Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism

Response to: Calvinism- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Geneva ^ | August 13, 2003 | OP

[nobdysfool]

"He's acted on us first to allow us to respond" is nothing more than "the gospel as preached by Wesley and De Molina". It's not the Gospel Preached by Jesus Christ.

Amen to that! The Wesley/Arminian camp has this idea that God thinks like us, and responds like us. They view the Gospel through those glasses, where it's all about "fairness" and giving man the ability to choose God while still unregenerate, all men have an "equal chance", and God wants man to choose Him freely. They shrink away from the God of scripture, because He seems to be very "set in His ways" and they want a "flexible" Gospel.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You underestimate Wesley's impact. Whether you agree with his perspective or not, it was Wesley who made the critical explanation of prevenient grace that enabled Arminianism to become the numerically dominant of the two perspectives. Modern Arminianism truly is Wesley-Arminianism.

Wesley may have introduced the emphasis on prevenient grace into Arminianism, but his was hardly a new development -- Wesley largely imported his emphasis on prevenient grace from Molinism.

None of which goes to the heart of the issue. Both Wesley and De Molina proposed that, via the agency of "prevenient grace", an unregenerate Man could confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

In other words, contra the Gospel of John 3:3, both Wesley and De Molina proposed that unregenerate Man could come to recognize the Kingship of Jesus without first being Born Again. Importing "prevenient grace" into the mix does nothing to change this wholesale repudiation of John 3:3.

[xzins]

To the point, though, would be consideration that Wesley had little impact on subsequent Christianity because he remained an Anglican.

I don't find that idea to be supportable.

Wesley's impact has been enormous in that today there are approximately 70 million members of methodistic bodies worldwide.

More importantly, as mentioned, his addition of the doctrine of prevenient grace led "free will-ism" (arminianism) to numerical superiority in the Christian landscape.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to your post!

[fortheDeclaration]

No, I think in both areas Arminius would win.

However, Calvins sins have no bearing on what his theology teaches.

Moreover, his unchristian action against Servetus would only mean that Calvin was not saved if one rejected eternal security.

Since most Arminians do reject it, I can see the logic of their argument, but the fact is a saved man can commit any crime an unsaved one can and remain saved.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

No, I think in both areas Arminius would win.

Okay, let's play "Matthew 11" one more time.

You claim (without any Biblical support) that it's all about "dispensational considerations", I grant your (UnBiblical) "dispensational considerations" only to remind you that God (NOT MAN) is the one who decides all those "dispensational considerations", including who shall be Saved and who shall not, and then you run off with your tail between your legs.

I mean, we can play this number again, but the Song Remains The Same.

However, Calvins sins have no bearing on what his theology teaches. Moreover, his unchristian action against Servetus would only mean that Calvin was not saved if one rejected eternal security. Since most Arminians do reject it, I can see the logic of their argument, but the fact is a saved man can commit any crime an unsaved one can and remain saved.

Exactly. By the same token, if Eternal Security is not true, then the horrific mass-murders perpetrated by virtually all Anti-Predestinarians throughout history would surely count against the satanic Anti-Predestinarian theology (British Arminians murdering Calvinists by the bushel-load, Anti-Predestinarian Catholics murdering Predestinarian Waldensian Baptists by the truck-load, etc....)

But of course, Anti-Predestinarianism fails simply because it is utterly Anti-Christian -- the millions of Predestinarian Christians murdered by satanic "Free-Willers" is just an incidental matter, really.

[connectthedots]

ctd, I think your history with some misdirected, cold-hearted people has closed your eyes to what the reformed position really is.

I actually do know some happy Calvinists. As I have said on many occasions, the are also non-Calvinist churches th at have unBiblical concepts related to enjoying an abundant life, so one cannot reasonably say I am biased against just SOME Calvinists in this respect.

If it's Total Inability/Depravity/Original Sin you challenge, you should know most Protestant faiths, as well as all Catholics, affirm it.

There is no Biblical basis for the position that man is totally depraved.

Calvinists are not alone in the belief that man is fallen, and only God saves.

I believe this as well. One can also believe this without holding the position that God predestined and foreordained each person who would be saved and who would be condemned to Hell.

[connectthedots]

In two paragraphs you manage to compare Calvin to cannabalism and the Nazis.

Are you really so dense as to miss the point of my comments? No rational person would justify Naziism or canabalism based on the nature of the times and circumstances, yet some of you Calvinists are trying to just that by expalining away Calvin's personal involvement that assured the execution of Servetus. You might as well face the fact that Calvin was not perfect. The reason you refuse to accept this possibility is that to do so would also be an implied recognition that at least parts of his theology might be unBiblical. Why are you defending Calvinism and Calvin at all costs.

[connectthedots]

Connecthedots, and all Arminians, preach instead that Man must see the Kingdom of God (which is to see the Lordship of God's annointed King Jesus) in order to be Born Again.

I think one must be born again before one can truly comprehend the Kingdom of God.

Your opposition to Calvinism boils down to this one, foundational cornerstone -- Calvinists are preaching the Gospel that Jesus Preached (John 3:3). Because you oppose that Gospel, you oppose Calvinism -- not for any other major reason at all.

Now where is that Calvinist who claimed that some Calvinists do not put Calvinism on the same level as the Gospel? Are you passing juidgement on me about whether I am a Christian or not? I do not oppose the Gospel, but you are so emotionally committed to Calvinism that you seem to believe that anyone who is not a Calvinist is opposed to the Gospel. Not even Edwin Palmer would agree with you. In fact, he said Arminians are fellow believers in Christ.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but like some Calvinists, your perfectionist tendencies won't permit you to admit any mistakes in either theology or judgment.

[fortheDeclaration]

Okay, let's play "Matthew 11" one more time. <{P>

Why, you keep losing!

You claim (without any Biblical support) that it's all about "dispensational considerations", I grant your (UnBiblical) "dispensational considerations" only to remind you that God (NOT MAN) is the one who decides all those "dispensational considerations", including who shall be Saved and who shall not, and then you run off with your tail between your legs.

No, the issue is, did those cities have sufficent revelation to repent, not did they have all the revelation they needed to repent.

In fact, that verse shows that it is the revelation that man is responding to, not the pretemporal election, since Christ would not be rebuking them for rejecting them for what they cannot receive.

Moroever, Christ also states that the punishment of the cities that had less revelation will be judged less harshly.

This is an issue of middle knowledge, God foreknowing what choices would and could have been made under various circumstances.

Thus, those choices were foreknown before they were Decreed to happen, not foreknown because they were Decreed.

Some one may object that Jesus speaks of the unequal opportunities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, as compared with those of Tyre and Sidon, but to this we reply that God is under no obligation to perform supernatural works among men to induce them to repent, but He did this during the earthly life of Christ for the proof of His Deity, which proof was intended for all generations to come, and the privilege afforded the generation then living was incidental and not an act of partiality.(Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic theology, p.347)

In fact, Christ may have been speaking using a figure a speech (hyperbole), which is what the Calvinist Gill believes.

But lets say it is true that had those cities received the revelation that the Jews were receiving they would have repented (counter-factual knowledge), it does not mean they were predestined to hell by the sovereign election of God, since they still had to reject the revelation that was given to them (Psa.19, Rom.1)

That choice is what damned them.

All men have a sufficent chance to be saved, but God is not bound to give every man an equal chance to be saved.

I am sure many people had extra chances because they had saved people praying for them, which moved God to keep striving with them, long after God would have normally stopped.

I mean, we can play this number again, but the Song Remains The Same.

Yes, the 'song' does remain the same, and Matthew 11 is a knife at the heart of Calvinism.

Augustines 'hammer' couldn't break an egg! LOL!

However, Calvins sins have no bearing on what his theology teaches. Moreover, his unchristian action against Servetus would only mean that Calvin was not saved if one rejected eternal security. Since most Arminians do reject it, I can see the logic of their argument, but the fact is a saved man can commit any crime an unsaved one can and remain saved. Exactly. By the same token, if Eternal Security is not true, then the horrific mass-murders perpetrated by virtually all Anti-Predestinarians throughout history would surely count against the satanic Anti-Predestinarian theology (British Arminians murdering Calvinists by the bushel-load, Anti-Predestinarian Catholics murdering Predestinarian Waldensian Baptists by the truck-load, etc....)

Yes, that would mean that those 'nasty' Arminians are in heaven also.

The Catholics are a different issue since they believe in salvation by works not faith, so are not saved in the first place (if they are consistent with what Rome teaches)

But of course, Anti-Predestinarianism fails simply because it is utterly Anti-Christian -- the millions of Predestinarian Christians murdered by satanic "Free-Willers" is just an incidental matter, really.

I think Rome is responsible for murdering both Arminians and Calvinists and Baptists.

But how does that remove the guilt of Calvin or any other Calvinist.

No one is saying that the Calvinist crimes were not as extensive as that of Romes, only that they were the same in kind (religious attempt to build a kingdom of God on earth without Christ)

I would not be suprised if Wesley, Arminius, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Buynan, Moody, Sunday, Cartright, Calvin are all in heaven right now laughing at the theological differences that divided them when they were alive.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To the point, though, would be consideration that Wesley had little impact on subsequent Christianity because he remained an Anglican. I don't find that idea to be supportable. Wesley's impact has been enormous in that today there are approximately 70 million members of methodistic bodies worldwide. More importantly, as mentioned, his addition of the doctrine of prevenient grace led "free will-ism" (arminianism) to numerical superiority in the Christian landscape.

No, that's simply wrong.

• In the first place, Wesleyanism may have succeeded in "numerical superiority", but completely at the expense of Doctrinal Rigor. It is true that the majority of American Protestants today are Wesleyan after a fashion -- but it is also true that not 1 in 5 American "free will Protestants" could give even a working definition of Wesley's doctrine of Prevenient Grace, and not even 1 in 25 could give an intelligent and cogent explanation of the differences between Wesleyanism and Classical Arminianism. By contrast, even the most milk-fed of Calvinists could offer at least a spiritual babe's definition of the Biblical Doctrines of Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. By appealing to Man's Love of his own imagined sovereignty, Wesley may have attained "numerical superiority" -- but tellingly, the vast majority of "free will Protestants" don't have a clue what he was talking about.

• In the second place, Wesley certainly did not lead "free will-ism (arminianism) to numerical superiority in the Christian landscape" -- FreeWill-ism was already numerically superior in the "Christian Landscape" since the Sixth Century AD, when the Council of Orange set the stage for the Repudiation of Augustinianism within the great mass of the Roman Church, and the attendant diaspora of Predestinarianism to its havens within the Non-Roman Western Communions -- the Ambrosian Catholics, the Hibernian Presbyters, and the Waldensian CredoBaptists, all Absolute Predestinarians. All Wesley succeeded in doing was making Anti-Predestinarianism fashionable within Protestantism -- that is, repudiating the entire foundational basis on which the Reformation was fought.

This is a Battle which goes back long before Wesley -- indeed, even to the earliest days of Christianity, and even pre-Christian Judaism. The Essenes and the Messianic Pharisees (closest to Christianity in Doctrine -- indeed, many became Christians, as recorded in Acts), were rigidly Absolute Predestinarian, as were Jesus Christ and his Apostles; whereas the Legalist Pharisees and the heretical Sadducees, as has befitted all blasphemers against God at all times, everywhere, were impassioned advocates of Human Free Will.

Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

So it has always been for the Predestinarian Church of God and Christ.
So it has been since the Lie of Eden.
So it ever shall be.

Wesley introduced nothing new to this struggle.... just more of the same.

[fortheDeclaration]

Oh, yes, by the way, it was the Predestinarian Augustine who first advocated using force against other Christians (Donatists) who disagreed with the 'Church'

[fortheDeclaration]

Wesley introduced nothing new to this struggle....

That is true, Wesley returned to the original teachings of the Church on predestination, the one held for the first three centuries before Augustine invented what would become the lie of Geneva

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Yes, the 'song' does remain the same, and Matthew 11 is a knife at the heart of Calvinism. Augustines 'hammer' couldn't break an egg! LOL!

Oh, really? Here comes the Hammer, FTD...

But lets say it is true that had those cities received the revelation that the Jews were receiving they would have repented (counter-factual knowledge), it does not mean they were predestined to hell by the sovereign election of God, since they still had to reject the revelation that was given to them (Psa.19, Rom.1)

Yes, let's say just that (since that is what Jesus said, after all) -- it is true that had those cities received the revelation that the Jews were receiving they would have repented.

Alright, then --

• If God saw fit that those cities should receive the revelation that the Jews were receiving, it is absolutely-certain that they would have repented. AND....
• If God saw fit that those cities should NOT receive the revelation that the Jews were receiving, it is absolutely-certain that they would NOT repent.

Thus GOD ALONE, by His decision that those cities should NOT receive the revelation that the Jews were receiving, created a Reality in which it was absolutely-certain that they would NOT repent -- IN PREFERENCE TO creating a Reality in which it was absolutely-certain that they WOULD Repent.

True, or False?

Admit the Literal Truth of Matthew 11, and it's only a matter of time.

We play, you lose. Here it comes again.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Oh, yes, by the way, it was the Predestinarian Augustine who first advocated using force against other Christians (Donatists) who disagreed with the 'Church' 132 posted on 08/16/2003 2:33 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration

No, that's Constantine, you dilettante. Must I teach you EVERYTHING??

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

That is true, Wesley returned to the original teachings of the Church on predestination, the one held for the first three centuries before Augustine invented what would become the lie of Geneva

No, Wesley merely re-introduced into Godly Protestantism the same "Free Will" heresy which was preached by Rome after its rejection of Christ and the Apostles, and had been preached by the satanic Sadducees five centuries before.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Concise History of Predestinarian Doctrine within the Judeo-Christian Tradition

Time Period	Believers	Doctrine	Heretics	Heresy
Pre-Christian	Essenes & Messianic Pharisees	Absolute Predestination	Sadducees & Legalist Pharisees	Free Will
Christian Apostolic	Jesus Christ & The Apostles	Absolute Predestination	Marcionite (Gospel of Love)	Free Will
Christian Patristics	Ambrose & Augustine	Absolute Predestination	Pelagius & Massilians	Free Will
Christian Middle Ages	Waldensian Baptists & others	Absolute Predestination	Medieval Romanism	Free Will
Christian Reformation	Protestant Reformers	Absolute Predestination	Molinist Jesuits	Free Will
Christian Evangelistic explosion	Charles Spurgeon & William Carey	Absolute Predestination	John "High Church" Wesley	Free Will
Modern Christianity	Calvinist Christians	Absolute Predestination	Everybody Else	Free Will

So it has ever been.
So it ever shall be.

Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

OP

[Corin Stormhands]

Odd your use of the word "heretic" since the root of the word is one who disagreed with the Roman church.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Odd your use of the word "heretic" since the root of the word is one who disagreed with the Roman church.

Not the least but Odd. In case you don't remember, the Roman Church was originally Christian. In fact, I think it's fair to say that Arminians are self-professed "christians" who still disagree with the Apostle Paul's Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

And what is more... Not Odd in a second respect. The original word was the Greek hairetikos "able to choose" from the verb hairesthai "to chose". From the very beginning of the Christian Church, even the term HERETIKOS itself has been synonymous with the idea that one is, of one's own Free Will, "able to choose for God or against God".

Free-Willism is not merely "one of" the Heresies which has assailed the Church of God and Christ; Free-Willism is, and has been from the beginning of Christianity, the actual dictionary-definition of Heresy itself according to the Church of God and Christ.

To believe that one is, of one's own Free Will, "able to choose" for God or against God is, by the very definition of the Early Christian Church -- HERETIKOS.

[xzins]

However, again, the issue was whether or not Wesley was inconsequential because he remained an Anglican.

I have spoken to many Christians in my day, probably as a result of being a chaplain in the US Army for 20 years, and these have been from many more denominations than I knew existed prior to entering service.

Most of them ARE familiar with free will doctrines. They question why evil exists in the world. It's a naturally arising question that each Christian must deal with.

I'd agree that most of them cannot talk to you about the term 'prevenient grace,' but they can speak to you about the convicting power of the Holy Spirit on a person prior to that person becoming Christian.

They are doctrinally uneducated but spiritually aware of the great questions of the faith. I think calvinists would find many of them very inquisitive about calvinist predestinarianism IF calvinists approached it with the grace of a DrE or a DrJ and not with a baseball bat.