Is Arminianism another gospel...

[tdowns]

In the post about dispensationalism, it seemed it became confused with Armenianism at times. I know as it got going, that's where I was at. Seemingly so many churches that are Dispensational, also have Armenian tendencies, I was lumping the two together.

My question is? It was said a couple of times on the Dispensational post, that Ariminianism churches hold to faith alone? Is that true? If it is, the form of Armin. that I've seen at churches and radio guys I've listened to: Their Faith alone is lip service alone.

I guess I don't understand how Faith alone, corresponds with losing ones salvation, or having to make that RIGHTEOUS CHOICE before regeneration, or any of the other "works" the quasi Armenian American churches hold to.

If salvation is by Christ alone, faith alone, then how can a gospel that puts our decision above Gods not be a false one?

I've struggled with this for a long time, since hanging out at Calvary Chapel bible studies, etc. I don't doubt that Christ's church is in these places (people are saved there, including the teachers) but isn't that despite a false gospel?

So can a church that teaches losing ones salvation, puts the emphasis on works and/or sinless life to keep ones salvation, etc, then gives LIP SERVICE to faith alone, be a true church. Seems to me that's the majority of the Dispensational churches out there.

Would a better way to describe the "Arminianism" of American churches, as synergistic teaching?

How is denying Faith alone either through creed or general analysis of someones teaching, not be a false gospel? It's easy to say we hold to faith alone, then spend the next 45 min sermon teaching or implying that it is not faith alone.

Could it be said that when the "Armin" circles say faith alone, they pour a different meaning into it, just like a Mormon or JW pours a different meaning into Christ. So that when a JW says they believe in the saving power of the God Jesus, it is not a true statement biblically. So when the Armenian says I hold to faith alone, it is not a true statement. The words themselves have false meanings.

TDREVOLVER

 

[Scott Bushey]

True Arminianism is a denial of justification by faith alone, hence it is a false gospel. I have never met a historic Arminian.

 

[Ranger]

Generic Arminian Joe does not think about the end results of his beliefs in Arminianism. He just thinks that God is gracious for giving him free will, and that God was so loving that he died for everyone, or that God would be cruel to elect some and reprobate others before they were born. I think for most of them, the thinking ends there. Or if they do learn about the doctrines of Grace, they may stop their studies when they begin to think that we are ragdolls or robots.

But to be honest, we all thought those things at one time or another. For some of us, it was truly hard to overcome, but Christ slowly revealed it to us in His Word and confirmed it in our Spirit. Generic Arminian Joe still confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, and is therefore saved. He is just struggling on understanding how that salvation came about.

Now, is Arminianism proper a different gospel? I think it leads to preaching Christ "plus." That God did 99%, but you have to do that last 1%. I don't believe Arminius himself would have said that, but that is where it has led (and inevitably always will lead).

So my answer would be yes and no. It creates a distortion of the gospel, but your typical guy who came to Christ through Arminian preaching or who has only read books from the "Christian Living" section at the local, popular, make you feel good about yourself, Christian store is still a believer.

[Edited on 22-12-2004 by Ranger]

 

[Scot]

This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may be helpful. I'd say, yes, Arminianism is a false gospel.

http://www.soundofgrace.com/v4n3/2_relig.htm

 

[cih1355]

I have met some inconsistent Arminians. They would say that salvation is completely God's work and that the basis of how they are justified before God is Christ's substitutionary atonement and the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer. They would also say that if you do not accept Christ's payment of your sin in your place, then you will not be saved. The questions to ask are "If Jesus was punished for all of your sins and you go to hell, then what are you being punished for?" and "Why would you pay a debt that has already been paid for?".

[Edited on 23-12-2004 by cih1355]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Scot
This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may be helpful. I'd say, yes, Arminianism is a false gospel.

http://www.soundofgrace.com/v4n3/2_relig.htm

If Arminianism is a false gospel, is it accurate to say that an Arminian is actively engaged in sin?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Scot
This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may be helpful. I'd say, yes, Arminianism is a false gospel.

http://www.soundofgrace.com/v4n3/2_relig.htm

If Arminianism is a false gospel, is it accurate to say that an Arminian is actively engaged in sin?

At the heart of clinical Arminianism is a works related salvation. If one is trusting in anything other than Christ for their salvation, then they are still in their sin actively, hence, perishing.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Scot
This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may be helpful. I'd say, yes, Arminianism is a false gospel.

http://www.soundofgrace.com/v4n3/2_relig.htm

Scot,
Serious question here: As a reformed presbyterian, why would you choose a NCT as a resource when there are so many other choices to go to whom are likeminded with us? Do you see NCT as a logical theological sytstem?

[Edited on 12-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scot]

Scot,
Serious question here: As a reformed presbyterian, why would you choose a NCT as a resource when there are so many other choices to go to whom are likeminded with us? Do you see NCT as a logical theological sytstem?

You know Scott, I thought of that after I made the post. I thought maybe someone would bring that up. I came across that article a couple of weeks ago and thought it was decent. I don't see NCT as a logical theological system. You're right, there are better resources that I could've went to. I appreciate your observation.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Dan,
Thanks for your answer. May the Lord continue to bless the work of your hands!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
True Arminianism is a denial of justification by faith alone, hence it is a false gospel. I have never met a historic Arminian.

I think technically Arminianism is not a rejection of sola fide (i.e. faith alone as the instrument of salvation, but rather of the historic understanding of sola gratia (i.e. grace from God is salvific and effective not prevenient). I think this makes a difference in determining whether Arminianism is a false gospel. I personally believe that because of this Arminians can (and are) saved.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
True Arminianism is a denial of justification by faith alone, hence it is a false gospel. I have never met a historic Arminian.

I think technically Arminianism is not a rejection of sola fide (i.e. faith alone as the instrument of salvation, but rather of the historic understanding of sola gratia (i.e. grace from God is salvific and effective not prevenient). I think this makes a difference in determining whether Arminianism is a false gospel. I personally believe that because of this Arminians can (and are) saved.

That is the important distinction. It is why Whitefield was able to say of Wesley (an historic Arminian), when asked by his fellow Calvinists if if they would see Wesley in heaven:

"I fear not, he will be so near the throne, and we shall be at such a distance, that we shall hardly get sight of him."

 

[Scott Bushey]

Was not Arminius a close follower of Pelagius?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Was not Arminius a close follower of Pelagius?

No. Pelagius (or maybe more properly his student Coelestius) believed that man was autonomous and not affected by the Fall. The Pelagian views man as having complete natural ability to follow either the example of Adam or the example of Christ. Further, the Pelagian denies the substitutionary atonement.

The Arminian (perhaps best termed a semi-Pelagian, but less Pelagian than Rome) believes that man is indeed completely rendered incapable by the Fall and is spiritually dead in his sins. Where the Arminian errs (and it is an error) is in seeing a work of God that applies to all men, making them just alive enough to respond to the gospel. This work is called prevenient grace, and has no foundation in Scripture.

So for the Arminian, the Christian is saved by the work of Christ alone, through the instrument of faith alone, but that faith is not the product of God's grace alone, but rather it is the work of man in response to God's work of prevenient grace.

Does that make sense?

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Was not Arminius a close follower of Pelagius?

There was a great difference between Pelagius' heretical teaching and Arminius' erroneous teaching. Pelagius denied total depravity and the whole doctrine of original sin; Arminius affirmed both. The gospel of Pelagius is more damnable than Rome's in that it teaches man can be saved quite apart from God's grace. Grace, in other words, is totally unecessary. Arminius agreed with Augustine that grace was essential because man was totally depraved. Where Arminius errs, and errs terribly, is in nullifying the effects of the Fall to all men through resistable (prevenient) grace to all men. This is how he and his followers (including Wesley) were able to deny the other four points of Calvinism. Here's a taste of Arminius. Regarding the Fall, he wrote:

"By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is under the dominion of sin. For 'to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey,' (Rom. 6:16,) and 'of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,' and is his regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet. 2:19.) In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace: For Christ has said, 'Without me ye can do nothing.' Though we always and on all occasions make this grace to precede, to accompany and follow; and without which, we constantly assert, no good action whatever can be produced by man. Nay, we carry this principle so far as not to dare to attribute the power here described even to the nature of Adam himself, without the help of Divine Grace both infused and assisting. It has become evident, that the fabricated opinion [that he taught Pelagian free-willism] is imposed on us through calumny. Concerning Grace and Free Will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true spiritual good, without Grace."

The Remonstrants, Arminius' immediate followers, wrote a document that Matt has posted here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianArticles.htm

I believe that it shows they were a good deal closer to us (Biblical Calvinism) than they were to the heretic Pelagius.

 

[fredtgreco]

Greg,

Not sure you meant to say this, but prevenient grace (in my understanding) is not defined as resistable grace, but rather "the grace that comes before" salvation. In effect it makes grace resistable, since it comes to all without distinction.

 

[Scott Bushey]

There was a great difference between Pelagius' heretical teaching and Arminius' erroneous teaching.

Ok. Hold the presses. Are you saying that Arminianism is not heresy? The remonstrant articles deemed the teaching of Arminius are heretical.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Greg,

Not sure you meant to say this, but prevenient grace (in my understanding) is not defined as resistable grace, but rather "the grace that comes before" salvation. In effect it makes grace resistable, since it comes to all without distinction.

Exactly. It comes before (prevenient) to all and may lead to faith in Christ or not (resistable / supressable).

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

There was a great difference between Pelagius' heretical teaching and Arminius' erroneous teaching.

Ok. Hold the presses. Are you saying that Arminianism is not heresy? The remonstrant articles deemed the teaching of Arminius are heretical.

Different folks on this board have meant different things by the "h" word. If you mean, by heretical, bad theology and error, then yes. If you mean, on the other hand, soul-destroying, damnable heresy (i.e. Wesley burns in hell), then no.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Greg,
What did Dordt mean?

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Greg,
What did Dordt mean?

I've no idea.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Cmon Greg. You know what Dordt meant. Heresy! Thats the point. Arminianism is nothing less than Pelagianism and nothing more than semi-Pelagianism. These doctrines deny justification by faith alone.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Greg,
What did Dordt mean?

Scott,

Does Dordt pronounce the "errors" its words a damnable heresy? I looked quick but could not find it. I confess to not being as up to speed on Dordt as Westminster.

 

[Scott Bushey]

In contrast, the articles pronounce the teachings of the remonstrants as heresy.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Cmon Greg. You know what Dordt meant. Heresy! Thats the point. Arminianism is nothing less than Pelagianism and nothing more than semi-Pelagianism. These doctrines deny justification by faith alone.

Scott,

It is certainly not Pelagianism. Not even Rome teaches Pelagianism. To accuse them of such gives them some ability to wiggle out of the errors they do teach. That is EXACTLY what has happened in the NPP movement; they accuse Reformed scholars of calling so-and-so a Pelagian, calling the Pharisees Pelagians, etc. And then they defeat that accusation. But it is a straw man. They are not Pelagian, but semi-Pelagian. There is an important distinction.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
In contrast, the articles pronounce the teachings of the remonstrants as heresy.

"The articles" ? What kind of heresy? I really need information here - not to disagree, but to find out. I'm not familiar with this off the top of my head.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Cmon Greg. You know what Dordt meant.

No, in all honestly, I do not. I have not studied that Synod yet.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
These doctrines deny justification by faith alone.

On that point, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Scott Bushey]

One of the articles states:

Arminius:

"Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ's merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life."

 

[doulosChristou]

John Wesley, who welcomed the title Arminian and asserted that he had no essential differences with Arminius raised the question, "How can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings?" Wesley then offered this advice, "Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means." Wesley noted that Arminianism was usually charged with five errors: 1. they deny original sin 2. they deny justification by faith 3. they deny absolute predestination 4. they deny the grace of God to be irresistible 5. they affirm a believer may fall from grace. Wesley said that Arminians pleaded "not guilty" to the first two charges. In fact Wesley claimed the doctrine of original sin was "the first, grand, distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity." Concerning justification he also wrote that Arminians thought exactly as Mr. Calvin did. "In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth." It's the other three of which they are certainly guilty, and Wesley admits as much.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
One of the articles states:

Arminius:

"Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ's merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life."

This is I think but one form of Arminianism - neonomianism. Richard Baxter was a neonomian as well. I don't think all Arminians would see faith as the grounds of salvation. Some would, but others would not. But your point is certainly applicable to at least some.

Where does Dordt call this damnable heresy (i.e. those who believe it are not just wrong, but going to hell)?