Jacobus Arminius, damnable heresy

[ReformedWretch]

Can one safely assume that Jacobus was teaching such? If so, we can then assume that we will not see him in eternity? Am I going to far in this thinking?

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'd hesitate to speculate...

 

[Whitefield]

That is between him and the Lord Jesus.

 

[D. Paul]

It's this kind of question that causes me to think there is no point in trying to get theology straight.

I recall a sermon by John MacArthur where he stated that the Christian life is the most precise and exacting. I still agree with that. So if Arminianism is merely mistaken theology, it's really no big deal; as with any of our "mistakes" in theology?

Yet, when we read our beloved Puritans and Reformers, they were not shy in exposing and obliterating the scheme.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I don't think anyone here believes that the heresy is not "judgeable" as fruit from the tree of Pelagius, however I just don't believe that Arminius' personal salvation is ours to call. He did "confess with his mouth" and his heresy did not go against whether God raised Jesus from the dead or many other orthodox beliefs, thus my hesitation.

 

[Christusregnat]

I don't think anyone here believes that the heresy is not "judgeable" as fruit from the tree of Pelagius, however I just don't believe that Arminius' personal salvation is ours to call. He did "confess with his mouth" and his heresy did not go against whether God raised Jesus from the dead or many other orthodox beliefs, thus my hesitation.

If someone would claim that standing before God, they would have some action, thought, deed, or merit that God must add to Christ's work on their behalf, then, yes, such a person is damned. Whether or not Arminius actually believed what he said he believed is, as Panta is alluding to, a speculative exercise which seems to have no profit.

Should someone be given the comfort of the gospel while holding to such errors? No. Does that mean that they are perhaps speculating about their beliefs, and that at rock bottom they believe otherwise? I believe this may be the case. As Luther said, there are theoretical beliefs, and then what a man believes at the rock bottom of his feelings. Down in his guts. If J.A. believed the 5 points of Arminianism in his guts, then he's burning in hell. Otherwise, he's not. Really, it makes no practical difference to anyone, except for him.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Whitefield]

If J.A. believed the 5 points of Arminianism in his guts, then he's burning in hell.
Cheers,

Adam

Is the obverse of this that only 5-point Calvinists go to heaven?

 

[D. Paul]

I don't think anyone here believes that the heresy is not "judgeable" as fruit from the tree of Pelagius, however I just don't believe that Arminius' personal salvation is ours to call. He did "confess with his mouth" and his heresy did not go against whether God raised Jesus from the dead or many other orthodox beliefs, thus my hesitation.

Really, it makes no practical difference to anyone, except for him.

Cheers,

Adam

It makes a practical difference for all those who still hold to his conclusions. If he burns, how many has he taken down with him?

 

[Christusregnat]

If J.A. believed the 5 points of Arminianism in his guts, then he's burning in hell.
Cheers,

Adam

Is the obverse of this that only 5-point Calvinists go to heaven?

Lance,

It is one thing to have not studied something, or to be ignorant or unawares. It is another thing to come to a conclusion after studying out the matters, but refusing to admit to their truth.

So, I would answer, no, one does not need to grasp the finer points of the finding of Dordt. One may be untaught, or unaware. The point I was making about 5-point Arminianism is that it is a well thought out error. A deliberate choosing to defy the Living God.

However, when one of Christ's sheep hears that he was chosen for nothing in him, and that God will complete His work in us, he doesn't finally reject such truths.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[D. Paul]

Adam Brink, are you THE Adam Brink who did the Reformation and Resistance series? I loved it! I've kept that on my Mp3 for quite a while now to listen through frequently. It's a small world afterall....

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam Brink, are you THE Adam Brink who did the Reformation and Resistance series? I loved it! I've kept that on my Mp3 for quite a while now to listen through frequently. It's a small world afterall....

Donald,

I am the culprit. I'm glad you have enjoyed the series! May I ask how you found out about it? I've been doing a lot of shameless promotion on PB, but I'm curious.

To your earlier post, indeed, it has intense practical value as to the ideas themselves, and their consequences. You are right. However, the status of one man's soul is not relevant to a discussion of ideas. I think that's what I was trying to get at.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Whitefield]

If J.A. believed the 5 points of Arminianism in his guts, then he's burning in hell.
Cheers,

Adam

Is the obverse of this that only 5-point Calvinists go to heaven?

Lance,

It is one thing to have not studied something, or to be ignorant or unawares. It is another thing to come to a conclusion after studying out the matters, but refusing to admit to their truth.

So, I would answer, no, one does not need to grasp the finer points of the finding of Dordt. One may be untaught, or unaware. The point I was making about 5-point Arminianism is that it is a well thought out error. A deliberate choosing to defy the Living God.

However, when one of Christ's sheep hears that he was chosen for nothing in him, and that God will complete His work in us, he doesn't finally reject such truths.

Cheers,

Adam

The reason I ask is that my namesake (Whitefield) was convinced that Wesley would be in heaven.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.

I don't see how that can be incorrect. Isn't the God of Arminious a different God? I mean believing things in total ignorance is one thing, flat out rejecting Gospel truth when presented with it and taught it clearly is another, especially in regard to salving faith.

Where am I wrong?

 

[TsonMariytho]

If someone would claim that standing before God, they would have some action, thought, deed, or merit that God must add to Christ's work on their behalf, then, yes, such a person is damned.

God decides who is saved and who is damned. Therefore, where is the scripture where God reveals that he damns all who hold to any form of synergistic soteriology? Without such a scripture, the above would be both an unsupportable and an extremely uncharitable assertion to make.

 

[Whitefield]

I find these words of Spurgeon helpful in this type of discussion. It comes from Spurgeon's sermon preached on the Lord's Day evening, April 4, 1875. The sermon is entitled "Christ's 'New Commandment'". Vol 51. section III.

By this test shall your fellow-Christians also know that you are Christ’s disciples. I do not know of anything which more commends a Christian to his fellow-Christians than a true spirit of love. I have read many controversial works, and I have admired the force of the arguments in many of them; but when I have read them, I have not gathered from the perusal that the writers on either side were very eminently followers of Christ. They may have been; it was no business of mine to judge as to that matter. They may have the showing other precious qualities while they were contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, but the grace of Christian charity has not always been very manifest. For instance, if you read the controversy between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Toplady, — well, I do not know which was the worse of the two; they could both say a thing very sharply- when they tried, and the devil helped them to make it even sharper; yet they were both of them good men, and it was not according to the nature of either of them to say anything bad of the other. It is quite a relief to notice how Mr. Whitefield conducted his controversy with Mr. Wesley; as I have read it, I have said to myself, “This man is a Christian, and no mistake.” It is reported that Mr. Whitefield was one day asked by a partisan, “Do you think that we, when we get to heaven, shall see John Wesley there?” “No,” said George Whitefield, “I do not think we shall.” The questioner was very delighted with that answer, but Mr. Whitefield added, “I believe that Mr. John Wesley will have a place so near the throne of God, and that such poor creature as you and I will be so far off as to be hardly able to see him.” As I read such remarks made by Mr. Whitefield, I have said to myself, “By this I know, as a Christian, that he must be, a Christian;” for I saw that he loved his brother Wesley even while he so earnestly differed from him on certain points of doctrine. Yes, dear brethren, if we cannot differ, and yet love one another, — if we cannot allow each brother to go his own way in the service of God, and to have the liberty of working after his own fashion, — if we cannot do that, we shall fail to convince our fellow-Christians that we ourselves are Christians.

 

[ReformedWretch]

John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

Eph 2:1 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespass

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Arminianism must deny all of these passages (I kept it simple). When do those who deny such fit this passage?

Gal 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed”

If one believes that he/she is a Christian because God "for saw" that he/she was going to have faith is that not in violation of Eph 2:8-9? “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9)

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 11:34:29 EST-----

I like what Piper says here-

"There are many today, as in every day, who bring to the Bible the presupposition that sinful man must have the power of self-determination in order to be held accountable by God. This is not a biblical presupposition. It threatens to undermine the gospel because it pushes people away from believing that God can plan and bring to pass the sins that are essential to the death of his Son.

"We don’t usually think about Arminianism as a threat to the atonement. It usually comes in at the point of the accomplishment of the gospel and the offer of the gospel, not the point of the plan of the events of the gospel. But here we see that there is an intrinsic incompatibility between the basic Arminian presupposition and the gospel as including a set of planned sins against the Son of God. That presupposition is that for humans to be morally accountable agents they must have the ultimate power of self-determination at all those points where they are found blameworthy or praiseworthy.

"That presupposition pushes people away from believing that God has the right and power in righteousness and wisdom to infallibly plan the death of his Son through the sinful acts of morally accountable men. But the Bible teaches that he did. There is no atonement and no gospel without God-planned sins against the Son of God. He died at the hands of sinful men by God’s design. That is an essential part of the gospel. 'He died for our sins according to the scriptures.' "

 

[Whitefield]

John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

Eph 2:1 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespass

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Arminianism must deny all of these passages (I kept it simple). When do those who deny such fit this passage?

Gal 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed”

If one believes that he/she is a Christian because God "for saw" that he/she was going to have faith is that not in violation of Eph 2:8-9? “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9)

Q.E.D. there will be no Arminians in heaven?

 

[cih1355]

I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.

I don't see how that can be incorrect. Isn't the God of Arminious a different God? I mean believing things in total ignorance is one thing, flat out rejecting Gospel truth when presented with it and taught it clearly is another, especially in regard to salving faith.

Where am I wrong?

Do your mother and brother believe that a person can believe all of the following and still be a true Christian?

1. What Arminius taught
2. That salvation is by the grace of God alone, which is neither merited nor secured, in part or in whole, by any virtue or work of man.
3. That man contributes nothing to his salvation.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.

I don't see how that can be incorrect. Isn't the God of Arminious a different God? I mean believing things in total ignorance is one thing, flat out rejecting Gospel truth when presented with it and taught it clearly is another, especially in regard to salving faith.

Where am I wrong?

That presumes that the Holy Spirit has prepared the listener to respond in a certain way and that the truth has been presented in a perfectly clear manner. I think we would agree that the DoG can be presented in such a non-irenic fashion that one could honestly say "What manner of love is this?"

Getting a committed "Free Will"er to acknowledge the love of absolute predestination is not something that can be solved with presenting the DoG once, twice or twenty times - sometimes there is a limited ability to truly grasp the implications of "Free Will" vs the nuances of election. Just as it may be difficult for committed "hyper-Calvinists" to truly grasp the implications of their error, yet one cannot say that God does not select brethren from that fold, as well.

I'd rather take the path of graciousness and not presume to limit the Lord's election and His secret will. Who knows that these brethren are not elect instruments of His will used to reflect His glory through the refinement of His glorious Doctrine of Grace? All things, even the error of our brethren, work together for good.

Praise God that He chooses to save those with limited ability from both sides of the fence! And may we be appropriately humbled by our unearned understanding of His glorious plan through the revelation of the Holy Spirit!

 

[ReformedWretch]

That's what I'm sorting out and as I do so, if I must answer right now I suspect there will not be. Not those who believe that last line of my post you've quoted. However, I do leave room for those in total ignorance and I think that covers a lot of people.

When I listen to hardened, insistent "free will" people I just plainly hear "another gospel". When people bang there fist on a table and announce "That's not my God" when taught about predestination/election, etc. then I can't help but think they are right, it's not their god. They don't want that God, they want the god they've created for themselves. I used to be that way, I wanted "MY" god the way I made him to be. When I finally saw the real God it knocked me for a loop and I truely repented especially of thinking I had anything to do with my salvation.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 11:46:51 EST-----

I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.

I don't see how that can be incorrect. Isn't the God of Arminious a different God? I mean believing things in total ignorance is one thing, flat out rejecting Gospel truth when presented with it and taught it clearly is another, especially in regard to salving faith.

Where am I wrong?

Do your mother and brother believe that Arminius believed that man makes no contribution to his salvation?

I don't think so.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 11:51:59 EST-----

I ask because I had this debate with my mom and brother at Christmas dinner! It wasn't really all that heated but they believed that bold arminian faith in the face of the gospel truth is still acceptable before God. I've not felt that way in a long time. I know I can't argue my side in absolute certainty but I just can't shake the thought that once learned and taught as much as possible with the errors of arminianism being clearfully and carefully explained to you, that if you continue to hold tightly to the belief that man chooses to be saved or chooses to reject the call of God upon his heart/life and die believing things such as "the God of the doctrines of grace not being the God of scripture" (I have heard and once believed that the God of Calvinism is evil and "I would never serve a God like that!", etc.) you die in your sin.

I don't see how that can be incorrect. Isn't the God of Arminious a different God? I mean believing things in total ignorance is one thing, flat out rejecting Gospel truth when presented with it and taught it clearly is another, especially in regard to salving faith.

Where am I wrong?

That presumes that the Holy Spirit has prepared the listener to respond in a certain way and that the truth has been presented in a perfectly clear manner. I think we would agree that the DoG can be presented in such a non-irenic fashion that one could honestly say "What manner of love is this?"

Getting a committed "Free Will"er to acknowledge the love of absolute predestination is not something that can be solved with presenting the DoG once, twice or twenty times - sometimes there is a limited ability to truly grasp the implications of "Free Will" vs the nuances of election. Just as it may be difficult for committed "hyper-Calvinists" to truly grasp the implications of their error, yet one cannot say that God does not select brethren from that fold, as well.

I'd rather take the path of graciousness and not presume to limit the Lord's election and His secret will. Who knows that these brethren are not elect instruments of His will used to reflect His glory through the refinement of His glorious Doctrine of Grace? All things, even the error of our brethren, work together for good.

Praise God that He chooses to save those with limited ability from both sides of the fence! And may we be appropriately humbled by our unearned understanding of His glorious plan through the revelation of the Holy Spirit!

I understand and somewhat agree with your points here. That said, please keep in mind that I am talking about those who say the Calvinist God, or the D.o.G. God is evil, that He is unworthy of love and devotion, that He is a devil, etc. and die believing that.

I would so love to start a D.o.G. Church plant up this way somewhere and my brother laughed telling me that there is NO ONE in a 75 mile radius that would ever accept Calvinism/D.o.G. and it would be a waste trying to plant such a Church. He said you would be run out of any church in this general (but wide) area and could certainly not find enough people to support a church.

If true, it made me sick to consider such and question the hearts of those who claim to be Christians. Why do we not have such disgust towards those who are total "free willers"? Doesn't that alone tell you something? I am not so disgusted and disturbed by them as they are of me (we). Why is that?

 

[Whitefield]

Are you saying that Acts 16:31 has a disclaimer, i.e., "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but if you mistakenly think that you had something to do with having that faith, then the promise is null and void."?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Are you saying that Acts 16:31 has a disclaimer, i.e., "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but if you mistakenly think that you had something to do with having that faith, then the promise is null and void."?

I think it seems clear that the bible teaches that. Thinking you had something to do with it is another gospel, clearly in my opinion.

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 12:00:49 EST-----

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."
- John Owen


"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"
- George Whitefield


"God’s predetermination of second causes is that effectual working of his, according to his eternal purpose, whereby though some agents, as the wills of men, are causes most free and indefinite, or unlimited lords of their own actions, in respect of their internal principle of operation (that is, their own nature), [they] are yet all, in respect of his decree, and by his powerful working, determined to this or that effect in particular; not that they are compelled to do this, or hindered from doing that, but are inclined and disposed to do this or that, according to their proper manner of working, that is, most freely"
- John Owen

 

[Whitefield]

Are you saying that Acts 16:31 has a disclaimer, i.e., "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but if you mistakenly think that you had something to do with having that faith, then the promise is null and void."?

I think it seems clear that the bible teaches that. Thinking you had something to do with it is another gospel, clearly in my opinion.

Then you have your answer to the question you originally posed.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Well, in truth, the battle you are describing seems much more about neo-Pelagian doctrine than classical Arminianism.

In other words, we aren't dead in sin, just sick from it, so anyone proclaiming that we are dead men is calling what they consider somewhat good, fully evil, basically. No one likes to be told that they aren't just sick, but dead. The DoG message is so contra-cultural that it causes extreme reaction.

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 12:03:43 EST-----

Are you saying that Acts 16:31 has a disclaimer, i.e., "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but if you mistakenly think that you had something to do with having that faith, then the promise is null and void."?

I think it seems clear that the bible teaches that. Thinking you had something to do with it is another gospel, clearly in my opinion.

Thinking you have some responsibility is not, though. The nuance of responsibility is where folks stumble on the DoG vs Free Will.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Well, in truth, the battle you are describing seems much more about neo-Pelagian doctrine than classical Arminianism.

In other words, we aren't dead in sin, just sick from it, so anyone proclaiming that we are dead men is calling what they consider somewhat good, fully evil, basically. No one likes to be told that they aren't just sick, but dead. The DoG message is so contra-cultural that it causes extreme reaction.

The battle I've described is pretty much the only "arminian" battle I ever face.

Thinking you have some responsibility is not, though.

Thinking you've contributed to your salvation is not another gospel?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Even so, you may be surprised that the Lord is preparing a group even now for you to teach the DoG to those who will respond with true joy. I'd not let nay-sayers interfere with my call, but I'd also prepare myself to be gracious.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Oh sure! I'm not going to tell free willers they are going to Hell, well at least not immediately I am going to slowly explore the Church plant idea as there are so, so, so few Churches in a 100 mile radius of me that believe in the D.o.G.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Blessings to you - be a voice crying in the wilderness

 

[Archlute]

I think that for this conversation to be fruitful, one would have to become familiar with the writings of Arminius himself. I doubt that many here have ever read his works, but I used to have a copy in my possession, and at least in his pastoral writings he struck me as being a very sincere and Christ-centered minister with his people.

If I remember correctly from our lectures in Church history, Dr. Godfrey wanted us to understand that there was a distinction and a development between the waverings of Jacobus (who was a Reformed minister), and the direction that was taken by his students whose theology would become the driving force behind the five points offered up by the Remonstrants. Arminius' views were more tame than what was developed by the next generation.

I think that this is reflected somewhat in the conversations that you are having with your family. They probably speak in a much more strident manner about their Arminianism, than would have Arminius himself. I thought, when I was reading him, that Jacobus was an intelligent and sincere minister of the Word who let his doubts about certain aspects of theology get the better of him. He was certainly no Servetus, nor Socinus. Those men were truly heretical.

 

[ReformedWretch]

That's just it, my family isn't arminian! They we're just going into the whole "we can't know what's right" argument and it frustrated me.