Arminianism—Another Gospel

Arminianism is the name given to the doctrines held and propagated by Arminius, a theological professor at the University of Leyden in Holland, who died in the year 1609.?These doctrines are a perversion of the Truth of God and the way of salvation.?They have no scriptural foundation.?They were never taught by the prophets of the Old Testament Church, nor by the apostles of the Lamb in the New.?Basically they are a revival of the ancient semi-Pelagian heresy condemned by the Church of God.?They are not the doctrines of the Reformers?uther, Calvin, Knox, etc.?All the Confessions of the Reformed Churches in Britain and on the continent of Europe are diametrically opposed to them.?The illustrious Synod of Dort, consisting of delegates from all the Reformed Churches, which met in the year 1618, exposed and condemned them.?It was not for Arminianism the noble army of martyrs suffered and died.?Their blood cries out against it.

?Arminianism appears as the gospel of Christ, but in reality is 'another gospel.'?It is a heresy, deadly and soul-ruining, and all the more so because subtle, plausible and popular.?"It is a scheme," in the words of Dr. Cunningham, the renowned theologian, "for dividing or partitioning the salvation of sinners between God and sinners themselves, instead of ascribing it as the Bible does, to the sovereign grace of God, the perfect and all-sufficient work of Christ and the efficacious and omnipotent operation of the Holy Spirit."

?Arminianism is the very essence of Popery.?Christopher Ness of St. John's College, Cambridge, a Puritan divine, in his treatise "An Antidote Against Arminianism," recommended by the great Dr. John Owen, writes, "As blessed Athanasius sighed out in his day, 'The world is overrun with Arianism; so it is the sad sigh of our present times, the Christian world is overrun, yea, overwhelmed with the flood of Arminianism; which cometh as it were, out of the mouth of the serpent, that he might cause the woman (the Church) to be carried away of the flood thereof.'?He quotes Mr. Rous, Master of Eton College, as saying, 'Arminianism is the spawn of Popery, which the warmth of favour may easily turn into frogs of the bottomless pit,' and Dr. Alexander Leighton who calls Arminianism 'the Pope's Benjamin, the last and greatest monster of the man of sin: the elixir of Anti-Christianism; the mystery of the mystery of iniquity; the Pope's cabinet; the very quintessence of equivocation.'"

?During the Arminian regime of Archbishop Laud, the persecutor of the Puritans and the Covenanters, zealous Arminians were promoted to the best bishoprics.?A famous letter written by a Jesuit to the Rector of Brussels and endorsed by Laud himself was found in his study at Lambeth.?A copy of this letter was found among the papers of a society of priests and Jesuits at Clerkenwell in 1627.?The following is an extract: 'Now we have planted the Sovereign Drug Arminianism which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresy; and it flourisheth and beareth fruit in due season .?I am at this time transported with joy to see how happily all instruments and means, as well as great or smaller, co-operate with our purposes.?But to return to the main fabric: OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISM.'?450).?

In Scotland, too, Arminianism was making serious inroads.?The saintly Samuel Rutherford who occupied a professor's chair at St. Andrew's University, made use of his scholarship to defend the faith by publishing a notable book against Arminianism.?"It was this malicious 'spirit of Arminianism'," writes the editor of 'The Contender' (Nova Scotia) "that drove the episcopal leaders (in conjunction with the civil power of the king) to persecute the Covenanters to prison and to death.?As a direct result of his book against Arminianism, Rutherford was put through the form of a 'Trial' by a group of Arminian bishops who were led by Sydserff of Galloway, deprived of his pastoral charge at Anwoth and banished to the town of Aberdeen.?In a letter Rutherford wrote to a minister in Ireland, Robert Cunningham, he says: "?The cause that ripened their hatred was my book against the Arminians, whereof they accused me, on those three days I appeared before them," and in a letter from Aberdeen in 1637 to Mr. John Ferguson of Ochiltree, Rutherford refers to his trial, saying, "I was judicially accused for my book against the Arminians, and commanded by the Chancellor to acknowledge I had done a fault in writing against Dr. Jackson, a wicked Arminian."?In a footnote to this letter, the editor Dr. Bonar, says: "Dr .Thomas?Jackson, Dean of Peterborough, first held Calvinistic sentiments but afterwards became an Arminian, a change which recommended him to the favour and patronage of Archbishop Laud."

"In 1631, five years before he was condemned and banished to Aberdeen, Rutherford wrote to Marion McNaught from his parish at Anwoth concerning Dr. Henry Burton, whose footsteps he was later to follow.?Says Rutherford in this letter, 'Know that I am in great heaviness for the pitiful case of our Lord's Kirk.?I hear the cause why Dr. Burton is committed to prison is his writing and preaching against Arminians.?I therefore entreat the aid of your prayers for myself, and the Lord's captives of hope, and for Zion.?The Lord hath let and daily lets me see how deep furrows Arminianism and the followers of it draw upon the back of God's Israel?ut our Lord cut the cords of the wicked!

Arminianism was not more rampant than it is now in England, Scotland and our own North American continent.?Let us not think that the malignant spirit of persecution that moved the Arminians?ed by Bishop Sydserff, Archbishop Laud and others?ied at the end of the Covenanting struggles of long ago.?The Arminians of today hold precisely the same false doctrines, and are just as relentlessly opposed to the absolute sovereignty of God and unconditional election as were the Arminians of old."?(The Contender?ova Scotia, April, 1955.)

John Wesley, the great apostle of Arminianism in the following century, manifested the same malicious spirit of persecution against Augustus Toplady, an earnest defender in his day Of the doctrines of free and sovereign grace, and author of 'Rock of Ages Cleft for Me.'?When Toplady was thought to be on his death-bed, Wesley industriously circulated a report that Toplady had recanted the principles which it had 'been the business of his life to advocate.?Wesley supposed Toplady to be too near the grave to contradict this foul calumny and write in his own defence.?"But to the confusion of his enemies" to quote from Volume I of Toplady's Works "strength was given him to do both.?Nor did he ever appear more triumphant than when, almost with his dying breath, he made so honourable and so successful an effort to repel the attacks of calumny and maintain the cause of truth.

Concerning Toplady's end we are told, "All his conversations, as ,he approached nearer and nearer to his decease, seemed more heavenly and happy.?He frequently called himself the happiest man in the world.?' O! ' (says he) ' how this soul of mine longs to be gone! Like a bird imprisoned in a cage, it longs to take its flight.?O that I had wings like a dove, then would I flee away to the realms of bliss and be at rest for ever!'?. . . . Being asked by a friend if he always enjoyed such manifestations, he answered, 'I cannot say there are no intermissions; for, if there were not, my consolations would be more or greater than I could possibly bear; but when they abate they leave such an abiding sense of God's goodness and of the certainty of my being fixed upon the eternal Rock Christ Jesus, that my soul is still filled with peace and joy.'

?"Within the hour of his death he called his friends and his servant and said, 'It will not be long before God takes me; for no mortal man can live (bursting while he said it into tears of joy) after the glories which God has manifested to my soul.'?Soon after this he closed his eyes and found (as Milton finely expresses it).?'A death like sleep, A gentle wafting to immortal life' on Tuesday, August the 11th, 1778, in the 38th year of his age." (pp. 119,120).

?Toplady was not long in his grave when John Wesley publicly asserted that "the account published concerning Mr. Toplady's death was a gross imposition on the public; that he had died in black despair,

uttering the most horrible blasphemies, and that none of his friends were permitted to see him."?Sir Richard Hill, a friend of Mr. Toplady's, and also the Rev. J. Gawkrodger publicly wrote John Wesley and accused him of "vilifying the ashes and traducing the memory of the late Mr. Augustus Toplady," and affirming that "many respectable witnesses could testify that Mr. Toplady departed this life in the full triumph of faith" (Vol. I, pp.?121-128).

´ The report continues that a pious dissenting minister expostulated in a pamphlet with Mr. Wesley on his unjust assertions in the following words: 'Mr .Wesley and his confederates, to whom this letter is

addressed, did not only persecute the late Mr. Toplady during his life, but even sprinkled his death-bed with abominable falsehood.?It was given out, in most of Mr. Wesley's societies, both far and near,

that the worthy man had recanted and disowned the doctrines of sovereign grace, which obliged him, though struggling with death, to appear in the pulpit emaciated as he was, and openly avow the doctrines he had preached, as the sole support of his departing spirit.?Wretched must that cause be, which has need to be supported by such unmanly shifts, and seek for Shelter under such disingenuous subterfuges.?O! Mr. Wesley, answer for this conduct at the bar of the Supreme.?Judge yourself and you shall not be judged.?Dare you also to persuade your followers that Mr. Toplady actually died in despair!?Fie upon sanctified slander! Fie! Fie!

?"Those who have read the preceding letters (by Sir Richard Hill and Rev.?J. Gawkrodger) astonished as they must have been at their contents, will yet be more astonished to hear, that to the loud repeated calls thus given to him to speak for himself, Mr. Wesley answered not a word.?Nor is it too much to say, that by maintaining a pertinacious silence in such circumstances, the very vitals of his character were stabbed by himself.?He thus consented to a blot remaining on his name, among the foulest that ever stained the reputation of a professed servant of Christ."

Why should Toplady who kept the faith and finished, his course in this world with joy be the target of the shafts of Wesley's venom? It is because he refuted on Scriptural grounds the Arminianism of Wesley, and fearlessly stood in defence of the eternal truths of free and sovereign grace.?"By what spirit," writes Toplady, "this gentleman and his deputies are guided in their discussion of controversial subjects, shall appear from a specimen of the horrible aspersions which, in 'The Church Vindicated from Predestination, they venture to heap on the Almighty Himself.?The recital makes one tremble; the perusal must shock every reader who is not steeled to all reverence for the Supreme Being.?Wesley and Sallon are not afraid to declare that on the hypothesis of divine decrees, the justice of God is no better than the tyranny of Tiberius.?That God Himself is little better than Moloch.'?'A cruel, unwise, unjust, arbitrary, a self-willed tyrant.'?'A being devoid of wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness and truth.'?'A devil, yea, worse than the devil.'?Did the exorbitancies of the ancient ranters, or the impieties of any modern blasphemers, ever come up to this??Observe, reader, that these also are the very men who are so abandoned to all sense of shame, as to charge me with blasphemy for asserting with Scripture, that God worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will, and that whatever God wills is right."

"It is amazing that any true evangelical Calvinist would ever quote John Wesley with approval, either in speech or in writing," wrote the late Rev.?J. P. MacQueen, London.?"He bitterly hated and rejected Calvinism, while he taught a theory of justification practically identical with sanctification.?His apologists have tried to persuade their readers that Wesley's Sacramentalism was 'merely an Oxford phase, and that it disappeared when he entered upon active evangelistic effort.'?His treatise on Baptism, which he published in 1756, proves the contrary: ' By water, then, as a means?he water of baptism?e are regenerated or born again, whence it is also called by the Apostle the washing of regeneration.?Herein a principle of grace is infused which will not be wholly taken away unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long-continued wickedness.'?If the foregoing quotation does not embody the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, one does not know what does.?Wesley commended the same so-called 'devotional literature' as the Oxford Tractarians, such as the works of Romanists like Thomas a Kempis, Francois de Sales, and Cardinal Bona.?He even published the 'Introduction to a Devout Life' by Francois de Sales, the sworn foe of Calvinism, in 1750.?He advocated prayers for the dead, justifying himself thus: 'Prayer for the dead, the faithful de, parted, in the advocacy of which I conceive myself clearly justified.?(Works, ed.?1872, IX.?55).?The blessed departed are beyond the need of the poor sin-stained prayers of the Church militant, for they are perfect in holiness.

"It is, of the very essence of historical falsehood," writes Mr. MacOueen, "to declare that the Romanist Oxford Tractarian Movement was the heir of the Evangelical Revival, whereas it was the logical development from the false teaching of the Arminian Methodist John Wesley."?"Dr .J.?H. Rigg says concerning John Wesley: 'The resemblance of his practices to those of modern High Anglicans is, in most points, exceedingly striking He inculcated fasting and confession and weekly communion; he refused the Lord's Supper to all who had not been baptized by a minister episcopally ordained; he re-baptized the children of Dissenters; and he refused to bury all who had not received Episcopal baptism' ('Churchmanship of John Wesley' pp.?28-29).?The present writer is amazed at Evangelical Calvinists who say that while John Wesley was undoubtedly Arminian in his views, his brother Charles was Calvinistic.?After a careful perusal of their lives and the views of both of them, I am thoroughly persuaded that they were both Arminian to the core, Charles' hymns notwithstanding.?Their false undermining Arminian teaching and influence weakened the Protestant witness against Popery in England and through-out the British Dominions, while Scotland itself was by no means exempt, and this evil free-willism, as a result, continues rife and rampant in professedly evangelical circles in England and Scotland, and the whole English-speaking world, to this day.?While thus, the eighteenth Century Revival saved England from the 'withering blight of Atheism, masquerading under the euphemistic name of Deism,' it is a great mistake to confound Evangelicalism with Wesleyanism, or to imagine that Wesley and Whitefield both belonged to one Movement and preached the same Gospel.?On the contrary, their teaching was diametrically opposed, free grace being Scriptural, while free-will is the illegitimate product of the carnal mind.?Whitefield was in the Puritan, Calvinistic, Apostolic succession, while Wesley, and his associates, were Arminian, semi-Pelagian and Sacramentalist.

"One of the strangest, and most persistent inaccuracies in British secular and religious history is that which describes John Wesley.´?, as the true author of the Eighteenth Century Evangelical Revival,

continues Mr. MacOueen, "whereas anything of permanent value in the Evangelical Movement must be attributed, as God's honoured instrument, to the Rev.?George Whitefield, outstandingly.?The contrary view could never find favour with any honest, impartial, serious student of history.?It is, however, conventional to-day among English and British Dominion Evangelicals generally to give the whole credit for that revival to Rev.?John Wesley, and his brother Charles, while Mr. Whitefield is only occasionally?nd these occasions very rare?entioned incidentally.?It is a popular error, that needs to be corrected, that the evangelicals were more or less indebted to the teaching and influence of the Wesley brothers. ?hey were certainly not the leaders of the Evangelical Revival.

"The Rev.?Dr. J. C. Ryle, of Liverpool, in his book entitled 'Christian Leaders in the Eighteenth Century,' declares regarding George Whitefield: 'I place him first in order of merit, without any hesitation, of all the spiritual heroes of that dark period (p.?31) and describes him as 'the chief and first among the English Reformers of the Eighteenth Century' (p.?44)."?(Extracts from 'The Eighteenth Century Evangelical Revival' by the Rev. I. P. MacOueen.?Free Presbyterian Magazine, Vol.?LV. pp.?99-102).

?Mr. D. L. Moody, the American Evangelist, was the great apostle of Arminianism in the nineteenth century.?In 1873-74 he and Ira D. Sankey conducted a great evangelistic campaign in Scotland, in the course of which thousands professed to have believed in Christ.?The Rev.?John Kennedy, D.D. of Dingwall, one of the foremost evangelical leaders in Scotland in his day, wrote a review of Moody's religious movement which he entitled 'Hyper-Evangelism?nother Gospel, Though a Mighty Power.'?When so many who had a high position and commanding influence in the Church were declaring that it was a gracious work of God, Dr. Kennedy says that he has to confess that he is one of those to whom the movement has yielded more grief than gladness and that he feels constrained to tell why he is a mourner apart.

?In forming an estimate of the doctrine that was mainly effective in advancing the movement Dr. Kennedy says that he had sufficient material at hand, that he had heard Mr. Moody repeatedly, and that he had perused with care published specimens of his addresses.?His objection to Moody's teaching was that it ignored the supreme end of the gospel which is the manifestation of the divine glory, and misrepresented it as merely unfolding a scheme of salvation adapted to men's convenience.?This confirmed objection he based on the following considerations:

´?(1) That no pains were taken to present the character and claims of God as Lawgiver and Judge, and no indication given of a desire to bring souls in self-condemnation to 'accept the punishment of their iniquity.'´´´?

´?(2) That it ignored the sovereignty and power of God in the dispensation of His grace.?

´?(3) That it afforded no help to discover, in the light of the doctrine of the cross, how God is glorified in the salvation of the sinner that believes in Jesus.?

´?(4) That it offers no precaution against tendencies to Anti-nomianism on the part of those who professed to believe.

?"Go to the street," said the great American evangelist, to a group of young ladies, who were seated before him, "and lay your hand on the shoulder of every drunkard you meet, and tell him that God loves him and that Christ died for him; and if you do so, I see no reason why in forty-eight hours there should be an unconverted drunkard in Edinburgh."?"This selfish earnestness," remarks Dr. Kennedy, "this proud resolve to make a manageable business of conversion-work, is intolerant of any recognition of the sovereignty of God."

?"There is, of course," he continues, "frequent references to the Spirit, and an acknowledgment of the necessity of His work, but there is, after all, very little allowed for Him to do; and bustling men feel and act as if somehow His power was under their control ..?

?"True, much use is made of Christ's substitutionary death.?But it is usually referred to as a disposing of sin, so that it no longer endangers him, who believes that Christ died for him?ho accepts Christ as his substitute.?This use of the doctrine of substitution has been very frequent and very effective.?Christ, as the substitute of sinners is declared to be the object of faith.?But it is His substitution rather than Himself.?To believe in substitution is what produces the peace.?This serves to remove the sense of danger.?There is no direct dealing with the Person who was the substitute.?There is no appreciation of the merit of His sacrifice, because of the Divine glory of Him by whom it was offered.?Faith, in the convenient arrangement for deliverance from danger, is substituted for trust in the Person who glorified God on the earth, and 'in whom' alone we can 'have redemption through His blood.' ?he blood of Jesus was referred to, and there was an oft-repeated ' Bible-reading'on the subject of ' the blood '; but what approximation to any right idea regarding it could there be in the mind, and what but misleading in the teaching, of one who could say, 'Jesus left His blood on earth to cleanse you, but He brought His flesh and bones to heaven.'?

"Souls who have a vague sense of danger, excited by the sensational, instead of an intelligent conviction of sin, produced by the light and power of applied truth, are quite ready to be satisfied with such teaching as this.?To these, such doctrine will bring all the peace they are anxious to obtain.?But what is the value of that peace? It is no more than the quiet of a dead soul, from whom has beenremoved an unintelligent sense of danger.

?"The new style of teaching made it seem such an easy thing to be a Christian.?To find oneself easily persuaded to believe what was presented in the gospel, and to think that by this faith salvation was secured, and that all cause of anxiety was for ever gone, gave a new and pleasing sensation, which thousands were willing to share."?

?In connection with unscriptural devices resorted to in order to advance the movement, Dr. Kennedy mentions first excessive hymn-singing as one of these.?"The singing of uninspired hymns even in moderation, as part of public worship, no one can prove to be scriptural; but the excess and the misdirection of the singing in this movement were irrational as well.?Singing ought to be to the Lord; for singing is worship.?But singing the gospel to men has taken the place of singing praise to God.?Many professed to have been converted by the hymns.

"But we use the organ only as an aid, it is said.?'It is right that we should do our best in serving the Lord; and if the vocal music is improved by the instrumental accompaniment, then surely the organ may be used.'?On the same ground you might argue for the use of crucifixes and pictures, and for all the paraphernalia of the Popish ritual.?'These,' you might say, 'make an impression on minds that would not otherwise be at all affected.?They vividly present before worshippers the scenes described in Scripture, and if, as aids, they serve to do so,

they surely cannot be wrong.'?To this, there are three replies, equally good against the argument for instrumental music.?

´?(1) they are not prescribed in New Testament Scripture, and therefore they must not be introduced into New Testament worship.?

´?(2) They are incongruous with the spirituality of the New Testament dispensation.?

´?(3) These additions but help to excite a state of feeling which militates against, instead of aiding, that which is produced by the Word.?An organ may make an impression, but what is it but such as may be made more thoroughly at the opera? It may help to regulate the singing, but does God require this improvement? And whence arises the taste for it? It cannot be from the desire to make the praise more fervent and spiritual, for it only tends to take attention away from the heart, whose melody the Lord requires.?It is the craving for pleasurable aesthetics, for the gratification of mere carnal feeling, that desires the thrill of organ sounds, to touch pleasingly the heart, that yields no response to what is spiritual.?If the argument, against the use of the organ, in the service of praise, is good, it is, at least equally so against its use in the service of preaching.?If anything did 'vanish away,' it is surely the use of all such accessories in connection with the exhibition of Christ to men.

?"The novelty of the 'inquiry room' was another effective aid in advancing the movement.?It is declared to be desirable to come into close personal contact with the hearers of the gospel immediately after a sermon, in order to ascertain their state of feeling, to deepen impressions, that may have been made, and to give a helping hand to the anxious.?Such is the plea for 'the inquiry room.'?In order that it may be supplied, hearers are strongly urged, after a sensational address, to take the position of converts or inquirers.?They are pressed and hurried to a public confession .?

?"Why are men so anxious to keep the awakened in their own hands? They, at any rate, seem to act as if conversion was all their own work.?They began it, and they seem determined to finish it.?If it is at all out of their hand, they seem to think that it will come to nothing.?They must at once, and on the spot, get these inquirers persuaded to believe, and get them also to say that they do.?They may fall to pieces if they are not braced round by a band of profession.?Their names or numbers must, ere the night passes, be added to the roll of converts.?They are gathered into the inquiry room, to act in a scene, that looks more like a part of a stage-play than anything more serious and solemn.?Oh, what trifling with souls goes on in these inquiry rooms, as class after class is dealt with in rude haste, very often by teachers who never 'knew the grace of God in truth.'?The inquiry room may be effective in securing a hasty profession of faith, but it is not an institution which the Church of Christ should adopt or countenance.

?"It will be a sad day," concludes Dr. Kennedy, "for our country, if the men, who luxuriate in the excitement of man-made revivals, shall with their one-sided views of truth, which have ever been the germs of serious errors, their lack of spiritual discernment, and their superficial experience, become the leaders of religious thought, and the conductors of religious movements.?Already they have advanced as many as inclined to follow them, far in the way to Arminianism in doctrine, and to Plymouthism in service.?They may be successful in galvanising, by a succession of sensational shocks a multitude of dead, till they seem to be alive, and they raise them from their crypts to take a place amidst the living in the house of the Lord; but far better would it be to leave the dead in the place of the dead, and to prophesy to them there, till the living God Himself shall quicken them.?For death will soon resume its sway.?Stillness will follow the temporary bus. tie, and the quiet will be more painful than the stir.?But to whatever extent this may be realised in the future of the Church in Scotland, our country will yet share, in common with all lands, in the great spiritual resurrection that will be the morning work of that day of glory, during which 'the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth,' and 'all nations shall be blessed in Messiah, and shall call Him blessed.'?Meantime, were it not for the hope of this, it would be impossible to endure to think of the present, and of the immediate future, of the cause of true religion in our land.?The dead, oh, how dead!?The living, oh, how undiscerning!?And if there continue to be progress in the direction, in which present religious activity is moving, a negative theology will soon supplant our Confession of Faith, the good old ways of worship will be forsaken for unscriptural inventions, and the tinsel of a superficial religiousness will take the place of genuine godliness."

The cardinal doctrines of the everlasting gospel which Arminians wrest to their own destruction are: (i) THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN HIS GRACE; (ii) TOTAL DEPRAVITY; (iii) EFFECTUAL CALLING; (iv) THE ATONEMENT; (v) THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.

God could have justly left all mankind to perish in their sin and misery, as He left the angels which kept not their first estate, but according to the good pleasure of His will, He chose in Christ, before the foundation of the world, all whom He purposed to save.?"According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will" (Ephesians 1: 4, 5).?"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.?For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.?Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified them He also glorified" (Romans 8: 28-30).?These verses from among many which could be quoted, and the whole scheme of redemption from Genesis to Revelation, afford infallible and unqualified proof that salvation is of free and sovereign grace.

The ninth chapter of Romans is the Holy Spirit's commentary on the eternal decrees of God.?In connection with these sublime mysteries it becomes us, as sinful finite creatures, to be still and to know that He is God, just in all His ways, holy in!?His works all that His judgments are unsearchable and His ways past finding out.?As the election of all whom He purposed to save flows from His sovereign good pleasure, so the passing by the rest of mankind has also its source in the unsearchable counsel of His sovereign will, in all the actings of which He is holy, just and true.?"Election is the expression o! the divine mercy; reprobation of the divine justice.?Whoever hold the doctrine of election must hold the doctrine of reprobation.?Reprobation implies that God simply passes by the sinner leaving him as he is.?In election He makes choice of the sinner in His sovereign grace.?Both are acts of the sovereignty of God."?(Rev.?D. Beaton, Free Presbyterian Magazine, Vol.?35: p.?244).?The non-elect are ordained of God, according to the unsearchable counsel of His will "to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice" (Confession of Faith, Ch. 3, sec.?7).?It is not for their being passed by that they are punished, but for their sins.?Their being passed by is a sovereign act: their condemnation is a judicial act of God m His capacity as a Judge.?"Salvation is all of grace; damnation all o! sin.?Salvation of God from first to last?he Alpha and the Omega; but damnation of men not of God: and if you perish, at your own hands must your blood be required" (C. H. Spurgeon).

"The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin.?It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will" (Jonathan Edwards).

?"All God's people, sooner or later, are brought to this point to see that God has a ' people,' ' a peculiar people,' a people separate from the world, a people whom He has formed for Himself, that they should show forth His praise.'?Election sooner or later, is riveted in the hearts of God's people.?And a man, that lives and dies against this blessed doctrine, lives and dies in his sins; and if he dies in that enmity, he will be damned in that enmity (J. C. Philpot).

?"The Arminians, on the other hand, hold and teach conditional election on a ground of foreseen faith.?This is contrary to the Truth.?As long as men are unregenerate, they are in a state of unbelief, without hope in God and without faith in Christ.?When saved by grace, they have faith, but that not of themselves.?It is not of their own power or free-will, but the gift of God through the efficacious teaching of the Holy Spirit.?Faith, therefore, cannot be the cause of election.?It is the effect of it and is insured by it.?'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed' (Acts 13: 48).?'For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.?For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Ephesians 2: 8-10).

The text quoted by Arminians in support of their doctrine of conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, is 'Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate, etc.'?(Romans 8: 29).?Such a view is superficial and untenable.?"The word 'foreknow' in the New Testament usage, as pointed out by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, is employed in the sense of the Hebrew yada (know) which denotes love and favour.?'Not foreknowledge as bare prescience,' says Calvin, ' but the adoption by which God had always from eternity distinguished His children from the reprobate.'?The Scriptures represent election as occurring in the past, irrespective of personal merit.?'The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.?As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Romans 9: 11-13).?The sovereignty of God's choice comes out clearly in the Pauline statement that Christ died for His people while they were yet sinners (Romans 5: 8).?It has been well said that Arminians take the choice out of the hands of God and place it in the hands of men" (' The Reformed Faith' by the Rev.?D. Beaton, pp 24).?'But of Him and through Him and to Him are all things whom be glory for ever.?Amen' (Romans 11: 36).

?Another subterfuge resorted to by the Arminians in order to explain away the particular election of individuals, is to say that the text 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Romans 9: 13) means a national election, not particular persons, but Jacob's children and Esau's children?he children of Israel and the children of Edom.?"Now, we ask them by everything reasonable," comments C H Spurgeon, "is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another??The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also.?There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election.?What is the election of a nation, but the election of so many units, of so many people??nd it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals.?In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if?hich we do not for a moment believe?here be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in choosing one nation and not another.?No! The difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God's Word.?Besides here is the proof that it is not correct: read the verse preceding it.?It does not say anything at all about nations; it says, 'For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth: It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger . . .'?referring to the children, not to the nation.?Of course the threatening was afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to serve Israel.?But the text means just what it says; it does not mean nations, but it means the persons mentioned.?'Jacob'?hat is the man whose name was Jacob?Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.'?Take care, my dear friends, how any of you meddle with God's Word.?I have heard of folk altering passages they did not like.?It will not do, you know, you cannot alter them; they are really just the same.?Our only power with the Word of God is simply to let it stand as it is, and to endeavour by God's grace to accommodate ourselves to that.?We must never try to make the Bible bow to us, in fact we cannot, for the truths of divine revelation are as sure and fast as the throne of God.?If a man wants to enjoy a delightful prospect, and a mighty mountain lies in his path, does he commence cutting away at its base, in the vain hope that ultimately it will become a level plain before him? No, on the contrary, he diligently uses it for the accomplishment of his purpose by ascending it, well knowing this to be the only means of obtaining the end in view.?So must we do; we cannot bring down the truths of God to our poor finite understanding; the mountain will never fall before us, but we can seek strength to rise higher and higher in our preception of divine things and in this way only may we hope to obtain the blessing."?(From sermon on 'Jacob and Esau' by C. H. Spurgeon).

?The Rev. R. M. McCheyne in his sermon on the words, 'Unto you, O men, I call: and my voice is to the sons of man' (Proverbs 8: 4) says: "Very often awakened persons sit and listen to a lively description of Christ, and of His work of substitution in the stead of sinners; but their question still is 'Is Christ a Saviour to me?'?Now to this question I answer: Christ is offered freely to all the human race.?'Unto you, O men, I call.'?There is no subject more misunderstood by unconverted souls than the unconditional freeness of Christ.?So little idea have we naturally of free grace that we cannot believe that God can offer a Saviour to us, while we are in a wicked, hell-deserving condition.?Oh, it is sad to think how men argue against their own happiness, and will not believe the very word of God!

?"If I knew I were one of the elect, I would come; but I fear I am not!?To you I answer: Nobody ever came to Christ because they knew themselves to be elect.?It is quite true that God has of His mere good pleasure elected some to everlasting life, but they never knew it till they came to Christ.?Christ nowhere invites the elect to Him.?The question for you is not, Am I one of the elect? but, Am I of the human race?

?"If I could repent and believe, then Christ would be free to me; but I cannot repent and believe.?To you I say, Are you not a man, before you repent and believe? Then Christ is offered to you before you repent and believe.?Christ is not offered to you because you repent, but because you are a vile, lost sinner.?If Christ be freely offered to all men, then it is plain that all who live and die without accepting Christ shall meet with the doom of those who refuse the Son of God."

?'The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, etc.'?(Deut. 29: 29).?It belongs not to us as sinners to pry presumptuously into the secret things which belong to the Lord our God.?Let us rather concern ourselves with what the Lord says belongs to us.?The free offers and invitations and warnings of the gospel belong to us, that we repent and turn to the Lord.?'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord and He will have mercy upon him and to our God for He will abundantly pardon' (Isaiah 55: 7).

?"No man," writes Christopher Ness, "may judge himself a reprobate in this life, and so grow desperate; for final disobedience (the only infallible evidence of reprobation) cannot be discovered till death."?('An Antidote Against Arminianism,' p.?51).

?"No person who is seeking God and salvation through His Son," said the great divine, Dr. John Love, "ought to apply the doctrine of the divine sovereignty thus: God is sovereign and therefore though I am seeking salvation yet He may deny it to me.?This is false.?But thus, God is sovereign and therefore He might have left me as He left others not to seek Him, but to reject and despise Him, but this He has not done.?That is the proper sphere of sovereignty.?It is manifested in the wonderful working whereby in the course of His providence one sinner is made to seek after Him while another is left not to do so.?But it is not manifested in this that any ever sought His face in vain.?'They shall praise the Lord that seek Him.'?Yea, in every degree of seeking Him, this reflection should encourage and lead to say, ' Blessed be God who has brought me thus far, further than others.'?The doctrine as to practice should be applied to things past, and not to anything that is to come.?So it is always in Scripture.?We know the divine determination concerning events by the events themselves."

?That is man's condition as he is before God.?'The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be.?So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God' (Romans 8: 7, 8).?'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.?Marvel not that I said unto thee: Ye must be born again' (John 5: 6,7).?'The heart is deceitful above all things; and desperately wicked: who can know it?"?(Jeremiah 17: 9).

Arminians deny the total depravity of man, in that they hold that the will of man is free and has the ability to choose Christ and the salvation that is in Him.?Such teaching is false and delusive.?The will of man is free only to choose according to his moral nature, and as his nature is under the dominion of sin, man chooses accordingly.?"Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability $f will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto."?(Confession of Faith, Ch. 9, Sec.?>There is in every unrenewed heart a desire to avoid the necessity of dealing with a personal Saviour, and to attain to hope, through the gospel, without being 'born again.'?The figment of a universal atonement, has been produced to meet this craving.?It is just the gospel perverted to suit the taste of proud carnal man.?' Christ died for all, and therefore for me; I believe this, and therefore I shall be saved,' are the short stages of an easy journey to the hope of peace.?To believe that Christ died for me, because He died for all, is to ' believe a lie '; but even if it were true, of what advantage could this faith be to me? His dying for me, because for all, secures nothing for me.?And to believe this, is something else than to believe in Christ Himself.?It is, in effect, making His death a substitute for Himself.?But instead of looking on the death of Christ as it refers to you, look, in the first instance, on its bearing on His own fitness to save, and on the prospects of all who are one with Him.?To view it thus, is to see Christ commended instead of superseded by His death.?The first thing, I require to be assured of, is Christ's fitness to save me, a sinner.?It is in Him I am called to trust.?Ere I can do so, I must be persuaded that He is worthy of my confidence.?This I cannot be assured of, unless I know Him as a sacrifice for sin.?The merit of His sacrifice I cannot appreciate, but in the light of His personal glory.?And I cannot appropriate the benefits secured by it, till I have first taken hold of Himself by faith.?What I discover in the light of the cross is, that He can save me in a way that shall be to the glory of God.?This is His great recommendation as a Saviour to me.?If this were not true regarding Him, I could never confide in Him.?And in the light in which I realise the infinite merit of His sacrifice, I know His love to be such as 'passeth knowledge.'?To connect that love and the death by which it was commended, with those whom the Father gave to Him, does not deprive me of hope.?It only assures me of how certain, and therefore how desirable the redemption is, which was purchased by His blood.?The Person, in all His power and love, is presented to me; and the authority of God shuts me up to the acceptance of Him, in order to my salvation.?It is light, revealing the glorious person, the infinite merit, and the ineffable love of Christ, and a call requiring me to come to Him; and not any supposed reference of His death to me, that encourages me to receive Him that I may be saved."

1. Jesus DID take his ministry to Tyre/Sidon. It was also one of the earliest regions reached by the proclamation of the early Christians. Therefore, it was not God's plan that they should be EXCLUDED from Christian witness. ~ xzins

Woody wrote * God CHOSE to NOT perform these Miracles in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom; a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom unto Eternal Damnation -- just as He foreknew.

It is interesting How God with draws His grace from those that are damned..    Mar 8:22   And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
   Mar 8:23   And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
   Mar 8:24   And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
   Mar 8:25   After that he put [his] hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
Mar 8:26   And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor tell [it] to any in the town.

Now what does this have to do with the judgement of Tyre /Sidon?

It is evidence of the election of some from the flames of distruction ..just as Lot and his family were divinely spared and told never to look back

Notice that Jesus LED the blind man out of that village..the man could not find His own way out of the coming dystruction

He wanted the blind man out of the town of Bethesadia BEFORE He would even preform a miricle on this man... and when He received his sight Jeuse ordered him not to return to that village . He wanted NO witness of His work there..stay out of Bethesdia...it is Doomed

Mat 11:20   Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
   Mat 11:21   Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
   Mat 11:22   But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you

If the future IS fixed, then you are a robot.

I thought I should offer a further explanation as to why this is false. (See below.)

***

As the Scholastic theologians noted (especially Bernard of Clairvaux, I believe), man actually has the same free will as God has--in the important but narrow sense that man is free to do as he pleases.

In other words, it's all a matter of man doing what he ultimately wants to do. Or, as I sometimes like to say it, man is free to do as he will.

The reason why I like this terminology is because it directly confronts one of the peculiar misconceptions which people have about a Biblical doctrine of predestination.

My point here is that this sense of man's real freedom is a fully Calvinistic idea. It flatly contradicts the idea that man is a robot.

As you already realize, man obviously isn't a robot. And since we Calvinists agree with you on this point, we obviously cannot let you use this straw-man argument (which is typically offered in this regard by confused Arminians). You manifestly haven't noticed what we Calvinists have noticed. As of the time you made your post, you weren't even entertaining what we have been trying to show you from the Scriptures.

(So, please abandon your argument if you have not already done so. If you will be thoughtful, you will realize that the "robot argument" is just an example of stubbornness in lieu of thoughtfulness.)

The confusion arises when people try to use the fact of man's freedom to do as he pleases as an argument against predestination. The problem is, they aren't paying attention to the Scriptures. They presume, in effect, that man's freedom, which is analogous to God's freedom, makes man a god and de-thrones God!

This was Dutch-Comfort's mistake in #336. It is blasphemy. I urge you to stay away from it.

The problem is that most sinners have not noticed what free will is and what it is not. As I pointed out in an earlier post, man's will is not separable from man's nature. Gosh, man's will is actually an expression of man's nature.

That being the case, the unregenerate sinner will not really embrace that which is contrary to his fallen nature. This is by the very definition of the will.

Perhaps the best way to appreciate what I am saying is to go back to the similarity between God and man with regard to will. Notice, for example, that our Thrice-Holy God has free will but that He cannot embrace a Lie. Well, then, we should not be surprised that an unregenerate sinner--who is polluted with the Lie of Eden--cannot embrace the Truth.

In other words, there are things which God will not do; this stems from His freedom and from His holy nature, properly considered together. By the same token, there are some things which an unregenerate sinner will not do; this stems from man's freedom and from man's unholy nature, properly considered together.

The horror of man's wickedness is that it amounts to an incapacitation of man even in his freedom of will. In other words, man's freedom of will is not man's hope. The notions which the anti-predestinarians have spewed out on this forum don't even begin to address man's real problem--which is, of course, man's fallen nature. As a matter of fact, the very fact that man's will is free but necessarily only free to follow man's fallen nature is man's doom.

It is this awful fact of the ruinous quality of free will in a fallen sinner which has forced many Calvinists to object to the terminology which thoughtless sinners have used. The problem is, the overwhelming majority of sinners have thoughtless assumed that ordinary free will entails a "power of contrary choice"--when it obviously entails nothing of the sort.

Many Calvinists have responded to this nonsense by affirming that the will of man is not free of the nature and therefore is not free in the sense which almost everyone seems to want to presume! We Calvinists point out that even God does not have the "freedom" to go against His Own nature--and neither does man, of course. In other words, the idea of free will which most people have in their wickedly addled brains does not exist anywhere in the universe.

This was the point which theAmbassador was trying to make in one of his earlier posts. It is what the Calvinist actually means when he attacks the prevailing notion concerning the freedom of the will. The Calvinist is not saying that the will is in no sense free (because it obviously is), but he is saying that it is patently obvious that the will of the unregenerate sinner is bound to his nature--and that inasmuch as his nature is evil--his "free will" is in a terrible bondage to evil.

This is not difficult to see when we understand what the will is and what it is not. Again, the freedom of one's will is not the power of contrary choice but is, rather, the certainty of choices only consistent with one's nature. The Bible is emphatic in warning us that this is the correct understanding of the will.

Ah, but the poor Arminian sometimes gets too easily confused by other things which do creep into the picture. For example, he is confused by the fact that a lost sinner sometimes seems to will that which is contrary to his unregenerate nature. But it is a fraud. Since man's nature is hypocritical in numerous self-deceiving ways, he may appear to will the Good--but this is merely a fraud fully consistent with his fallen nature!! (This is why being religious, even in a nominally Christian way, means nothing at all in regard to salvation.)

What I am ultimately saying is that it is repugnant, even downright dangerous, to talk of free will in the thoughtless way the Arminian does. The Arminian is actually just stuck in the Lie of Eden. It is an inborn notion stemming from the Fall itself.

Read your Bible in the light of what I am saying in this post. This perspective is correct. And this perspective matters--quite a lot.

***

I would specifically urge you to read John 8b. This interesting passage acknowledges that man is free to do has he will, but that there is a terrible bondage inherent in that by virtue of his fallen state! This is why the Lord goes on to speak of a different kind of free will--that of being "free indeed."

Regeneration, in other words, is necessary to the holy faith of true salvation. The Lord Jesus was bluntly warning some of His unsaved followers about this. We Calvinists are just following His lead in this warning.

This is why we dare to warn professing Christians that is not a good idea to mock the Biblical doctrine of predestination. It is fully consistent with a correct understanding of man's will and with man's full responsibility as a free moral agent. And God really does exercise a sovereign control over everything that happens in His universe.

After all, it's His universe.

Cornillus (an unbeliever) was praying to God and God heard his prayers (Acts.10:2-4)! Cornillus gets saved in vs 44! xzins we were all "unbelievers " untill we belived..

Unbelievers according to Total Depravity are unable to seek after God,but Cornillus was seeking God and God heard his prayers.

so what is your point?Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

And what does that have to do with Cornillus, an unbeliever seeking God?

Ofcourse, those who believed were ordained God always knew who would believe and who would not (1Pet.2:1)

Man may not be seeking God, but God is seeking man (Lk.19:10, Jn.12:32) Luk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Did the lost coin find the owner? Did the lost sheep come loking for its shepherd?

So, the point is that God seeks the lost.

Now, how can the elect be lost if they were chosen sovereignity by God before creation?

Xzins that IS the point. The Father gives the elect to the Son and the Son returns them to the Father..This is about a declaration of love between the Father and the Son..it is not all about man

LOL!

How do you get that from the word lost?

Jesus CLEARLY taught election Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. Jhn 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him].

Christ held those who saw Him and did not believe responsible for their decision But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me and believe not (Jn.6:36)

There is nothing in that passage about unconditional election.

We are a love gift..a gift the Father gives the Son and then the Son returns to the Father xzings..it is not all about YOU, It is not all about ME..it is not a quick fix to human problems or to make you feel good..

It is about God's love for all mankind (Jn.3:16) which your warped philosophy denies.

In fact, you are making it all about you since you think you are something special that God chose you and predestinated someone else to go to Hell.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Yes, that is the way to salvation through faith in the Son (Jn.20:31), not regeneration and then faith.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.