Revivalism

[johnowen]

Dear all,

I need to know your perspectives on "Conversion" through the Arminian preachers. Their messages contain this:
God loves you
You are sinner
Jesus died and rose for you
He "begs" you to open your heart to Him

And yes, many become "Christians" through this
Then years after that, some of them stumble on TULIP. And they understand now that their salvation is by God's grace.

Some conclude that Calvinism is not about the gospel. It is an additional knowledge/perspective on your conversion. Now we know that this is false understanding.

My question is: how do you judge your "conversion" through an Arminian preacher? False, True? Unsure?

Thank you for your perspectives.

 

[Pergamum]

One need not go to Calvary via Geneva.

The Gospel is more basic than the 5 points.

 

[Rich Koster]

The elect need to find Christ. If someone who can't read maps still muddles them through the countryside to their destination, they can figure out how they got there later.

 

[johnowen]

One need not go to Calvary via Geneva.

The Gospel is more basic than the 5 points.

So according to your statement: TULIP is additional knowledge for born-again person (since you say: it is more "advanced" than the "basic" gospel?"

Doesn't this render us, Calvinists, intellectual elitists, rather than true Christian?
Doesn't this render Arminians "ignorant brothers", but "brothers" nevertheless?

I find this hard to accept. Feel free to interact, though.

 

[A.J.]

Dear all,

I need to know your perspectives on "Conversion" through the Arminian preachers. Their messages contain this:
God loves you
You are sinner
Jesus died and rose for you
He "begs" you to open your heart to Him

And yes, many become "Christians" through this
Then years after that, some of them stumble on TULIP. And they understand now that their salvation is by God's grace.

Some conclude that Calvinism is not about the gospel. It is an additional knowledge/perspective on your conversion. Now we know that this is false understanding.

My question is: how do you judge your "conversion" through an Arminian preacher? False, True? Unsure?

Thank you for your perspectives.

Hello from Manila!

I was raised in an environment where these "Four Spiritual Laws" are the norm. And while I will certainly agree that there are people who truly come to Christ through the preaching of some Arminians, they are converted by God's grace in spite of the bad theology involved.

The typical methodology used by the vast majority of Arminian churches today (i.e., employing the "altar call" and the "sinner's prayer") is neither Biblical nor helpful. It's a good recipe for producing false converts. There are many people today who think that they are saved (when they are actually not) because they walked the aisle or signed a card or said the words of a cerain prayer.

Some people who were raised in Arminian churches truly repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone for their salvation. They are inconsistent Arminians. Others however do not really know the gospel. Whether someone has come to believe the gospel through the preaching of an Arminian will differ from one person to another.

In my case, I am more inclined to believe that I truly understood the gospel only after discovering the error of Armianism. I was a false Christian for several years.

 

[A.J.]

You don't. Period. Conversion is not as the Finneyists have made it. You believe the gospel and cling to Christ, trusting not in your merit, but His. And this you do all of your life. It's pointless to "look back" and agonize over whether you were saved at this point or that. The question is, do you believe now? Do you confess Christ? Do you detest your works? Do you cling to His merit and not your own?

Many professing Christians today (including those in our beloved region of Southeast Asia) find their assurance by "looking back" at something they did when the lives of many of these men and women contradict their Christian profession. The "evangelistic" methodology by their churches has sadly produced large numbers of false converts who will either truly come to Christ by faith (if they are elect) at a later point in time or never come to Christ at all and then face God's terrible judgment after their deaths.

 

[Pergamum]

One need not go to Calvary via Geneva.

The Gospel is more basic than the 5 points.

So according to your statement: TULIP is additional knowledge for born-again person (since you say: it is more "advanced" than the "basic" gospel?"

Doesn't this render us, Calvinists, intellectual elitists, rather than true Christian?
Doesn't this render Arminians "ignorant brothers", but "brothers" nevertheless?

I find this hard to accept. Feel free to interact, though.

It means that someone can be saved without knowing about the secret decrees of God or the mechanics of salvation.

It makes Calvinists further along the path of knowledge and more advanced in understanding the mechanics of salvation - though as knowledge grows, charity also should grow and we should never be puffed up.

Yes, some arminians are ignorant brothers, but still brothers all the same.

 

[mvdm]

Washer addresses it pretty directly in this 4 minute excerpt:

[video=youtube;yZyzzSw0Log]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZyzzSw0Log[/video]

 

[Sonoftheday]

The reason men are converted under such preaching is because the gospel is still preached. While their doctrine of salvation is in error their gospel is not (for the most) and even when it is God still chooses to regenerate through the partial gospel truths they proclaim. The gospel is Christ's sacrificial death for the forgiveness of sins, burial, and Resurrection. The gospel is means by which the Holy Spirit regenerates, not a proper soteriology.

The error in their preaching is that those regenerated under their preaching are given the false idea that they contributed to their own salvation from the beginning. Their synergism is wicked, it diminishes God and places him under the will of man. This also leads to a false understanding of sanctification, just as salvation is synergistic their doctrine of sanctification is synergistic and that allows for such heresies as the "carnal christian" doctrine. Also this is why the gospel is often not even preached except for "special sundays" like easter and christmas, or at revivals. At my previous church you could always tell when the gospel was actually going to be preached because they would have a "bring your friend to church" day.

 

[johnowen]

My concern stems from this:
Since "faith comes from hearing, hearing of the message of Christ," are we really sure that the Arminian preaching is still the gospel? How could God "produce" faith using false medium that He himself doesn't approve?
Yes, God is able to do anything, but He has ordained "the proclamation of the gospel" as the means to carry out His decree of election.
I still accept if an adulterous Calvinist preacher preaches the gospel and we say, "Yeah, the gospel is still preached." The gospel doesn't depend on the person who preaches it.
But when an Arminian preaches the gospel, how do you say that the gospel is still there?

Anyway, I thank you who say: there is no need to look back. I think that this is the heart of the problem, and the question of "when" I believed in Christ is the fruit of Revivalism by Finneyism.

I don't agree with those who say that Arminians are brothers. Any teaching that credits human for the salvation is not only an error. It is a heresy. We might be able to have "friendship," but not "fellowship" (koinonia) with them. Again, people might argue "but they mean well, there are just ignorant," but doesn't this render the doctrine of Total Depravity irrelevant?" Man is not just ignorant, they are wilfully ignorant. This ignorance hardens their heart. And it is God who "hardens" their heart. That is why Jesus speaks in parable so that the non-elect will not understand and perceive and turn to be saved.

 

[Igor]

Washer addresses it pretty directly in this 4 minute excerpt

Excellent! Thank you! For about three years after I came to Christ I doubted my salvation and lived in fear because I was not sure that my prayer had been sincere enough. I did it over and over again and still was not sure. And I knew no other way to "become" a Christian. Then, believe it or not, reading a book of a Russian Orthodox(!) theologian, I realized that God had already reconciled the world with Himself through Christ (how could I miss it in my Bible?!), that I it is HIS work, not mine, and what matters is whether I trust what HE did, and right NOW, not how I prayed. (And, of course, a description of a certain character (Mr. Fearful) in my favorite Pilgrim's Progress helped me a lot - I could see myself in him.)
A couple of years ago I tried to preach against the so called sinner's prayer (we have a tradition to do it in public), but not everyone in my congregation could fully understand it. But after the service an elderly lady came to thank me and shared her story: 40 years ago she came to faith and prayed the "sinner's prayer" at home, but a guest preacher in the Central Church confused her saying in his sermon that those who "repent" outside the Church actually "enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but climb up some other way". Can you imagine that?! (the pastor explained to her later that the place actually did not matter).

 

[Pergamum]

My concern stems from this:
Since "faith comes from hearing, hearing of the message of Christ," are we really sure that the Arminian preaching is still the gospel? How could God "produce" faith using false medium that He himself doesn't approve?
Yes, God is able to do anything, but He has ordained "the proclamation of the gospel" as the means to carry out His decree of election.
I still accept if an adulterous Calvinist preacher preaches the gospel and we say, "Yeah, the gospel is still preached." The gospel doesn't depend on the person who preaches it.
But when an Arminian preaches the gospel, how do you say that the gospel is still there?

Anyway, I thank you who say: there is no need to look back. I think that this is the heart of the problem, and the question of "when" I believed in Christ is the fruit of Revivalism by Finneyism.

I don't agree with those who say that Arminians are brothers. Any teaching that credits human for the salvation is not only an error. It is a heresy. We might be able to have "friendship," but not "fellowship" (koinonia) with them. Again, people might argue "but they mean well, there are just ignorant," but doesn't this render the doctrine of Total Depravity irrelevant?" Man is not just ignorant, they are wilfully ignorant. This ignorance hardens their heart. And it is God who "hardens" their heart. That is why Jesus speaks in parable so that the non-elect will not understand and perceive and turn to be saved.

If you do not agree that at least some who do not understand the mechanics of their sovereign election are our brothers, then you need to take a serious look at your doctrine.

 

[A.J.]

My concern stems from this:
Since "faith comes from hearing, hearing of the message of Christ," are we really sure that the Arminian preaching is still the gospel? How could God "produce" faith using false medium that He himself doesn't approve?
Yes, God is able to do anything, but He has ordained "the proclamation of the gospel" as the means to carry out His decree of election.
I still accept if an adulterous Calvinist preacher preaches the gospel and we say, "Yeah, the gospel is still preached." The gospel doesn't depend on the person who preaches it.
But when an Arminian preaches the gospel, how do you say that the gospel is still there?

Salvation does not depend on an exhaustive (perfect?) understanding of election and predestination. A person who hears of Christ's work for sinners from a preacher and then repents of his sin and trusts in the Savior alone is saved.

Arminians (especially those who really believe what they say they believe) hold to a serious error. But do Arminian preachers always articulate this error whenever they speak of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to sinners? Do they always tell their congregation thay they wholeheartedly deny the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation? Obviously not.

My point is that Arminian preaching varies from one person to another. In fact, the preaching of an Arminian may vary from one Sunday to another. Some Arminian preachers (by God's grace) retain truths of the gospel which God uses to bring His elect to faith. Others totally deny the gospel altogether. Moreover, modern forms of Arminianism vary in many ways to historic Arminianism (which is altogether heretical). So we can't simply make a generalization about the condition of the hearts of the people who hear their preaching.

I don't agree with those who say that Arminians are brothers. Any teaching that credits human for the salvation is not only an error. It is a heresy. We might be able to have "friendship," but not "fellowship" (koinonia) with them. Again, people might argue "but they mean well, there are just ignorant," but doesn't this render the doctrine of Total Depravity irrelevant?" Man is not just ignorant, they are wilfully ignorant. This ignorance hardens their heart. And it is God who "hardens" their heart. That is why Jesus speaks in parable so that the non-elect will not understand and perceive and turn to be saved.

Consistent Arminans are not our brothers in Christ. I agree with that. Such people deny sola gratia. But there are inconsistent Arminians who may be our brothers and sisters in Christ if they truly repent of their sins and believe the gospel.

You seem to say that all who call themselves "Arminian" are consistently Arminian in everything they believe. Though many people are actually like that, it is not true of everyone who calls himself "Arminian."

 

[Sonoftheday]

My concern stems from this:
Since "faith comes from hearing, hearing of the message of Christ," are we really sure that the Arminian preaching is still the gospel? How could God "produce" faith using false medium that He himself doesn't approve?
Yes, God is able to do anything, but He has ordained "the proclamation of the gospel" as the means to carry out His decree of election.
I still accept if an adulterous Calvinist preacher preaches the gospel and we say, "Yeah, the gospel is still preached." The gospel doesn't depend on the person who preaches it.
But when an Arminian preaches the gospel, how do you say that the gospel is still there?

This is point I tried to address in my post. The Gospel as laid out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15

15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

The Gospel is Christ's penal substitutionary death for our sins, that he was buried, and raised on the third day. If this is being preached then God will work through it.

After delivering this the command to be given is for Faith and Repentance. "Repent and Believe". This is the error that is most prevalent in our day. They change the command of repentance and faith, both of which are gifts from God, into something we do.

I don't know enough about Arminian theology to say whether or not they are Brothers. But I do consider synergism a great heresy and I do believe that someone who understandingly holds this view is in unrepentant sin. Someone who teaches this should be confronted, and then avoided. However there are those who have been converted under such teaching because God by His grace and His sovereign choosing works through His Gospel.

 

[johnowen]

Without intending to let this fall into a debate, let me ask your perspective on Peter's gospel-preaching on Pentecost:

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Peter preached God's sovereignty, foreordination and human responsibility. Isn't this an essential part of the preaching? It is not just Christ died for our sins (careful, since Paul was talking to believers in Corinth, not all people in a stadium like today's revival), was buried and was raised on the third day.
And he concluded the sermon with this:
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

And this is the one that makes them ask: What should we do in order to be saved?

Sovereignty of God; should it not be the essential part of the preaching of the gospel?
In other words, why did Peter include the sovereignty of God in his preaching of the gospel? And why do most preachers ignore this, as if, it is reserved for "advanced believers?" Isn't doctrine of election part of the gospel no matter how small it is?

I appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

[Pergamum]

Without intending to let this fall into a debate, let me ask your perspective on Peter's gospel-preaching on Pentecost:

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Peter preached God's sovereignty, foreordination and human responsibility. Isn't this an essential part of the preaching? It is not just Christ died for our sins (careful, since Paul was talking to believers in Corinth, not all people in a stadium like today's revival), was buried and was raised on the third day.
And he concluded the sermon with this:
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

And this is the one that makes them ask: What should we do in order to be saved?

Sovereignty of God; should it not be the essential part of the preaching of the gospel?
In other words, why did Peter include the sovereignty of God in his preaching of the gospel? And why do most preachers ignore this, as if, it is reserved for "advanced believers?" Isn't doctrine of election part of the gospel no matter how small it is?

I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Peter's sermon was only one sermon among many recorded in the NT, and not all of them explicitly mention the sovereignty of God.

In fact, the resurrection from the dead seems the MOST central theme among Paul and the early preachers, and we are not to be said to be failing to preach the Gospel if we do not explicitly preach on resurrection in every sermon, because our belief in the resurrection is assumed. The same with the sovereignty of God.

 

[A.J.]

Without intending to let this fall into a debate, let me ask your perspective on Peter's gospel-preaching on Pentecost:

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Peter preached God's sovereignty, foreordination and human responsibility. Isn't this an essential part of the preaching? It is not just Christ died for our sins (careful, since Paul was talking to believers in Corinth, not all people in a stadium like today's revival), was buried and was raised on the third day.
And he concluded the sermon with this:
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

And this is the one that makes them ask: What should we do in order to be saved?

Sovereignty of God; should it not be the essential part of the preaching of the gospel?
In other words, why did Peter include the sovereignty of God in his preaching of the gospel? And why do most preachers ignore this, as if, it is reserved for "advanced believers?" Isn't doctrine of election part of the gospel no matter how small it is?

I appreciate your thoughts on this.

The doctrines of election and predestination are important. They are all over the Bible. Any view that is at odds with the biblical teaching on these two is or will be destructive of the one true gospel (cf. the Canons of Dort's description of the Arminian heresy). You rightly note that Peter's Acts 2 sermon includes a statement of God's sovereignty in the death of His Son. Following the apostles, election and predestination are to be taught by Christ's ministers to the flock which God has entrusted to them. They are part and parcel of the whole counsel of God. They are not to be reserved for "advanced" believers. Preachers must also expose the errors which undermine these precious doctrines.

But that's not where I disagree with you.

I disagree with the seeming claim that there has to be an exhaustive understanding of election and predestination before a person can be truly saved. As already mentioned, consistent Arminans are not true believers. But there are inconsistent Arminians who may be believers if they truly repent of their sins and believe the gospel.

Your argument against the view that those who call themselves "Arminian" cannot be saved at all is only possible if all Arminians are consistently Arminian in everything they believe. I suggest that you read this short but insightful article, Are Arminians Saved?, and comment on it here in the board.

If you believe that all who cling to the name "Arminian" cannot possibly be saved, then you have just shut out from heaven Reformed Christians who believe they came to genuine repentance and total trust in Christ for their salvation during their stay with people who call themselves "Arminian."

For your claim to stand, you have to show that all "Arminians" are in fact consistent. If you can prove that, then I will agree with you that all "Arminians" are not saved.

Blessings.

-----Added 8/28/2009 at 01:10:26 EST-----

These threads might interest you:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/roman-catholics-christians-50247/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/do-calvinists-arminians-proclaim-same-gospel-47185/

They discuss something similar to the topic of this thread.

 

[johnowen]

Okay, now at least we agree on this one point: that the sovereignty of God is not a doctrine reserved for the elite or "advanced" believers. It has to be proclaimed as clearly as the death of Christ (although not exhaustively).

About inconsistent Arminian: is inconsistency intentional or unintentional?
Doesn't inconsistency between one doctrine and another imply the self-interest of the pick-and-choose person?
I believe no Reformed Christians are 100% consistent, but that's where the progressive sanctification comes into play.
We are progressively renewed till the day we meet Christ or the day Christ comes (whichever comes first)

As for the "inconsistent" Arminian, how do you put him on the "progressive sanctification" road? What I mean is "Lifelong intentional inconsistent Arminian."
To me, inconsistency is not an excuse.
If you still rely on good deeds to maintain your salvation, how could you call that Christianity?
If you clearly contradict what Jesus says: I choose you, not you choose me, how could you persistently and stubbornly refuse to believe that, and claim that you will be in heaven?

Yes, we are not saved by our theological consistency
But God's grace will sanctify our mind, emotion and will. Nobody who stubbornly holds to the "free-will" view (no matter how inconsistent he is) shows the evidence of grace.

Being inconsistent doesn't exclude stubborness
Being inconsistent doesn't nullify what the Bible says: the heart is deceitful beyond cure.
Be careful; what you call "inconsistent," the Bible calls it "deceitful."

Now about the Arminian preaching.
God can use "accidents" to lead his elects into regeneration.
Accidents are not good things
God can use "demonic attack" (like in Asia) to lead his elects into regeneration.
Demonic attacks are bad things; allowed by God, carried out by Satan.
I would put "Arminian preaching" in the same category.

How could you call their preaching "the gospel" when they say: as a sinner, you are sick. When you are sick, seek a doctor. Jesus is that doctor; the doctor of the soul. He died on the cross for YOU and everybody. He wants to come into your heart. Open your heart for Him. He is waiting at the door and knock it.

Now you tell me in this sample of Arminian preaching: how could you call that biblical presentation of the gospel?
This is what I have been struggling with in my country Indonesia, Asia, and other places.

Your feedback is highly appreciated

 

[lynnie]

There is a bit about this in the bio of Martyn Lloyd-Jones "The Fight of Faith", somewhere in the 500's in the chapters about controversy.

He essentially says what Pergy says here......

"Yes, some arminians are ignorant brothers, but still brothers all the same."

....when he talks about essentials and non essentials and fellowship associations. Arminians have a mistaken understanding about how the grace that saves came to them, but they do have the grace that saves. We must exclude ourselves from any ecumenical movement with liberals who deny the divinity of Christ, his atoning sacrifice, his miraculous resurrection, etc. But we must not hold ourselves aloof from fellowship and treat as non believers brethren who may have a different position on polity, baptism, election, etc, but hold to all the fundamentals of the faith.

He says it better than me. I tend to think of Arminians as another gospel but his views are quite convincing if you can find the book ( by Iain Murray). And almost all the Calvinists I know were regenerated into Arminian churches and took a while to change.

 

[Wayne]

Doesn't this render us, Calvinists, intellectual elitists, rather than true Christian?
Doesn't this render Arminians "ignorant brothers", but "brothers" nevertheless?

To make a distinction, there is a big difference between a true Arminian and where most American evangelicals fall out, as evangelical universalists. the term "Arminian" is often used in an imprecise or sloppy way.

Dr. Robert Reymond was careful to point out that a true Arminian believes in what is called the governmental theory of atonement. In other words, Arminianism teaches that when I look at the cost of sin as displayed on the cross of Calvary, then I of my own accord and under my own power turn away from a life of sin.

By contrast, most American evangelicals would be better labeled as evangelical universalists, holding to the idea that Christ's death purchased redemption for every human being who has ever lived on earth, but that only those who "cash the check", drawing on the credit Christ has deposited in the heavenly bank, will themselves be saved.

The latter view too comes down to human effort in application, but does look to Christ as the fount of blessing. Arminianism only sees Christ as an example.

Someone else can probably do a much better job of drawing out those distinctions. I'm sorry to say it has been too many years since I sat under Reymond's teaching, and don't have my class notes at hand for review.

 

[Pergamum]

Doesn't this render us, Calvinists, intellectual elitists, rather than true Christian?
Doesn't this render Arminians "ignorant brothers", but "brothers" nevertheless?

To make a distinction, there is a big difference between a true Arminian and where most American evangelicals fall out, as evangelical universalists. the term "Arminian" is often used in an imprecise or sloppy way.

Dr. Robert Reymond was careful to point out that a true Arminian believes in what is called the governmental theory of atonement. In other words, Arminianism teaches that when I look at the cost of sin as displayed on the cross of Calvary, then I of my own accord and under my own power turn away from a life of sin.

By contrast, most American evangelicals would be better labeled as evangelical universalists, holding to the idea that Christ's death purchased redemption for every human being who has ever lived on earth, but that only those who "cash the check", drawing on the credit Christ has deposited in the heavenly bank, will themselves be saved.

The latter view too comes down to human effort in application, but does look to Christ as the fount of blessing. Arminianism only sees Christ as an example.

Someone else can probably do a much better job of drawing out those distinctions. I'm sorry to say it has been too many years since I sat under Reymond's teaching, and don't have my class notes at hand for review.

Your insight here is very interesting. I would love to hear this developed more.

 

[Iconoclast]

God saves His sheep using whatever means he has purposed to use.
Thousands were saved before these theological terms existed. Sometimes missionaries use a very simple gospel presentation as there are language barriers ,and educational obstacles to overcome.
Many people cannot read or write. Keep in mind that an unsaved person most times is not even aware of doctrinal fine points. Even as an arminian presentation is being made the unsaved person cannot tell truth from error.
So if our arminian friend explains repenting of sin,and the cross God can bless those efforts despite any defects in the presentation.

Paul said;

7For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Think about Jesus as revealed in the gospels. Did he use big words and complicated theological language? Or did he speak of God's eternal purpose in easy language directed to those he ministered to? Look through the gospels and see what was the largest word Jesus used.Look in all the parables what do you see, sheep ,goats, fish, soil, sin, hell, heaven,weddings,law, scripture, easy simple language.
Do not misunderstand what I say. Everybody here on the Puritanboard enjoys and delights to continually sharpen their knowledge of God and His mercy in salvation. Perhaps you have joined for this same reason. You will grow in here for sure. What do you think about these scriptures?

24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

 

[A.J.]

John, I agree with Dr. Matthew McMahon's comments in the Arminianism page of his website:

The system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heresy. It is an offshoot from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It has been adversely affecting the church and its doctrine for over 250 years. Men like Finney and Wesley, being the charismatic personalities they were, propagated the doctrine and resurrected the Pelagian error from the pit of hell once again to persecute the church of Christ. Today's Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological "soup". Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians. If we were to live in the days of old, when the caliber of theology for Arminianism reached its zenith in its contentions with the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, we would find men very much deceived and propagating doctrines of a different nature than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today, each case for an "Arminian" church must be taken on its own accord since much of 21st Century Christendom really has no idea what they theologically believe. It is not my purpose to condemn all men who hold a title of "Arminianism" since many do not know what the title means, much less believe all the historic aspects of the theological system. Walk into any church and ask the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism, and you will find a variety of answers. Yet, there are some today who do hold to historic Arminianism, and who do believe the depth of Arminian theology historically. There are even a variety of Arminian websites which propagate the doctrines. But for the most part, each "Arminian" must be dealt with individually in order to assess their understanding, or flavor, of theological soup. It may very well be that they are believing a damning heresy. It may very well be that they are simply confused and need help to understand the doctrines of God's grace, or their depravity. But in any case, the Calvinist ought always to be fair, gentle and loving in his approach to preaching the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

 

[johnowen]

God saves His sheep using whatever means he has purposed to use.
Thousands were saved before these theological terms existed. Sometimes missionaries use a very simple gospel presentation as there are language barriers ,and educational obstacles to overcome.
Many people cannot read or write. Keep in mind that an unsaved person most times is not even aware of doctrinal fine points. Even as an arminian presentation is being made the unsaved person cannot tell truth from error.
So if our arminian friend explains repenting of sin,and the cross God can bless those efforts despite any defects in the presentation.

Paul said;

7For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Think about Jesus as revealed in the gospels. Did he use big words and complicated theological language? Or did he speak of God's eternal purpose in easy language directed to those he ministered to? Look through the gospels and see what was the largest word Jesus used.Look in all the parables what do you see, sheep ,goats, fish, soil, sin, hell, heaven,weddings,law, scripture, easy simple language.
Do not misunderstand what I say. Everybody here on the Puritanboard enjoys and delights to continually sharpen their knowledge of God and His mercy in salvation. Perhaps you have joined for this same reason. You will grow in here for sure. What do you think about these scriptures?

I have several comments about this statement:
1. Jesus' parables serve to confuse the non-elect; only the elect will understand this (Matthew 13:11-15). So don't mistake the simple metaphor for the clarity of the meaning. Remember we are all totally depraved; we won't be able to understand apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit

2. In John 6, Jesus' teaching about himself as the bread of heaven really confuses people. He talks a lot about coming down from heaven, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, etc. To claim that Jesus intends that everybody with no exception understands his message is an overstatement.

3. I, myself, went to a remote place in Indonesia to preach the gospel. I preach the Ten Commandments and the Gospel. I teach them Ordo Salutis. These people's education level is about first-grade. Yet, their responses show that they understand (not exhaustively) enough to know why they believe what they believe. It is the mistake of the missionaries that treat these people as "helpless ignorants" that will not be able to understand God's eternal plan. Remember we are ambassadors. Don't cut and paste the message too much, or we will lose the message altogether.

4. If we treat these village people as "helpless ignorant" and we deprive the elects among them of the whole counsel of God, we are guilty.

5. If they are the elects of God, the Spirit will guide their heart and mind, and if they don't understand what you say, they (like a newborn baby hunger for pure milk) will come to you and ask: Pastor, what do you mean when you say ...?

In the end, it is about preaching the whole counsel of God.
By the way, if you think that the book of Romans is hard, remember that there are slaves in the church in Rome. They, too, were uneducated, and yet they had to listen to what Paul wrote in Rome.
If we fail to preach the whole counsel of God, we will be held accountable.
Remember, ambassador doesn't have the freedom to decide what to preach, what is not to preach.
I don't mean to say that you spend 10 hours preaching from Genesis to Revelation. But all the essential points of Christian faith should be present there in a 45 minutes sermon: Sovereign grace, the centrality of the cross and the duty of all human beings to God.

 

[Herald]

johnowen,

Please establish your signature by clicking HERE.

Thank you.

 

[johnowen]

He says it better than me. I tend to think of Arminians as another gospel but his views are quite convincing if you can find the book ( by Iain Murray). And almost all the Calvinists I know were regenerated into Arminian churches and took a while to change.[/QUOTE]

"Regenerated" I agree.
You don't have to be in Christian church to be regenerated.
The Spirit can use horrible accidents to effect regeneration. Remember, regeneration is sub-conscious; you can't really know for sure when. Jesus says in John 3 that it is the like wind where it comes and where it goes, you don't know.
The Spirit can use "Satanic attack" to do His work.
But we don't want to say that it is okay to get involved in Satanism or accidents. The same thing, we don't want to send people to Arminian churches with the hope that they will hear "some" of the gospel. In that case, you might want to send them to Catholic religion as well.

I will not say that if I went to a crusade 5 years ago, and I went to the front for the altar call, with the sorrowful heart for my sins, that I repented at that moment. Why? Because totally depraved human beings are so gifted in self-deception. Once we look to that "emotional moment," we stop looking to the cross.
This is why you can't really say: I'm saved by the Arminian preaching.
Effectual call happens only when you realize that you cannot do anything on your part. Jesus did it all for you.
How could you have this attitude when you think that "you make the decision" to "accept" Jesus "into" your "heart?"

My basic point is: you know that you are saved when you accept wholly the notion of sola gratia, total depravity, and solus Christus. I will not make any statement regarding "conversion moment" without these three marks.

The common objection is: we are not saved by our doctrinal accuracy. My reply is well, if God begins the good work in you, why would He let you hang in the air with all the doctrinal confusion? Why would God hide His eternal decree from His elects? Aren't all those teachings intended to strengthen the elects?

Is Elijah overstating when he feels that he is the only one worshipping Yahweh? Probably. But when we understand the Bible as Calvinism expounds it, we have to be ready to face loneliness, isolation, etc. We should not be afraid of excluding almost 95% of "Christian" community.

Sounds arrogant? I guess. But I think, it is another kind of arrogance that emphasize "compassion" over "doctrine." What we do, is we "kill" our children softly with the seed of liberalism and universalism. I see this destruction before my eyes in a church's sunday school.

Brothers, sorry for the blunt remark. It is good to correct and to be corrected, to rebuke and to be rebuked in this forum. This is how we exercise discernment and brotherly love by speaking the truth in love.

John
Reformed Evangelical Indonesia
Jakarta

 

[Augusta]

John, I tend to agree with you based on my own experience. I was raised in a "christian" pentecostal church for 25 yrs. I never grew as a Christian until through radio I heard the true gospel from RC Sproul and my life was changed forever from that point on. I was hearing at my old church about the cross, forgiveness of sins, etc. but it never did a thing for me. I even heard that you can't work your way into heaven you just have to believe in Jesus. This, of course, was belied by some of the rest of the teaching.

I never had the road to Immaus experience of "pow" here is the TRUTH that was humbling and put me at the feet of Jesus with empty hands.

I think you may be right that God's sovereignty in salvation is key to the gospel. It puts the sinner in his place and shows that it is God's miraculous work and not anything we can do. This is borne out, as I said, in my own sample of one. I have heard my story repeated by many on the board who were saved OUT of arminian type churches.

 

[Iconoclast]

John ,

You said this-

I have several comments about this statement:
1. Jesus' parables serve to confuse the non-elect; only the elect will understand this (Matthew 13:11-15). So don't mistake the simple metaphor for the clarity of the meaning. Remember we are all totally depraved; we won't be able to understand apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit

2. In John 6, Jesus' teaching about himself as the bread of heaven really confuses people. He talks a lot about coming down from heaven, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, etc. To claim that Jesus intends that everybody with no exception understands his message is an overstatement.

Jesus told them it was given for them to understand,to the others it was not given. Jesus did not give parables to confuse the non elect.
They do not savingly believe because they refuse to have Jesus reign over them.
Jesus teaching about the bread from heaven,does not really confusepeople, if they are taught about the manna given at the time of Moses.
They may rebel against it in unbelief, but not because it is confusing.
I am glad to hear that you have a desire to reach the lost with the whole gospel,and you seek to present the truth

Many here on the puritanboard were first exposed to gospel truth through arminian brethren. I have a harder time with those who hold arminian teaching who seek to openly defy the doctrines of grace.
Most arminians I have spoken with have never really heard of the doctrines of grace explained clearly,much less have they studied it out that is why i offered you the verses suggesting patience in this area.
this topic has come up from time to time,so if you have an opportunity you can read through some of the old threads to consider it more carefully.
Thanks for your response.

 

[A.J.]

John,

In reading your more recent posts, I'm no longer sure where I disagree with you. If you understand "Arminians" as those men and women who knowingly and wholeheartedly reject their total depravity and the sovereign grace of God in salvation (i.e., consistent Arminians), then all "Arminians" without exception are lost.

We might as well define "Roman Catholics" as those men and women who knowingly and wholeheartedly believe the teachings of Rome (i.e., consistent Roman Catholics). If that is a correct definition, then all "Roman Catholics" without exception are lost.

But as I have mentioned, there are people who are inconsistent in their bad theology. For example, Martin Luther discovered the gospel as a "Roman Catholic." He trusted in Christ alone for his salvation. He was a true believer even though he was still officially "Roman Catholic." Luther was an inconsistent Roman Catholic. He was a believer in Christ in spite of the wrong teaching of the religious institution with which he was affiliated not because of it. That's what I mean by my use of the word "inconsistent."

I don't think you would say that believing Martin Luther himself was lost for being/remaining a "Roman Catholic" for some time before he and his teachings were condemned as "Protestant."

Have you read the article I linked in a previous post (Are Arminians Saved?)? It's relatively short. So PLEASE comment on it. It will help the discussion. If you disagree with it, I'm not sure who else will agree with you.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 12:52:05 EST-----

Blessings!

 

[johnowen]

I read the article. To simplify matters, I will accept these positions:

1. Ignorant Reformed: those who don't know Reformed but will accept it wholeheartedly as soon as they hear

2. Truly Reformed: those who know why they believe what they believe

3. Reformed in the making: those who are still struggling with the theology of their upbringing, but have been exposed to Reformed theology, and slowly humble themselves to learn more about Reformed faith.

If you want to call no 1 and 3 Arminians, I hope that is just semantic difference. I myself would place them in the category of Reformed because they are going in the same direction with Reformed community.