Is Arminianism another gospel...

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
Isn't all heresy damnable? Was not the point of Dordt to bring the remonstrants and their illicit theology up on charges of heresy?

From what I have read, all of the remonstrants were defrocked and run out of the country. Would the church defrock someone for less than heresy?

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by 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.

Greg,
Is Arminianism an off-shoot of Pelagianism? Does Pelagianism deny justification by faith alone?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
Isn't all heresy damnable? Was not the point of Dordt to bring the remonstrants and their illicit theology up on charges of heresy?

No, historically not all heresy is damnable heresy - that is, a heresy that is so bad it takes one outside the reach of salvation.

One example: paedocommunion is heresy. It is a serious error, that has serious consequences. It is a threat to the Church and should be stamped out wherever it rears its head, using the judicial processes of the Church. But can one be a paedocommunionist and a Christian? Of course. Witness G.I. Williamson. Can one be a paedocommunionist and not a Christian? Of course - witness most of Eastern Orthodoxy.

It was my impression that Dordt's purpose was to check the spread of erroneous (heretical) teachings that were disturbing the Church. I don't think (for example) that it declared Arminian a non-believer or an apostate. I could be wrong - this is not my strongest area of Church History. If so, let me know.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by 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.

Greg,
Is Arminianism an off-shoot of Pelagianism? Does Pelagianism deny justification by faith alone?

Pelagianism denies justficiation by faith alone, and indeed denies that justification is even needed. It poses that all men are born in the same state as Adam, and that if they do not consciously sin, they have no need of salvation. It denies that the Fall had any affect on mankind. So in that sense Arminianism is not an offshoot of Pelagianism. Even Rome condemned Pelagianism at the Council of Orange, and the Papists continue to do so today. That should give some suggestion as to how far off the mark Pelagianism is.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
Did Arminius deny justification by faith alone? From what I have read, all of the remonstrants were defrocked and run out of the country. Would the church defrock someone for less than heresy?

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

 

[doulosChristou]

William Ames wrote that Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error." Robert Godfrey, Church History Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, writes that "the thoelogial differences between Calvinists and Arminians should not be overemphasized. Most Arminians have been and are evangelical Christians."

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
All heresy is damnable and all heresy makes one apostate. Paedo communion is not heretical. That would make the church heretical knowing that someone is taking the supper whom is not a true believer.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by doulosChristou
William Ames wrote that Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error." Robert Godfrey, Church History Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, writes that "the thoelogial differences between Calvinists and Arminians should not be overemphasized. Most Arminians have been and are evangelical Christians."

Greg,
We're not talking of people whom are being misled. We are speaking of those whom practice and teach clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius.

I agree with Godfrey. As I have said, I have never met an Arminian.

 

[doulosChristou]

Is Arminianism an off-shoot of Pelagianism?

I'd say it's an unbiblical reaction against Calvinism, developed by a former Calvinist, rather than a sympathy with Pelagius. Though, it is rightly classified as semi-pelagian.

Does Pelagianism deny justification by faith alone?

Clearly and absolutely.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by doulosChristou
William Ames wrote that Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error." Robert Godfrey, Church History Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, writes that "the thoelogial differences between Calvinists and Arminians should not be overemphasized. Most Arminians have been and are evangelical Christians."

Greg,
We're not talking of people whom are being misled. We are speaking of those whom practice and teach clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius.

Yes, and it is this clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius which Ames says is not heresy but error. And it is those whom practice and teach clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius whom Robert Godfrey states have mostly been and are evangelical Christians.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I agree with Godfrey.

I'm not quite sure you do.

 

[ReformedWretch]

This is why I like this place. I can ask a question and get a books worth of knowledge on the question.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
All heresy is damnable and all heresy makes one apostate. Paedo communion is not heretical. That would make the church heretical knowing that someone is taking the supper whom is not a true believer.

Scott,

I have always heard the distinction between error, heresy and damnable heresy. For the record, I believe Paedocommunion is a more pernicious and dangerous error than garden variety Arminianism. The former misleads men with respect to the sovereignty of God; the latter misleads men with respect to the neceesity of conversion.

Paedocommunion does not make the Church heretical, because every branch of Western Christendom rejects it.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Is Arminianism an off-shoot of Pelagianism?

I'd say it's an unbiblical reaction against Calvinism, developed by a former Calvinist, rather than a sympathy with Pelagius. Though, it is rightly classified as semi-pelagian.

Does Pelagianism deny justification by faith alone?

Clearly and absolutely.

Is Pelagianism heresy?

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Is Pelagianism heresy?

Yes, emphatically. It is damnable heresy.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by doulosChristou
William Ames wrote that Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error." Robert Godfrey, Church History Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, writes that "the thoelogial differences between Calvinists and Arminians should not be overemphasized. Most Arminians have been and are evangelical Christians."

Greg,
We're not talking of people whom are being misled. We are speaking of those whom practice and teach clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius.

Yes, and it is this clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius which Ames says is not heresy but error. And it is those whom practice and teach clinical Arminianism ala J. Arminius whom Robert Godfrey states have mostly been and are evangelical Christians.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I agree with Godfrey.

I'm not quite sure you do.

From a present day venue. I believe you have misunderstood Ames. Unfortunately, I am not in my library. Can you give me the citing from Ames.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I just thought I would chip in with some links to revelant documents (thanks to our Webmaster and others):

Canons of Dordt: http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

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

Critique of Arminius:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/JamesArminius/TeachingsOfJamesArminiusMainPage.htm

Critique of Arminianism: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/Arminianism.htm

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Is Arminianism an off-shoot of Pelagianism?

I'd say it's an unbiblical reaction against Calvinism, developed by a former Calvinist, rather than a sympathy with Pelagius. Though, it is rightly classified as semi-pelagian.

Does Pelagianism deny justification by faith alone?

Clearly and absolutely.

Is Pelagianism heresy?

Yes. One cannot deny the need for all men of justification and original sin and be a believer. Pelagianism does not just deny justification by faith alone (which is bad enough) but the doctrine of justfication completely.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
All heresy is damnable and all heresy makes one apostate. Paedo communion is not heretical. That would make the church heretical knowing that someone is taking the supper whom is not a true believer.

Scott,

I have always heard the distinction between error, heresy and damnable heresy. For the record, I believe Paedocommunion is a more pernicious and dangerous error than garden variety Arminianism. The former misleads men with respect to the sovereignty of God; the latter misleads men with respect to the neceesity of conversion.

Paedocommunion does not make the Church heretical, because every branch of Western Christendom rejects it.

Fred,
I didn't say that paedo communion made the church heretical. The reason the church at large rejects paedo communion is because of two reasons: 1) The child or infant cannot examine themselves for the table 2) they may not be true believers. My rationale is that if these are the reasons we reject the doctrine, and you say the doctrine is heretical, wouldn't we all be practicing heresy in the idea that 1) non believers are taking the supper and we allow for that, and 2) non believers do not examine themselves either.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Is Arminianism a form of Pelagianism?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
I didn't say that paedo communion made the church heretical. The reason the church at large rejects paedo communion is because of two reasons: 1) The child or infant cannot examine themselves for the table 2) they may not be true believers. My rationale is that if these are the reasons we reject the doctrine, and you say the doctrine is heretical, wouldn't we all be practicing heresy in the idea that 1) non believers are taking the supper and we allow for that, and 2) non believers do not examine themselves either.

Ok, I understand you now. I would say that the heretical nature of paedocommunion is in that it makes full and complete membership (i.e. communing membership) no longer dependent on faith, regeneration, or even profession. The entire need for conversion is out the window. Everything is objective - if you are baptized, then you are a Christian. If a Christian, then commune and have full rights as a Christian. This leads quickly and easily to legalism, and a denial of the ordo salutis. Not in all paedocommunionists - but it leads in that direction. I have said it before, the Church should use all means at its disposal to combat this dangerous and aberrant teaching.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Is Arminianism a form of Pelagianism?

No. Not unless (not to my knowledge) Arminius denied original sin, the reality of the Fall and the need for salvation.

Article 3 of the Remonstrants from Matt's page is clearly and explicitly anti-Pelagian:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, "œWithout me ye can do nothing."

 

[Scott Bushey]

to combat this dangerous and aberrant teaching.

Fred,
Just to clearify, so paedocommunion is NOT then heretical? It is "aberrant and dangerous."

I am going out, I will post more later in regards to the subject of Arminianism....

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

to combat this dangerous and aberrant teaching.

Fred,
Just to clearify, so paedocommunion is NOT then heretical? It is "aberrant and dangerous."

I am going out, I will post more later in regards to the subject of Arminianism....

If the only option w/r/t heresy is damnable (which is an unhistorical position) then paedocommunion is not heresy. If it is possible (as history bears out) to have heresy that is not damnable, than I believe it is a non-damnable heresy.

 

[tdowns]

Wow!

Lots of great posts. I guess I can see why I was confused in regards to the thinking on Arminianism in regards to it being a different gospel. It seems there are different opinions. These responses are great (as are Matthews essays) in helping me sort out the severity of Arminian doctrines.

I personally, can't see how the doctrines of Arminians or modern Arminian type churches that leave the final choice up to man, can be Faith Alone, they may say that, but then as they go on to teach what it takes to be saved-- Mans fantastic, pure, righteous, great choice to choose God--and then what it takes to stay one of God's children: seems it nullifies their Faith Alone statement.

One more thing, doesn't playing out the fact that man chooses--when did God know who would choose? Before he made them? After? If before, and he still made them, how does that help their cause?
Doesn't God WAITING to see man's decision at any level mess with God's essential attributes?

I'm anxious to read more.

TD

[Edited on 24-12-2004 by tdowns007]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Historically speaking (I keep saying that a lot) let's conider teh facts of the Reformed church of England, the Netherlands, France, Germany, et al.:


Puritan view of Heresy:

Thus, it may be described: Heresy is an erroneous or false opinion, repugnant unto and subverting the doctrine of faith revealed in the Word as necessary unto salvation; and obstinately maintained and perniciously adhered unto by a professed Christian.

To make an erroneous opinion amount to heresy, two things must occur: 1) The error must be about faith; matters of divine faith. 2) It must be against the faith. This type of error is heresy two fold: 1) When it is not concordant to every truth in Scripture, and 2) When it is repugnant to the truth, or any truth, which is necessary to salvation, and here, no doubt, the error against faith will prove to be heresy.

Of the Danger of Heresies:
1) The Scriptures charge sin, perniciousness, and damnation upon them. Paul reckons them among those works of the flesh which shut persons out of the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). Peter calls them pernicious and damnable, and such as bring swift destruction; and, speaking of the authors of them, he says that their damnation slumbers not (2 Peter 2:1-3).
2) Heresies are compared in Scripture sometimes to gangrene or canker, 2 Timothy 2:17, "Their word will eat as doth a canker." The canker is an invading ulcer, creeping from joint to joint, corrupting one part after another till, at length, it eats out the very heart and life.
3) Jesus Christ and His apostles give special charges and caveats against them, to take heed and beware of them, which they never would have done had they not been dangerous. Mark 8:15, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Matthew 7:15, "Beware of False Prophets." Philippians 3:2, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." 2 Peter 3:17, "Beware, lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness."

The Greatness of the Danger of Heresies:
Every heretical opinion buys a soul or stabs a soul. Its stabs the soul of him who maintains it, and still trades it on to murder more souls. Heresy turns the glory of God into a lie. O sirs, what is God without truth? And what is all the goodness of the Gospel without truth? And what is the fabric of man's salvation without truth? Truth is, as it were, the pin, the clasp, the knot that ties all. And a church is never more close to dying when it gives up the truth. Heresy is like the circles in a pond; one begets another, the smaller to the greater. So one heresy begets another, a lesser to a greater.

10 chief heresies:
1) The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do not bind us Christians.
2) That God never loved one man more than another before the world, and that all the decrees are conditional.
3) That there is no original sin.
4) That the will of man is still free (Well there goes the Arminian neighborhood).
5) That the saints may fall totally and finally from grace. (and again)
6) That Christ died alike for all, yea, that his salvific virtue of His death extends to all the reprobates as well as the elect, yea, to the very devils as well as unto men. (oh my, and again)
7) That Jesus Christ came into the world not for satisfaction, but for publication; not to procure for us and to us the love of God, but only to be a glorious Publisher of the Gospel. (and again!)
8) That God is not displeased at all if His children sin.
9) That the doctrine of repentance is a soul destroying doctrine.
10) That the souls of men are not immortal but mortal.


Take Heed:
Let everyone take heed lest he be carried away with any part of this flood of heresy. Be on guard that you are not light or proud Christians. Be on guard that you are not loose Christians. If ungodliness is in the heart, it will not be hard for error to get into the head. Take heed that you are not weak Christians. Take heed that you are not , worldly, nor hypocritical, nor unstable. Let everyone strengthen his soul that he may stand and withstand, and not be carried away. Take all in word: A judgment solidly principled, a heart sincerely renewed, a faith truly bottomed, truth and love of it cordially matched; profession and practice well joined, a fear of ourselves and dependence upon God still maintained, God's ordinances and the society of the humble and growing Christians still frequented, watchfulness and prayer still continued are the best directives that I can deliver to keep us in the truth, and the best preservatives that I know to keep us from error.


Well, that about sums it up for Arminians.


Dordt, histroically, says the same thing. After banishing all the Arminians for the pulpits, and then form the state, Dordt then wrote up an introduction to the points and condemened it as pernicious, and evil. They said Arminiansm as doctrine: smacks of Pelagius, is absurd, contradicts Scripture, give people the deadly poinson of Pelagianism, contradicts the apsotle, is entirely Pelagian, contrary to the Bible, "is an opiate of the flesh and the devil, and is a stronghold of Satan where he lies in wait for all people, wounds most of them, and fatally pierces many of them with the arrows of both despair and self-assurance...." and "and is nothing but a refurbished Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, and Mohammedanism". They call Arminians, "false accusers" and have the "judgment of God" against them.

Dordt expelled the Arminians minsiters, and warned the public of their heresy. The state was to read over the Synod's decision, once every three years to remind them of the wicked errors and heresies of these men that they had banished.

If that is not clear, then I am not sure what you all may be looking for.

Now in terms of "Arminians today", well that's just a mixture of Semi-Pelaginaism, Antinomianism, existentialism and liberalism in a neat little ball. You have to take those people case by case.

 

[fredtgreco]

Matt,

Where is the first section quoted from? If any of the 10 chief heresies are enough to send one to hell, than almost the entire visible church is headed to hell.

Don't get me wrong, I think all these are errors and are dangerous. But it would appear to me that almost the entire visible Christian Church believes some of these errors, especially if you take into consideration new believers.

Here is another question: if the Puritans believed that someone who believed these things was a damnable heretic, why both to reform the Church of England? It was full of Laudinism (Arminianism).

[Edited on 12/24/2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

It is quoted from the preface to the document itself.

The heresy part is quoted from Obadiah Sedgwick on "The Danger and Nature of Heresy."

Scott's "Synod of Dordt" is a good book to get.

If your church was on its way down, would you abandon it, or try to fix it first before you left? Many separatists left. But most stayed and tried to fix it first. Then came Westminster and they settled it, then Cromwell messed things up. Then it went back to Catholicism, and then Presbyterianism. Political upheavel at its finest.

[Edited on 12-24-2004 by webmaster]

 

[tdowns]

Does Arminianism mess with essence of God?

The arminian is trying to get around the fact that God elects certain people right?

If this is true, in their mind, God gives everyone a bit of grace, just enough to have the option to say yes to God, but only some say yes right?

Well if God knows all before all, and knows who will deny him, but makes them anyway, then he basically is predestining those people to hell anyway, right?

And if that's not true and God has to "see, watch, wait, have middle knowledge, whatever..." and creates the people before knowing, looking down the corridors of time, then at some point in God's time frame(no time/space with God) he had to wait to see what is going to happen, right?

Doesn't this mess with the very attributes of God?

So not only do the ARmins give lip service to Faith Alone, because it's Faith plus a Righteous choice, plus many good choices through life,

They give lip service to one of the very Natures of God, Omniscience.

Just seems that way to me, is that right?

TD

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by tdowns007
The arminian is trying to get around the fact that God elects certain people right?

If this is true, in their mind, God gives everyone a bit of grace, just enough to have the option to say yes to God, but only some say yes right?

Well if God knows all before all, and knows who will deny him, but makes them anyway, then he basically is predestining those people to hell anyway, right?

And if that's not true and God has to "see, watch, wait, have middle knowledge, whatever..." and creates the people before knowing, looking down the corridors of time, then at some point in God's time frame(no time/space with God) he had to wait to see what is going to happen, right?

Doesn't this mess with the very attributes of God?

So not only do the ARmins give lip service to Faith Alone, because it's Faith plus a Righteous choice, plus many good choices through life,

They give lip service to one of the very Natures of God, Omniscience.

Just seems that way to me, is that right?

TD

I think your observations are right on target. Arminianism posits an impotent God.