Who most hostile: Calvinists or Arminians?

[NB3K]

First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.

So you are saying that Arminianism is the Gospel, and Calvinism is the Gospel?

"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon

Therefore what we have in Armianism is nothing short than what Paul dealt with at Galatian Chuch. (The Judaizers) I would label an Arminain as a Gentile Judaizer because they're mixing Law with Grace, and if one adds condition to grace, grace will than no longer be grace, but it will be debt!

agreed here. I once went on a mission trip with Armenians and once we got to talking about TULIP it got pretty hostile I guess you could say. The conversation was very strained when they told me they do not sin everyday. I had never heard this before. I guess if they sinned everyday they would "fall away." But one thing I noticed was legalism among them. From prayer, to music, to dress, etc., everything was legalistic. Of course one of them had tattoos from head to toe from before his salvation, they condemned him for that. And whether tattoos are wrong or right, it isn't right to condemn some one especially after they are trying to follow God. I just felt sorry for the guy. They just thought I was crazy from believing in eternal security. I showed them several scriptures to which they had no argument. They didn't like that very much. Yes, very much like independent fundamental baptists.

Yeah I actually can get along better with professed unbelievers than I can with my so-called Arminian brothers. When one of them found out that I like Yuengling Lager my faith was automatically questioned.

I must be De Debil because I like the porter

Now on a serious note: There are some Calvinistic Baptist brothers that look down their nose at those of us who point to CH21 of the LBC1689 who enjoy sipping a brew. I find that they may be coming out of IFBC backgrounds and still have certain things burnt into their thought patterns. They consider drinking a sin in their conscience.

We need to not fall into the trap of getting torqued up and turn to hostile conversation. When we get nasty, the ears close up. The Doctrines of Grace are a slap in the face to anyone who has a bit of pride left. They like to think they are in control of their life. The absolute Sovereignty of God is a concept that is foreign to anyone educated in a liberal American school, as well as a liberal American congregation.

This is why we are in desparate need of another reformation. What is sad is that folks are more willing to compromise the Gospel for the sake of "fellowship" That must be repulsive in the eyes of our Lord Jesus that was crucified for speaking the TRUTH!

 

[Leslie Koster]

Rich Koster said......I must be De Debil because I like the porter

Now on a serious note: There are some Calvinistic Baptist brothers that look down their nose at those of us who point to CH21 of the LBC1689 who enjoy sipping a brew. I find that they may be coming out of IFBC backgrounds and still have certain things burnt into their thought patterns. They consider drinking a sin in their conscience.

We need to not fall into the trap of getting torqued up and turn to hostile conversation. When we get nasty, the ears close up. The Doctrines of Grace are a slap in the face to anyone who has a bit of pride left. They like to think they are in control of their life. The absolute Sovereignty of God is a concept that is foreign to anyone educated in a liberal American school, as well as a liberal American congregation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pilgrim]

Let's not forget that Spurgeon was converted under Arminian preaching at a Primitive Methodist chapel. He could not join with them permanently due to his disagreement with their doctrinal distinctives. But neither did he charge them or similar churches with being a synagogue of Satan.

I don't think he would quite agree with those who post selected quotes of his and then insinuate that Arminians cannot be saved without eventually becoming Calvinists or state that there can be no cooperation with Arminians whatsoever. He cooperated with Arminians in the Down-grade controversy, even though he thought Arminianism was a first step of sorts toward the Down-grade. Elsewhere he published an article by an associate that stated that the Presbyterians were the first to get on the down-grade, albeit for reasons unrelated to Calvinism.

Unfortunately, some of us are more eager to win converts to Calvinism or to our views of baptism and ecclesiology than we are to win sinners to Christ. I know this has too often been my preoccupation in the past. Whether it is the preoccupation of any here reading this post is something you can only answer for yourself.

While we shouldn't fall into doctrinal indifference and should strive to preach the whole counsel of God, we would also do well to meditate upon the following, which I think puts things in the proper perspective:

"It is because God blesses men through the churches that we desire to see them prosper, and not merely for the sake of the churches themselves. There is such a thing as selfishness in our eagerness for the aggrandisement of our own party; and from this evil spirit may grace deliver us! The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. We would do a great deal to make a Paedobaptist brother into a Baptist, for we value our Lord's ordinances; we would labour earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free-will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth, and not upon the sand of imagination; but, at the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We would bring men to Christ and not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterwards to secure them for our various folds. To make proselytes, is a suitable labour for Pharisees: to beget men unto God, is the honourable aim of ministers of Christ."
C.H. Spurgeon, The Soul Winner, p. 12, Pilgrim Publications, 1978.
​

 

[Leslie Koster]

I am the most hostile.View attachment 2122

 

[Rich Koster]

First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.

So you are saying that Arminianism is the Gospel, and Calvinism is the Gospel?

"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon

Therefore what we have in Armianism is nothing short than what Paul dealt with at Galatian Chuch. (The Judaizers) I would label an Arminain as a Gentile Judaizer because they're mixing Law with Grace, and if one adds condition to grace, grace will than no longer be grace, but it will be debt!

agreed here. I once went on a mission trip with Armenians and once we got to talking about TULIP it got pretty hostile I guess you could say. The conversation was very strained when they told me they do not sin everyday. I had never heard this before. I guess if they sinned everyday they would "fall away." But one thing I noticed was legalism among them. From prayer, to music, to dress, etc., everything was legalistic. Of course one of them had tattoos from head to toe from before his salvation, they condemned him for that. And whether tattoos are wrong or right, it isn't right to condemn some one especially after they are trying to follow God. I just felt sorry for the guy. They just thought I was crazy from believing in eternal security. I showed them several scriptures to which they had no argument. They didn't like that very much. Yes, very much like independent fundamental baptists.

Yeah I actually can get along better with professed unbelievers than I can with my so-called Arminian brothers. When one of them found out that I like Yuengling Lager my faith was automatically questioned.

I must be De Debil because I like the porter

Now on a serious note: There are some Calvinistic Baptist brothers that look down their nose at those of us who point to CH21 of the LBC1689 who enjoy sipping a brew. I find that they may be coming out of IFBC backgrounds and still have certain things burnt into their thought patterns. They consider drinking a sin in their conscience.

We need to not fall into the trap of getting torqued up and turn to hostile conversation. When we get nasty, the ears close up. The Doctrines of Grace are a slap in the face to anyone who has a bit of pride left. They like to think they are in control of their life. The absolute Sovereignty of God is a concept that is foreign to anyone educated in a liberal American school, as well as a liberal American congregation.

This is why we are in desparate need of another reformation. What is sad is that folks are more willing to compromise the Gospel for the sake of "fellowship" That must be repulsive in the eyes of our Lord Jesus that was crucified for speaking the TRUTH!

Another reformation????? I'd lean more to saying that we need a bit more people grasping the existing reformation and the truths that were expounded upon during it. The modern day Remonstrance is there. We can not deny it. We just have to faithfully keep teaching the whole counsel of God. Those who hear the truth will soon acquire a taste for it.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Like Jesus' in John 8?

You are quoting John 8 as if Jesus was speaking to directly to an Arminian believer. He was speaking to unbelievers who completely trusted in their works alone, who were teachers of law, and did not trust at all in Christ. The difference is simple, an Arminian can be a Christian who has bad Theology. Because they say that they reached out their hand to accept God doesn't mean that they are not as equally saved.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

Unfortunately, some of us are more eager to win converts to Calvinism or to our views of baptism and ecclesiology than we are to win sinners to Christ. I know this has too often been my preoccupation in the past. Whether it is the preoccupation of any here reading this post is something you can only answer for yourself.

 

[NB3K]

Like Jesus' in John 8?

You are quoting John 8 as if Jesus was speaking to directly to an Arminian believer. He was speaking to unbelievers who completely trusted in their works alone, who were teachers of law, and did not trust at all in Christ. The difference is simple, an Arminian can be a Christian who has bad Theology. Because they say that they reached out their hand to accept God doesn't mean that they are not as equally saved.

If that is the truth than the Protestant Reformation was all done in vain. I only tried to show through Jesus' teaching that He did not care about their so-called "emoitions" or how they would perceive his teaching. He did not care about how much harm would become of it.

Joh 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,
Joh 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one."

Now you said "the delivery can hurt rather than help. " I was simply pointing out Jesus' deliveries.
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.


Here again Jesus teaches and again the jews want to kill him.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Ok, I agree that sometimes it is necessary to be blunt and to the point. Sometimes I do this as well when I go street witnessing and people completely reject the gospel and call it foolish. I show them the verse in 1 Corinthians 1:18 in response. I guess I was being dogmatic myself.

What I should have said is its best to use discernment rather than being blunt in every encounter.

 

[NB3K]

Sometimes I do this as well when I go street witnessing and people completely reject the gospel and call it foolish.

Because I believe the Doctrine of Unconditional Election, when I share the Gospel I lay down the Law and then I goto Grace. I show that they are condmened by God's Law, and then I show them Christ and him Crucified. If they cannot see that Christ is what they need, I do not go farther because I will want to water down the Gospel. (It's my nature according to the flesh) And in my mind I think to myself: It must not be their appointed time, Or they are not of the Elect. Because I am 100% sure that if you teach Sound Doctrine THE SHEEP WILL HEAR HIS VOICE!!! We need no tricks of the flesh!

 

[Rich Koster]

Sometimes I do this as well when I go street witnessing and people completely reject the gospel and call it foolish.

Because I believe the Doctrine of Unconditional Election, when I share the Gospel I lay down the Law and then I goto Grace. I show that they are condmened by God's Law, and then I show them Christ and him Crucified. If they cannot see that Christ is what they need, I do not go farther because I will want to water down the Gospel. (It's my nature according to the flesh) And in my mind I think to myself: It must not be their appointed time, Or they are not of the Elect. Because I am 100% sure that if you teach Sound Doctrine THE SHEEP WILL HEAR HIS VOICE!!! We need no tricks of the flesh!

Well said, especially the last sentence.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

I don't show them that out of malice. I show them because its God's word speaking to them. The Cross is foolish to those who are perishing. I do not see anything wrong with telling them this as I believe it makes them think about their stance with God. Sometimes the response is positive sometimes negative. In either case God is glorified.

 

[thistle93]

From my experience a lot of the hostility on the Arminian side seems to come from people like Dave Hunt, some Calvary Chapel teaching and those who read and listen to these things. And the problem is most to do not see they are Arminian minus their belief in Eternal Security.

 

[Andres]

@Providential1611 Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

THAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD! YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL YOU HELPLESS WORM FALL BEOFRE GOD'S THRONE AND BEG OF HIM FOR MERCY! THE ONLY REPAYMENT THAT GOD DELIVERS IS HIS WRATH! ON WHOM HE CHOOSES HE LOVES THE REST ARE OBJECTS OF HIS JUDGMENT!

NB3K 6 days ago

This is a post I made to a youtube Arminian "Providential1611" He also happens to be a KJV onlyist, and he tried telling me that in the KJV the word Sovereign is not in the Bible, but Free will is.

Now was my reply to him "hostile" ?

Yeah, I would say so, especially if you typed it in all caps like you did above. That's equivalent to shouting. Do you really think that yelling at someone is the best way to get your message across?

 

[Notthemama1984]

 

[NB3K]

@Providential1611 Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

THAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD! YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL YOU HELPLESS WORM FALL BEOFRE GOD'S THRONE AND BEG OF HIM FOR MERCY! THE ONLY REPAYMENT THAT GOD DELIVERS IS HIS WRATH! ON WHOM HE CHOOSES HE LOVES THE REST ARE OBJECTS OF HIS JUDGMENT!

NB3K 6 days ago

This is a post I made to a youtube Arminian "Providential1611" He also happens to be a KJV onlyist, and he tried telling me that in the KJV the word Sovereign is not in the Bible, but Free will is.

Now was my reply to him "hostile" ?

Yeah, I would say so, especially if you typed it in all caps like you did above. That's equivalent to shouting. Do you really think that yelling at someone is the best way to get your message across?

Ok now that you mentioned the "all caps" I see what you are saying, but what I wanted to know was what I said "hostile" I was arguing with this man and he kept asserting his free will. It made me angry.

 

[E Nomine]

Anecdotally, I see lots of smug disrespect on the Calvinistic side that I never saw on the Arminian side.

I could say the reformed folks appear to be much more confident with their theology; I could just as accurately say the reformed folks are much more obnoxious, exuding a "we're right, you're wrong" attitude at every possible opportunity.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

I believe there is no more hostile group than Hyper-Calvinists.

 

[Rufus]

@Providential1611 Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

THAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD! YOU HAVE NO FREEWILL YOU HELPLESS WORM FALL BEOFRE GOD'S THRONE AND BEG OF HIM FOR MERCY! THE ONLY REPAYMENT THAT GOD DELIVERS IS HIS WRATH! ON WHOM HE CHOOSES HE LOVES THE REST ARE OBJECTS OF HIS JUDGMENT!

NB3K 6 days ago

This is a post I made to a youtube Arminian "Providential1611" He also happens to be a KJV onlyist, and he tried telling me that in the KJV the word Sovereign is not in the Bible, but Free will is.

Now was my reply to him "hostile" ?

Yeah, I would say so, especially if you typed it in all caps like you did above. That's equivalent to shouting. Do you really think that yelling at someone is the best way to get your message across?

Ok now that you mentioned the "all caps" I see what you are saying, but what I wanted to know was what I said "hostile" I was arguing with this man and he kept asserting his free will. It made me angry.

Argue like you would with your grandmother, but not quite as soft, and use scripture.

 

[AThornquist]

Some reject Calvinism because of pride; others resound Calvinism pridefully. I am frequently astonished by the graceless proponents of both Arminianism and Calvinism, and sometimes I am the guilty party. However, if you, dear Calvinist, actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall, it is nonsensical to me that you would act as though a person must be expected to understand this point of doctrine in order to be saved. There are Arminians who fully trust in Jesus as their only hope, and drawing a firm parallel between them and Judaizers is slanderous; remember that Jesus had the wisdom to speak hard words while we often do not.

 

[NB3K]

Some reject Calvinism because of pride; others resound Calvinism pridefully. I am frequently astonished by the graceless proponents of both Arminianism and Calvinism, and sometimes I am the guilty party. However, if you, dear Calvinist, actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall, it is nonsensical to me that you would act as though a person must be expected to understand this point of doctrine in order to be saved. There are Arminians who fully trust in Jesus as their only hope, and drawing a firm parallel between them and Judaizers is slanderous; remember that Jesus had the wisdom to speak hard words while we often do not.

Are you saying then, that we are to tolerate their non-biblical stance against us that believe in the Doctrines of Grace? For Paul said that it was by grace that we have been saved. Not by making a choice. I remember when I was an arminian, and I had no clue about it, and today when I look back I can say that I was not saved. For I worshiped an idol and I was not aware that I was not worshipping the God of Grace! But the God of my free will. But now I can see that, before I was blind to it. Why? Because I was dead in my trespasses and sins.

As for all those that are in the "Arminian" camp I know there are some that are "Elected" to eternal life just as I am, but I want to go call them out from their hiding places to come and bath in the Fountain of God's Free Grace.

This is the prupose why I want to go to the Arminian Church's! I want to go into the devils den and call out God's Elect! It will be messy, but all for the praise of God's Glorious Grace. For I am assured that His Sheep WILL come!

Not just that, but my church is largly Arminian, our Statement of Faith is not Reformed, but it's Moderately Reformed. But when I get a chance to get into the pulpit I hammer away. I teach unconditional grace, election and the absolute Sovereignty of GOd, and challenge the Arminians to show me by Scripture Alone why they hold to their doctrines. I want them to give a defense for why they believe what they believe and in return I will do the same. I do this because I am fully convinced it is the only way to destroy Arminianism altogether. Once one of God's Elect see the gift of grace before their eyes their foolish Arminian doctrines will fall like the flesh!

 

[BertMulder]

First of all, Arminians aren't heretics. Second, both seem to be equally hostile.

Judging from your response, I guess the Synod of Dordt had no idea what they were talking about. Yet they did judge arminianism to be heresy....


The Canons of Dordt, Fifth Head of Doctrine

[h=3]CONCLUSION[/h]
And this is the perspicuous, simple, and ingenious declaration of the orthodox doctrine respecting the five articles which have been controverted in the Belgic churches; and the rejection of the errors, with which they have for some time been troubled. This doctrine, the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confessions of the Reformed churches. Whence it clearly appears, that some whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public.
"That the doctrine of the Reformed churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and by the devil, and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all; and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches, that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation; and, has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell; so that, neither baptism, nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism, can at all profit by them;" and many other things of the same kind, which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul. Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, to judge of the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the calumnies, which, on every side, are heaped upon it; nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted, and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from the declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod. Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves, to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them, for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak; and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful. Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ, to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse, as in writing, to the glory of the Divine Name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language; and, to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the holy Scriptures; and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father's right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, bring to the truth those who err, shut the mouths of the calumniators of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful minister of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. AMEN.

---

That this is our faith and decision we certify by subscribing our names.

Here follow the names, not only of President, Assistant President, and Secretaries of the Synod, and of the Professors of Theology in the Dutch Churches, but of all the Members who were deputed to Synod, as the representatives of their respective Churches, that is, of the Delegates from Great Britain, the Electoral Palatinate, Hessia, Switzerland, Wetteraw, the Republic and Church of Geneva, The Republic and Church of Bremen, The Republic and Church of Emden, The Duchy of Gelderland and of Zutphen, South Holland, North Holland, Zeeland, The Province of Utrecht, Friesland, Transylvania, The State of Groningen and Omland, Drent, The French Churches​

 

[kvanlaan]

I don't know - I see great vitriol on the side of the Arminian and great condescension on the part of the Calvinist, for the most part. I'm not going to scream and shout about their heresy, I know what the Bible says. They tend to scream more, and condescend less. But they are heretics; we confess it to be so, in black and white - the confessions are still in effect today. The fact that the Arminian of the 1600s is slightly different than the Arminian of today is only a slight 'evolution', if you will, not unlike the Calvinist of the 1600s and the Calvinist of today.

 

[Skyler]

I have never heard of a cage stage Arminian.

I don't know if that says anything or if that's because it's so typical of Arminians that they don't have a distinct "stage" for it.

 

[AThornquist]

Some reject Calvinism because of pride; others resound Calvinism pridefully. I am frequently astonished by the graceless proponents of both Arminianism and Calvinism, and sometimes I am the guilty party. However, if you, dear Calvinist, actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall, it is nonsensical to me that you would act as though a person must be expected to understand this point of doctrine in order to be saved. There are Arminians who fully trust in Jesus as their only hope, and drawing a firm parallel between them and Judaizers is slanderous; remember that Jesus had the wisdom to speak hard words while we often do not.

Are you saying then, that we are to tolerate their non-biblical stance against us that believe in the Doctrines of Grace? For Paul said that it was by grace that we have been saved. Not by making a choice. I remember when I was an arminian, and I had no clue about it, and today when I look back I can say that I was not saved. For I worshiped an idol and I was not aware that I was not worshipping the God of Grace! But the God of my free will. But now I can see that, before I was blind to it. Why? Because I was dead in my trespasses and sins.

As for all those that are in the "Arminian" camp I know there are some that are "Elected" to eternal life just as I am, but I want to go call them out from their hiding places to come and bath in the Fountain of God's Free Grace.

This is the prupose why I want to go to the Arminian Church's! I want to go into the devils den and call out God's Elect! It will be messy, but all for the praise of God's Glorious Grace. For I am assured that His Sheep WILL come!

Not just that, but my church is largly Arminian, our Statement of Faith is not Reformed, but it's Moderately Reformed. But when I get a chance to get into the pulpit I hammer away. I teach unconditional grace, election and the absolute Sovereignty of GOd, and challenge the Arminians to show me by Scripture Alone why they hold to their doctrines. I want them to give a defense for why they believe what they believe and in return I will do the same. I do this because I am fully convinced it is the only way to destroy Arminianism altogether. Once one of God's Elect see the gift of grace before their eyes their foolish Arminian doctrines will fall like the flesh!

Are we to tolerate Arminianism? That's vague enough to be an entirely useless question. Church membership with both Calvinism and Arminianism wouldn't be appropriate. However, allowing Arminians to be within the camp of Christianity is appropriate; being a sheep does not make one a perfect theologian. I know many Arminians who would fully agree that we are saved by grace alone, and historic Christianity teaches that you must believe. You are obligated to trust Christ. The Arminian thinks he was able to believe and so believed because he needed a savior, whereas the Calvinist (almost always in retrospect, since most Calvinists were former Arminians) thinks he was given eyes to see and so he believed because he needed a savior. The object of trust is the same. If you demand an understanding of Calvinism, you are the one adding to faith alone. It's amazing to me that you allow no level of disagreement on Calvinism if you actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall.

 

[kvanlaan]

But Andrew, could you please reconcile the confessions (in this case, the Canons of Dordt first and foremost) with your statements above? How do we reconcile what the confessions say about Arminian beliefs with 'tolerance'? It is another gospel, no? That's how the confessions, in essence, treat it. And if so, how are we to treat it?

Even so, I would say that we cannot be angrily ejecting them from our fellowship, but when we show them the truth and they are obstinant in refusing to accept the truth, then what? Where do we go from that point?

If we take the question "Who is Jesus Christ?" to its natural conclusion, the Arminian cannot follow that rabbit trail too terribly far, whereas I think that our doctrine brings the idea of Christ to its fullest and truest fulfillment.

From the original preface (according to wikipedia), the decision of the synod is called a: "judgment, in which both, the true view agreeing with God's word concerning the aforesaid five points of doctrine is explained and, the false view disagreeing with God's Word is rejected."

If this, as a confession which we adhere to, is so clear that it is a false view, and disagrees with God's Word, I think that qualifies Arminianism (for those of us who hold to the 3FU) as heresy. It's a box we can't get out of.

 

[NB3K]

Some reject Calvinism because of pride; others resound Calvinism pridefully. I am frequently astonished by the graceless proponents of both Arminianism and Calvinism, and sometimes I am the guilty party. However, if you, dear Calvinist, actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall, it is nonsensical to me that you would act as though a person must be expected to understand this point of doctrine in order to be saved. There are Arminians who fully trust in Jesus as their only hope, and drawing a firm parallel between them and Judaizers is slanderous; remember that Jesus had the wisdom to speak hard words while we often do not.

Are you saying then, that we are to tolerate their non-biblical stance against us that believe in the Doctrines of Grace? For Paul said that it was by grace that we have been saved. Not by making a choice. I remember when I was an arminian, and I had no clue about it, and today when I look back I can say that I was not saved. For I worshiped an idol and I was not aware that I was not worshipping the God of Grace! But the God of my free will. But now I can see that, before I was blind to it. Why? Because I was dead in my trespasses and sins.

As for all those that are in the "Arminian" camp I know there are some that are "Elected" to eternal life just as I am, but I want to go call them out from their hiding places to come and bath in the Fountain of God's Free Grace.

This is the prupose why I want to go to the Arminian Church's! I want to go into the devils den and call out God's Elect! It will be messy, but all for the praise of God's Glorious Grace. For I am assured that His Sheep WILL come!

Not just that, but my church is largly Arminian, our Statement of Faith is not Reformed, but it's Moderately Reformed. But when I get a chance to get into the pulpit I hammer away. I teach unconditional grace, election and the absolute Sovereignty of GOd, and challenge the Arminians to show me by Scripture Alone why they hold to their doctrines. I want them to give a defense for why they believe what they believe and in return I will do the same. I do this because I am fully convinced it is the only way to destroy Arminianism altogether. Once one of God's Elect see the gift of grace before their eyes their foolish Arminian doctrines will fall like the flesh!

Are we to tolerate Arminianism? That's vague enough to be an entirely useless question. Church membership with both Calvinism and Arminianism wouldn't be appropriate. However, allowing Arminians to be within the camp of Christianity is appropriate; being a sheep does not make one a perfect theologian. I know many Arminians who would fully agree that we are saved by grace alone, and historic Christianity teaches that you must believe. You are obligated to trust Christ. The Arminian thinks he was able to believe and so believed because he needed a savior, whereas the Calvinist (almost always in retrospect, since most Calvinists were former Arminians) thinks he was given eyes to see and so he believed because he needed a savior. The object of trust is the same. If you demand an understanding of Calvinism, you are the one adding to faith alone. It's amazing to me that you allow no level of disagreement on Calvinism if you actually believe in the noetic effects of the Fall.

Paul was absolutely clear in his words to Titus when he penned:

Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Now this is a qualifier for Elder. The elder must not just hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught but teach sound doctrine and rebuke (or refute) those who contradict it. The Arminian contradicts the Doctrines of Grace that re clearly taught in the Bible.

Now I agree that not all that are in the Arminian camp are reprobate, but I believe most are. Why? Because the greater majority of these people fight tooth and nail in defense of their so-called free will. Now just think for a second. How in the world can one who says that we are saved by grace alone, fight, for free will? This would be called "Cognitive Dissonance". Where do they stand? How do they stand when they are entangled in a snare of two beliefs that are against each other? They can't stand in that state. This is why Paul lays a qualification for elders that they rebuke those that contradict Sound Doctrine.

Now I ask again:

Are you saying then, that we are to tolerate their non-biblical stance against us that believe in the Doctrines of Grace?

 

[BertMulder]

"Hello, everyone?!!??!," he exclaimed with hostile incredulity. "I have no idea why this thread is continuing. We've already established that I am the most hostile."

and I thought it was I....

Titus 3:10
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

 

[NB3K]

"Hello, everyone?!!??!," he exclaimed with hostile incredulity. "I have no idea why this thread is continuing. We've already established that I am the most hostile."

Yup yup. The Great I AM is the most jealous for His own glory!

 

[kvanlaan]

Joshua, stop using your rat brains and it will free you of your hostility. Drink the TULIP Kool-Aid and follow us down the yellow brick road...

 

[kvanlaan]

Josh, you're right, the original question is too subjective. I think what caused some of us (I'm guessing the 3FU-ers) pause was the statement that Arminianism is not heresy. We confess that it is. Plain and simple. We also confess that much of what Name It and Claim It folks teach is heresy, but I'm likewise not going to accost them; I must show them mercy, compassion, and the truth. Fair enough?