "Christ Jesus died for sinners," then perhaps a case could be made that Arminians are not gospel-deniers or purveyors of a false gospel. But if you use "gospel" in the broader sense of all that God promises us in Christ, then you'd have to conclude otherwise.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I would say there is a distinction between Finney Armianism and Wesley Armianism. Eg, read Wesley's hymn "And can it be that I should gain". Do you see a number of Reformed doctrines in that hymn? But an Armianism that leads to Pelagianism and/or minimises the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation probably is a false gospel.

 

[Taylor]

Quit trying to make every issue a Gospel issue. Unless your epistemological and expository prowess exceeds Paul’s.

At whom is this comment directed?

 

[Reformed Apologist]

First Cor. 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. The Canons argue that the good news includes, for example, God's gracious preservation of believers so that they persevere. That's good news that we find hugely comforting.

Perhaps the issue could be clarified by using the classic theological distinction between "gospel" narrowly understood and more broadly understood. If you use it in the narrow sense of "Christ Jesus died for sinners," then perhaps a case could be made that Arminians are not gospel-deniers or purveyors of a false gospel. But if you use "gospel" in the broader sense of all that God promises us in Christ, then you'd have to conclude otherwise.

Forgive me, but how does the faulty assumption that we have a choice, alter or change the truth of the Gospel? I thought it was faith in Christ that saves, not faith in God's electing grace. Does an Arminians error undue God's sovereign election?

 

[Reformed Apologist]

At whom is this comment directed?

At whom is this comment directed?

I confess, that in the passion of the moment, I was premature with my allegation

 

[Guido's Brother]

Forgive me, but how does the faulty assumption that we have a choice, alter or change the truth of the Gospel? I thought it was faith in Christ that saves, not faith in God's electing grace. Does an Arminians error undue God's sovereign election?

There are a few things getting tangled up.

God saves us through Christ. Anyone who will be saved will be saved by God through Christ's redemption.

The instrument by which we are saved is faith. Anyone who will be saved will be saved by the Holy Spirit working faith so that the individual takes hold of Christ for salvation.

The difference between Arminianism and Reformed theology is the acknowledgement of God's sovereign grace in salvation from beginning to end. Reformed theology holds that the biblical good news includes God's sovereignty in our salvation. Insofar as an Arminian refuses to acknowledge God's complete sovereignty in salvation, the Arminian denies that good news (gospel).

Ultimately, this is all about God's glory. Rather than asking whether an Arminian can undo God's election, it's better to ask: does Arminianism undermine the glory of God in salvation?

 

[Reformed Apologist]

First Cor. 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. The Canons argue that the good news includes, for example, God's gracious preservation of believers so that they persevere. That's good news that we find hugely comforting.

Perhaps the issue could be clarified by using the classic theological distinction between "gospel" narrowly understood and more broadly understood. If you use it in the narrow sense of "Christ Jesus died for sinners," then perhaps a case could be made that Arminians are not gospel-deniers or purveyors of a false gospel. But if you use "gospel" in the broader sense of all that God promises us in Christ, then you'd have to conclude otherwise.

I forgot to mention a point. I cited scripture, detailing from the mouth of Paul, what the Gospel is. I don't recall reading in that passage, that the good news includes preservation. Now, I enjoy the Canons of Dort and I hold to the 1689 LBC but those synods/ confession do not overide scripture.
I happen to hold to preservation of the saints because scripture teaches that. But believing that doctrine is not necessary for salvation. This is what i mean, people taking every doctrine and turning it into a salvation issue. Suddenly, every issue is a Gospel issue and that's just not true.

 

[Guido's Brother]

I forgot to mention a point. I cited scripture, detailing from the mouth of Paul, what the Gospel is. I don't recall reading in that passage, that the good news includes preservation. Now, I enjoy the Canons of Dort and I hold to the 1689 LBC but those synods/ confession do not overide scripture.
I happen to hold to preservation of the saints because scripture teaches that. But believing that doctrine is not necessary for salvation. This is what i mean, people taking every doctrine and turning it into a salvation issue. Suddenly, every issue is a Gospel issue and that's just not true.

As I said, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. There are plenty of other passages which speak about preservation and present it to us as good news, even if the exact word "gospel" is not used.

Speaking in terms of "gospel issues" as "salvation issues" introduces another element into the discussion. Again, I think things get clarified if we use the narrower/broader distinction in regard to the concept of "gospel." The narrower understanding of "gospel" is what you're speaking about. But there is, in Reformed theology, a broader usage of that word as well. I wouldn't say that believing the Reformed doctrine of the perservance of the saints is strictly necessary for salvation (the criminal on the cross comes to mind), but there is still a sense in which we can call it a gospel issue. It's a matter of comfort and encouragement for the Christian, as well as a matter of glory to the sovereign God.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

There are a few things getting tangled up.

God saves us through Christ. Anyone who will be saved will be saved by God through Christ's redemption.

The instrument by which we are saved is faith. Anyone who will be saved will be saved by the Holy Spirit working faith so that the individual takes hold of Christ for salvation.

The difference between Arminianism and Reformed theology is the acknowledgement of God's sovereign grace in salvation from beginning to end. Reformed theology holds that the biblical good news includes God's sovereignty in our salvation. Insofar as an Arminian refuses to acknowledge God's complete sovereignty in salvation, the Arminian denies that good news (gospel).

Ultimately, this is all about God's glory. Rather than asking whether an Arminian can undo God's election, it's better to ask: does Arminianism undermine the glory of God in salvation?

I agree with almost everything you said and I happen to believe God is sovereign. I take exception to the doctrines of Grace overriding the simple truth of Christ’s atoning work. You and I would both agree that it is God’s sovereign election that allows the Armenian to exercise faith ( whether he believes it or not ). I just don’t see how their lack of understanding ( regarding sovereignty) alters the truth of what Christ did and the promise that is attached to faith in his work.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

As I said, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't exhaust the good news. There are plenty of other passages which speak about preservation and present it to us as good news, even if the exact word "gospel" is not used.

Speaking in terms of "gospel issues" as "salvation issues" introduces another element into the discussion. Again, I think things get clarified if we use the narrower/broader distinction in regard to the concept of "gospel." The narrower understanding of "gospel" is what you're speaking about. But there is, in Reformed theology, a broader usage of that word as well. I wouldn't say that believing the Reformed doctrine of the perservance of the saints is strictly necessary for salvation (the criminal on the cross comes to mind), but there is still a sense in which we can call it a gospel issue. It's a matter of comfort and encouragement for the Christian, as well as a matter of glory to the sovereign God.

Ok, I was not aware of this " broader Gospel" can you point me to some literature?

Also, I can agree that there is a fuller more broad understanding that comes with a reformed view ( as far as Gospel is concerned). It's the false Gospel langauge I don't like. I would prefer we used a different, less divisive word.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Ok, I was not aware of this " broader Gospel" can you point me to some literature?

A good place to start would be Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, especially chapter 20. They've got references to other (primary) sources.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

A good place to start would be Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, especially chapter 20. They've got references to other (primary) sources.

Thank you. I'd like to point out again, that I agree they lack a full understanding. Frankly, I think they are cheating themselves. It's the word i don't like. I think it's a little basic, a bit concrete and too divisive. Besides, I go nuts when they do it to us. Thank you for your patience

 

[jwithnell]

Perhaps a distinction between dogma and doctrine is useful here.

The church as a whole determined dogma as confessed in the historic creeds. One cannot be a Christian (or a church) and refute these foundations.

Doctrine may be more or less derived from scripture. One may be seriously deficient in doctrine, but still not a heretic or outside the faith.

I agree that American revivalists really pushed the limits. In some cases, the doctrine of Trinity gets so distorted it edges toward heresy. Or the gospel gets so lost in the works, rites, or slogans that Christ is fully obscured.

One person addressing a group is not in a position to pronounce heresy. Church courts may and should adjudge a particular situation within its boundaries.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Perhaps a distinction between dogma and doctrine is useful here.

The church as a whole determined dogma as confessed in the historic creeds. One cannot be a Christian (or a church) and refute these foundations.

Doctrine may be more or less derived from scripture. One may be seriously deficient in doctrine, but still not a heretic or outside the faith.

I agree that American revivalists really pushed the limits. In some cases, the doctrine of Trinity gets so distorted it edges toward heresy. Or the gospel gets so lost in the works, rites, or slogans that Christ is fully obscured.

One person addressing a group is not in a position to pronounce heresy. Church courts may and should adjudge a particular situation within its boundaries.

Well said, thank you.

 

[Guido's Brother]

One person addressing a group is not in a position to pronounce heresy. Church courts may and should adjudge a particular situation within its boundaries.

Which is what the Synod of Dort did.

 

[jwithnell]

Which is what the Synod of Dort did.

That would certainly give a subscribing denomination grounds to refuse ordination to a candidate espousing these errors; but a preacher on Sunday morning could not prounounce heresy on the local Independent Baptists. (Though he'd be wise to guard his flock against doctrinal influence).

 

[Guido's Brother]

That would certainly give a subscribing denomination grounds to refuse ordination to a candidate espousing these errors; but a preacher on Sunday morning could not prounounce heresy on the local Independent Baptists.

Wouldn't the same logic apply to the local Jehovah's Witnesses? After all, the Athanasian Creed was only condemning Arianism in the patristic age.

 

[jwithnell]

Wouldn't the same logic apply to the local Jehovah's Witnesses? After all, the Athanasian Creed was only condemning Arianism in the patristic age.

Their published teaching certainly conflicts with dogma. (My sons at a fairly young age could hear my brief refutations to door-knockers and correctly guess if it was LDS, etc. That likely reflects the pure teaching the boys hear each Sunday.)

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

According to the Canons of Dort, the Arminianism of the Remonstrants was dragging the doctrine of Pelagius out of hell. Also, if you read the likes of Francis Turretin, he repeatedly points out that the views of the Remonstrant Arminians often amounted to much the same thing as either Socinianism (Unitarianism) or Pelagianism.

But ... there is a difference between Remonstrant Arminianism and the evangelical Arminianism that emerged in the 18th century. I think the likes of William Cunningham argued that, while highly inconsistent, the later evangelical Arminianism was closer to the truth than the views of the Remonstrants.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Here is a reference by Alexander McLeod on this subject.

 

[timfost]

I think there are a few things at play here.

1. How do we define a "gospel issue"? If it means that the issue affects the gospel in some way, then it's safe to say any error having to do with the gospel is a gospel error. I think, however, you may mean a salvific issue. Could you please define?

2. How much knowledge is necessary for salvation? The Bible doesn't quantify for us. However, some things are listed as essential, such as acknowledging Jesus as Christ.

3. What kind of Arminianism are we talking about? I've not yet met a purely Remonstrance Arminian to date.

This quote from John Owen may be helpful:

"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."

 

[Tom Hart]

I've not yet met a purely Remonstrance Arminian to date.

I've met one, and I there are a few others around. I can say that after talking to one it became very apparent that it is a different species from your average evangelical. I then a young Calvinist, the things that spewed from that fellow's mouth really did shock me.

Most "Arminians" today have never heard of the Articles of Remonstrance, and many wouldn't even know the word "Arminian".

 

[Tom Hart]

I had ignorantly hoped, that the Reformed community did not have this problem.

I'm not sure what this comment is meant to imply. Is it wrong to portray a false theological system as a false gospel?

Well, it depends. Define "gospel" and "false gospel", and, since you used the term, "gospel issue". And, rather importantly for this discussion, define "Arminian".

Certainly, if there is someone teaching a false gospel then we should be prepared to say so. Is it improper, for instance, to say that Rome teaches a false gospel? Or prosperity preachers? Or antinomians?

It is not a "problem" to point out that Arminianism is false. It is. But...

I heard a Reformed person leverage this same claim against those holding to Armenian [sic] theology.

Might this be too broad a brush? Perhaps. I think some of those often called "Arminians" are indeed saved. Their theogy is wrong, but, thankfully, they don't carry it to its logical ends. And, of course, it is not theology that saves men.

I recognize that Arminian theology is heretical in many respects, but I do not see a need to translate that into presenting a false Gospel.

"Heretical in many respects" and not "a false gospel". I'll admit I'm puzzled over that one. We're probably going to need a definition of "heresy" as well.

how can we allege that the Gospel they are presenting is false?

It's apparent that we need to adopt some nuance here. As Tim helpfully asked, what Arminianism are we talking about?

Arminianism, like modern Calvinism and ice cream, comes in a variety of flavours.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I then a young Calvinist

versus
I was then a young Calvinist

 

[Reformed Apologist]

I'm not sure what this comment is meant to imply. Is it wrong to portray a false theological system as a false gospel?

Well, it depends. Define "gospel" and "false gospel", and, since you used the term, "gospel issue". And, rather importantly for this discussion, define "Arminian".

Certainly, if there is someone teaching a false gospel then we should be prepared to say so. Is it improper, for instance, to say that Rome teaches a false gospel? Or prosperity preachers? Or antinomians?

It is not a "problem" to point out that Arminianism is false. It is. But...

Might this be too broad a brush? Perhaps. I think some of those often called "Arminians" are indeed saved. Their theogy is wrong, but, thankfully, they don't carry it to its logical ends. And, of course, it is not theology thay saves men.

"Heretical in many respects" and not "a false gospel". I'll admit I'm puzzled over that one. We're probably going to need a definition of "heresy" as well.

It's apparent that we need to adopt some nuance here. As Tim helpfully asked, what Arminianism are we talking about?

Arminianism, like modern Calvinism and ice cream, comes in a variety of flavours.

Tom, the Gospel is the Gospel. It is what a person needs to believe in, in order to be saved. A person does not need to believe in limited atonememt, preservation of the saints or un conditional election in order to be saved. They simply need to believe in Christ's atonement. Still, in all these forementioned doctrines, decision theology still presents heretical beliefs.

No bodies theology is perfect ( just look at paedo baptist....j/k)

 

[Reformed Apologist]

I think there are a few things at play here.

1. How do we define a "gospel issue"? If it means that the issue affects the gospel in some way, then it's safe to say any error having to do with the gospel is a gospel error. I think, however, you may mean a salvific issue. Could you please define?

2. How much knowledge is necessary for salvation? The Bible doesn't quantify for us. However, some things are listed as essential, such as acknowledging Jesus as Christ.

3. What kind of Arminianism are we talking about? I've not yet met a purely Remonstrance Arminian to date.

This quote from John Owen may be helpful:

"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."

Yes...when I say "Gospel" I mean from a salvific standpoint. All I'm trying to say is, it is only necessary to believe in Christ as Lord and savior in order to be saved. That, in it's most basic sense, is the Gospel.I don't see how modern decession theology makes that false.

"And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." ( Acts 16:31)

 

[Ed Walsh]

Arminianism, like modern Calvinism and ice cream, comes in a variety of flavors.

A phrase I use a lot about Armianian Christians is--blessed inconsistency.
We are all inconsistent with what we believe to some extent. Necessarily so because we are fallible human beings. Knowing this about ourselves, this is helpful, but it still does not deliver us from our many inconsistencies. Haven't we all heard Arminian Christians on their knees praying for God to save a friend or family member? There's a little inconsistency even in that isn't there? To be consistent, I guess they should work consistently to change the emotions and feelings of the person to whom they want to see saved. But they don't. They pray the same as we do. When their mother is sick, they pray to God for Him to heal. And they repeatedly thank God for saving their own soul. Ah, blessed inconsistency.

But I also have also said that if an Arminian is consistent in believing that he and he alone makes the final decision about his salvation. And that he and he alone maintains his salvation throughout his life at the peril of losing it. This man resembles much more the arrogant and self-righteous Pharisees who Jesus condemned as hopelessly lost. An entirely consistent Arminian cannot be saved.