Does Arminianism present a false Gospel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D o G: we are sinners, can't save ourselves, unable to come unless God calls us first; His love is irresistible. Men need to accept, receive, repent. God chose us in Him-the elect only. Jesus is God; in the flesh; died for sinners that don't deserve mercy, rose from the dead. sits at God's right hand actively ruling. Those that come to Christ are safe in his arms forever.

This is the gospel. Short and sweet.

However, it would be difficult for someone to really assimilate that data without having some background. Most people in this country already have much data already onboard; hence, the simplicity is actually data topping off information that they already have.
 
Scott Bushey said:
D o G: we are sinners, can't save ourselves, unable to come unless God calls us first; His love is irresistible. Men need to accept, receive, repent. God chose us in Him-the elect only. Jesus is God; in the flesh; died for sinners that don't deserve mercy, rose from the dead. sits at God's right hand actively ruling. Those that come to Christ are safe in his arms forever.

This is the gospel. Short and sweet.

However, it would be difficult for someone to really assimilate that data without having some background. Most people in this country already have much data already onboard; hence, the simplicity is actually data topping off information that they already have.
Click to expand...
I think that the Gospel message itself in less than that, as it's holding to one is sinner, Jesus died in your stead, and that eternal life is Him being your own risen Saviour and Lord!
 
Scott,

Perhaps it may be helpful to unpack the way we use "gospel" a little more. The doctrines of grace are good news for sure. In fact, the whole counsel of God is good news. However, I would not say that it is the gospel as scripture defines it, at least in a sense. Similarly, the doctrine of election is not "the gospel" as it goes out to unbelievers, which is normally how we use the term. Consider Dort 1.14:

"As the doctrine of divine election by the most wise counsel of God was declared by the prophets, by Christ Himself, and by the apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures both of the Old and the New Testament, so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God’s most holy Name, and for enlivening and comforting His people, without vainly attempting to investigate the sacred ways of the Most High (Acts 20:27; Rom. 11:33, 34; 12:3; Heb. 6:17–18)."

This is important since while the gospel is fit for an unbelieving world, election, as a part of the doctrines of grace, is fit for believers.

Similarly, the 39 Articles, Art. 17 states:

"As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh... So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation."

This confirms something similar to Dort while speaking of the danger of holding this doctrine before unbelievers. But certainly the gospel should be held out before unbelievers as Dort also affirms in 1.3-4.

All this to say, our confessions do seem to distinguish "the gospel" and the doctrines of grace insofar as what is to be proclaimed to whom.

I do believe that the doctrines of grace are good news (gospel) for the church militant in their present salvation (those who are being saved).
 
Last edited:
The below comes from the Westminster Confession. Perhaps it is useful to keep in mind during this discussion, since it seems to indicate that someone may have enough understanding for salvation, but not in all matters that may be good to know.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
 
timfost said:
The doctrines of grace are good news for sure. In fact, the whole counsel of God is good news. However, I would not say that it is the gospel as scripture defines it, at least in a sense
Click to expand...

Hey Tim,
I made that distinction in post # 118 where I said:

Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the gospel. Much like a cliff notes of God's word. They are at the heart of the gospel.
Click to expand...

I guess I could have worded that better. *Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the heart of the gospel message.* Could a man be saved reading the D of G? Not without the scriptural citations.
:banana:
 
Scott Bushey said:
Hey Tim,
I made that distinction in post # 118 where I said:



I guess I could have worded that better. *Most reformed would agree that the D of G are the heart of the gospel message.* Could a man be saved reading the D of G? Not without the scriptural citations.
:banana:
Click to expand...

I didn't think I was saying anything you would disagree with. Just trying to clarify.

And yes, the doctrines of grace are the nuts and bolts of the gospel. :)
 
It is a sobering thought - based on these comments the vast majority of churches in the USA are perhaps preaching a false gospel. Matt 19:25-26
 
Scott Bushey said:
Now, are there people out there that are elect, that are regenerated, holding to some of these false teachings? Yes. However, I would doubt that they are actually converted yet as they do not posses the truth of the gospel (yet).
Click to expand...

Hey Scott, how's it going?

I didn't follow every post that mainly you and you know who has been going back and forth about so I'm not totally up to snuff as they say. But would you apply this paragraph above to unsound people such as Billy Graham? It was he that led me to the Lord as he has many many other people. Plus a whole lot that were not "led to the Lord" who thought they were.
Just asking.

Sorry C. Ryan for the you know who phrase. :)

Ed
 
Last edited:
Ed Walsh said:
Hey Scott, how's it going?

I didn't follow every post that mainly you and you know who has been going back and forth about so I'm not totally up to snuff as they say. But would you apply this paragraph above to unsound people such as Billy Graham? It was he that led me to the Lord as he has many many other people. Plus a whole lot that were not "led to the Lord" who thought they were.
Just asking.

Sorry C. Ryan for the you know who phrase. :)

Ed
Click to expand...

Hi Ed,
Since we both know that the elect come from 'every tribe, tongue and nation', the actual venue is insignificant. The purpose and decree of God is sure; no matter who is preaching. My only rationale has to do with the order of salvation and if a man can be converted without any data onboard. Election precedes regeneration in that the regenerated elect have seeds of faith, prior to conversion, or as Matt would say, akin to an acorn. An acorn is not a tree yet; only the capacity. When this actually occurs in the decree, only God knows. Truth is the water that germinates the acorn and starts the growth. The sprout may be the conversion. I know many disagree with me here in relation to the order, but in my opinion, it makes better sense. I have no issue with the 'gap'.
 
Last edited:
Ed Walsh said:
Hey Scott, how's it going?

I didn't follow every post that mainly you and you know who has been going back and forth about so I'm not totally up to snuff as they say. But would you apply this paragraph above to unsound people such as Billy Graham? It was he that led me to the Lord as he has many many other people. Plus a whole lot that were not "led to the Lord" who thought they were.
Just asking.

Sorry C. Ryan for the you know who phrase. :)

Ed
Click to expand...
There have been many saved by the grace of God such as Billy Graham who did not have a full understanding of Sotierology as Calvinist and Reformed would have, are we seeing only we have the real truth and are the really saved then?
 
Last edited:
Scott Bushey said:
I have no issue with the 'gap'.
Click to expand...

Your order is excellent, and election inevitably precedes everything—it is from eternity. (Oops, is that my Supra. showing?) As for the rest of your list, as I said I agree, but I also think they could happen in order—yes—but also in an instant from our point of view. If I am wrong, I welcome being better taught. I never want to be right, for the sake of being right.
 
Last edited:
Ed Walsh said:
but I also think they could happen in order—yes—but also in an instant from our point of view. If I am wrong,
Click to expand...

Ed, absolutely. Many times, it happens in a nano-second. My position doesn't demand that it has to happen that way, i.e. an elect infant, regenerated in the womb, w/ seed of faith, watered by the word and converted at a later date.
 
Dachaser said:
are we seeing only we have the real truth and are the really saved then?
Click to expand...

I speak only to the first part of the quote highlighted green.

An aside:
Every honest Christian teacher should think that they are correct about everything they believe the Bible teaches. Even though they know that they could be wrong at some points. It would be the hight of dishonesty and a conscience-searing sin to think otherwise. We should remember this when we try to teach a fellow saint the truth more perfectly. Always assume the best motives in a brother while at the same time "instructing those that oppose themselves."

2 Timothy 2:24-26
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.​
 
Scott Bushey said:
Ed, absolutely. Many times, it happens in a nano-second. My position doesn't demand that it has to happen that way, i.e. an elect infant, regenerated in the womb, w/ seed of faith, watered by the word and converted at a later date.
Click to expand...
regeneration though comes right before the person received Jesus as Lord and saviour, or else close to it, not extended period of time between those events.
 
Dachaser said:
regeneration though comes right before the person received Jesus as Lord and saviour, or else close to it, not extended period of time between those events.
Click to expand...

And with elect infants in the womb that are regenerated? How does that practically work? When are they converted?
 
David,
My point being, trust, belief, acceptance, reception has to be based on something; how is it that an infant in the womb, who is decreed to live a full life, who is regenerated, do these things? Since we both know that conversion is not regeneration and regeneration is not conversion, when is this infant converted? U say, "The moment they trusted in Jesus to save them!" I say, when? After they receoive truth from their parents? When they are able to process data? Surely u agree that when u 'received' and 'accepted', it was based on propositions u understood and accepted, correct? Hence, there can be time between regeneration and conversion.
 
Dachaser said:
God knows those whom He will save, so when the time for to hatdinber to receive Jesus will be the time He shall regenerate them in order to do just that.
Click to expand...

I understand that; we are talking of conversion, not regeneration.

You previously said:

regeneration though comes right before the person received Jesus as Lord and saviour, or else close to it, not extended period of time between those events.
Click to expand...

Regeneration is at God's discretion; it can happen at any time, much akin to wind blowing around.

Apparently, u believe that a infant who is decreed to live a full life, can be regenerated and converted prior to receiving the gospel?

How does an infant receive truth when they are not cognitively able? I understand that God does save elect infants who are decreed to die in the womb or closely thereafter, by His divine hand and power, going to that infant himself and preaching the gospel to that child. But one who will live a full life, must have the gospel preached to him/her. Men can only be saved by the gospel and assenting to biblical propositions. Can an infant repent? Receive? Accept? ect....
 
I see both as flip sides of same coin, as while God regenerated the sinner in order to them to be enabled to receive Jesus, to us appears to all be happening at the same time!
 
Dachaser said:
I see both as flip sides of same coin, as while God regenerated the sinner in order to them to be enabled to receive Jesus, to us appears to all be happening at the same time!
Click to expand...

David,
It's really difficult having any dialog with you. You don't really interact with the previous comments. It would do u well, to try and interact with that which the posters are trying to convey and then, respond. Sorry, but I cannot continue conversing with you because of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

shackleton
  • Locked
Does this song teach a false gospel?
Replies
21
Views
3K
PuritanCovenanter
PuritanCovenanter
Haeralis
  • Locked
Christians visiting churches which preach a false gospel?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Dachaser
D
Eoghan
  • Locked
Christmas present suggestions
Replies
11
Views
943
Grant
Grant
JM
  • Locked
Present Day Evangelism
Replies
1
Views
1K
Pergamum
P
B
  • Locked
Homeschool Graduates Present?
Replies
24
Views
2K
Covenant Joel
C
Back
Top