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 Luther, 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 led by Bishop Sydserff, Archbishop Laud and others lied 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 ContenderNova 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 the water of baptism 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 and 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. They 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 another 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 theiriniquity.'

(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 necessityof 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 Tho 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.' The 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 been removed 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 ofman-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." ARMINIAN ERRORS

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 the 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 enmit

(ii) TOTAL DEPRAVITY

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."

(iii) EFFECTUAL CALLING

"Now here is the touchstone by which we may try our calling not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace. This calling forbids all trust in our own doings, and conducts us to Christ alone for salvation, but it afterwards purges us from dead works to serve the living and true God. As He that hath called you is holy, so must ye be holy. If you are living in sin, you are not called, but if you are truly Christ's, you can say, 'Nothing pains me more than sin. I desire to be rid of it; Lord help me to be holy.' Is this the panting of thy heart? Is this the tenor of thy life towards God, and His divine will? Again, in Philippians 3: 13, 14 we are told of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Is then your calling a high calling? Has it ennobled your heart, and set it upon heavenly things? Has it elevated your hopes, your tastes, your desires? Has it upraised the constant tenor of your life, so that you spend it with God and for God? Another test we find in Hebrews 3: 1—"Partakers of the heavenly calling." Heavenly means a call from heaven. If a man alone call thee, thou art uncalled. Is thy calling of God? Is it a call to heaven as well as from heaven? Unless thou art a stranger here, and heaven thy home, thou hast not been called with a heavenly calling; for those who have been so called declare that they look for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God, and they themselves are strangers and pilgrims upon the earth. Is thy calling thus holy, high, heavenly? Then beloved, thou hast been called of God, for such is the calling wherewith God doth call His people."—C. H. Spurgeon.

Arminians on the other hand believe that man has the natural power of will to exercise faith on Christ. Sinners are therefore urged to make decisions for Christ. On this foundation of sand multitudes build their hope for eternity. The decisionist conversion is but the exercise of the unrenewed will. The faith in Christ professed is not the gift of God. The joy experienced is the joy of the stony-ground hearers. The hope cherished is not the good hope through grace, but the hope of the hypocrite that shall perish. All the religious activity which follows, is not of the Spirit but of the flesh. 'Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me ye that work iniquity." (Matt, 7: 22, 23).

Saving Faith

The faith which is saving, which is the fruit of effectual calling or of the new birth is the gift of God. "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest 'any man should boast." (Eph. 2: 8,9).

"Faith looks to Christ as holding the office of a Saviour. The command is given, and observe it is given to all as blind and guilty and helpless to look to Christ that they might be saved; and the first decisive and satisfactory evidence of a change of heart is to get a sight of Christ as the Saviour. We may even before this, have good hope concerning you, that the Spirit of grace has begun to deal with you: but we dare not, as we value the souls of men, and tender the glory of God, we dare not say, that any man is born of God, in other words truly converted, till he sees Christ.

"Many of you say you have faith in Christ. Can you tell us anything about Him in whom you say you believe? Were your souls ever ready to sink into hell? Did they ever stick fast in the miry clay of corruption? Locked up in the prison of unbelief? Icebound by impenitence? Laid lower than the beasts with lusts? Tormented as beset by devils? Did any one come to rescue you in that state? Who is He? Is He a Saviour? Mary saw the Lord; she could tell something about it. And so the two disciples going to Emmaus. Can you this day condescend upon a single incident, even to the extent of the twinkling of an eye, any condition of body or soul in which you saw the Lord by faith? Can you tell what passed between Him and you?" (Rev. Jonathan R. Anderson, Glasgow. Died 1859).

While Arminian converts usually manifest a strict and praiseworthy abstention in the life they lead from drink, smoking, gambling, cinemas, etc., and a self-denying zeal for propagating their gospel and winning converts, their attitude to the Lord's day is not one of tenderness and love. "Ye are not under the law, but under grace," is the Scripture which they wrest in order to justify themselves. True believers in Christ are not under the condemnation of the law "for there is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus," but they are 'under the law to Christ' as their rule of life. This the apostle states in 1 Cor. 9: 21. Love to Christ is manifested and proved by love to His commandments. "If you love Me keep My commandments." "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2: 4). All who have no love for God's holy day, who are not grieved over how far short they come in keeping the Sabbath holy to the Lord and who are not wounded and grieved in soul when they see the Lord's day desecrated, whatever their profession, and whatever name they may have, they have but a name to live: ,!hey are still in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. This is the love of God that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not grievous." (1 John 5: 3). When the Lord writes His law in the heart in regeneration there is love for the Fourth Commandment, as surely as for the other commandments. Love to the Lord, to His Word, to His Cause, to His people and to His commandments, the holy Sabbath included, cannot be separated.

Arminian church bodies of our day have removed the ancient landmarks set by the godly fathers in the past as safeguards and bulwarks of the sanctity of the sabbath. The result is obvious. The curse of the Popish or "continental Sunday" has overspread the land like a flood. Is it any wonder that Dr. Kennedy of Dingwall said that Voluntaryism and Arminianism must be pioneers of Rationalism, for they are both the off-spring of unbelief?

Man's Inability and Responsibility

'And how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?'

(iv) THE ATONEMENT

The Atonement is the satisfaction which the Lord Jesus Christ by His obedience unto death gave to all the claims of God's law and justice in the room and stead of all given Him by the Father. It is on the ground and basis of Christ's atonement—the work which He finished and the sacrifice which He offered that sinners are reconciled to God. It is the sacrifice which God Himself in His infinite love, mercy and wisdom provided whereby in a way consistent with the righteousness of His nature, sinners, lost, guilty and hell-deserving would be saved with an everlasting salvation. 'Herein is love not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins' (1 John 4: 10). The love of the Son m coming to suffer and die is equal to the love of the Father Who sent Him. Christ's sacrifice is the one and only sacrifice for sin. It is of infinite value and merit, because the sacrifice of God in our nature. 'The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin' (1 John 1: 7). And to Christ alone as the propitiation through

faith in His blood are we as sinners directed to look for salvation, 'for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved' (Acts 4: 12).

Arminians believe in a Universal Atonement, that Christ died for all and every man alike, for Judas as well as for Peter, and in support of their view they appeal to certain passages in Scripture, which on the surface appear to teach that Christ died for the whole world of mankind. It is evident from Scripture that the term 'world' has a variety of meanings, and that it must always be interpreted according to the context in which it is found. This also applies to the word 'all.' The texts used by the Arminians to support their theory of a Universal Atonement can all be explained in the light of the context as setting forth an atonement for all the elect and the elect only. They do not in the slightest way contradict the Scriptural and Calvinistic doctrine of a Definite or Limited Atonement—limited in its design, limitless in its efficacy. According to the Word of God, Christ by His death infallibly secured the salvation of the elect, those chosen in Him and given Him by the Father before the foundation of the world. Those for whom Christ suffered and died are called 'His sheep' (John 10: 11, 15); 'His Church' (Acts 20: 28; Ephesians 5: 25-27); 'His people' (Matthew 1: 21); 'His elect' (Romans 8: 32-35). If Christ died for all, then alt would be saved, for it is impossible that they for whom Christ died and whose guilt He expiated, should be condemned and lost on account of that guilt. In His intercessory prayer Christ prays for all for whom He offered Himself as a sacrifice. 'I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me' for they are Thine' (John 17: 9). And on these alone He bestows eternal life. 'As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him' (John 17: 2).

The Universal Call of the Gospel and a Definite Atonement

If Christ's death was only for the elect, how can pardon and salvation be offered to all?

"The preachers of the gospel" says Dr. John Owen, "in their particular congregations, being utterly unacquainted with the purpose and secret counsel of God, being also forbidden to pry or search into it, (Deut. 29: 29) may justifiably call upon every man to believe, with assurance of salvation to every one in particular upon his so doing; knowing and being fully persuaded of this, that there is enough in the death of Christ to save every one that shall do so; leaving the purpose and counsel of God on whom He will bestow faith and for whom in particular Christ died, to Himself. When God calls upon men to believe, He does not in the first place call upon them to believe that Christ died for them: but that there is none other name under heaven among men, whereby we must be saved, but only of Jesus Christ, through whom salvation is preached. (Death of Death. Bk. 4, Ch. 1).

The Sinner's Warrant to Believe in Christ

"Let no sinner exclude himself from the benefit of the gospel, by saying either I know not if I be elect, or I know not if I be a believer and so I know not if Christ died for me and gave Himself for me in particular. This is to mistake the ground and object of faith: for as salvation in God's purpose to the elect is not the ground of faith, and salvation in possession of the believer is not the ground of faith, but salvation in the Word of grace and in the gospel offer: this is the glad news that comes to the sinner's ears, upon which he may build his faith and hope of salvation.

"The question then is not, are you an elect person or not? nor is it are you a believer or not? But the question is, are you a sinner that needs a Saviour? It is not Christ in the decree of election that you are to look to, while you know not that you are elected, that is to go too far back; nor is it Christ in the heart or in possession you are to look to, while you are not a believer, this is to go too far forward; but it is Christ in the Word. You know that you are a sinner, and Christ a Saviour held forth to you there, saying, "Look unto Me and be ye saved all ends of the earth, for I am God and beside Me there is none else." (Ralph Erskine).

An Erroneous Presentation of the Gospel Call

"In giving the gospel call, take heed to the warrant wherewith you accompany it," said the Prof. R. Watts, D.D., LL.D., an eminent Calvinistic theologian of his day in an address—'The Gospel Call' which he gave to divinity students of the Assembly College, Belfast, in 1867. "In calling upon men to believe, beware that you give no other warrant than what God's Word authorises you to give .…The warrant of faith which consists in assuring all men that Christ died for them, is, in view of the awful fact that ail men are not saved utterly derogatory to the work of the Redeemer, as well as to the honour, the justice, and the truth of the everlasting Father. You will be led to conclude that the professedly unlimited atonement is really so limited as to be no atonement at all. The giving of such a warrant, in view of the unquestionable fact that millions of those for whom it is alleged the satisfaction was made, have perished, involves an impeachment of the love, and truth, and justice of the Father, or of the all-perfect righteousness of Christ. Whatever difficulties you may feel in giving the gospel call, you must not attempt to obviate them by the adoption of a theory of the atonement which strips it of all its glory and abstracts from it all that renders it efficaciously redemptive, or that really constitutes it a ground of the faith of God's people and a guarantee for their full and final salvation. A desire for success has led many an ambassador to fall into the error. Commissioned to 'preach the gospel'—to preach Christ and Him crucified—to proclaim the unsearchable riches which are treasured up in His person and work—the ambassador has reduced the gospel, the inexhaustible theme to one sentence, and shrivelling up his message, has discharged it in the one utterance—'Christ has died for you'! Out of this prime error has arisen all his embarrassment. Such a warrant of faith requires, as its background, either a special revelation in regard to the parties addressed or a universal atonement. Not being possessed of the former, the herald has endeavoured to find relief by adopting the latter.

"The preaching of the gospel does not consist in the utterance of one or two laconic invitations to come to Christ. The object of preaching is to produce both faith and repentance, and such invitations are fitted to produce neither You are to expound and proclaim to all men the way of life, by exhibiting Christ in the infinite dignity of His person and grace of His official relations and work; you are to urge upon men the duty of accepting the salvation offered by God in Him, and of submitting to be saved in the way which, in the infinite mercy of God, has been provided. In doing this, you are to ply those you address with all the arguments furnished by the worth of the soul, the bliss of heaven, the unutterable woes of the lost, the justice and wrath of God, revealed in His law and in the history of its administration, and by His love and mercy exhibited in Christ and His work. This done, you can assure them that all who obey this call shall be saved. This done, your work as an ambassador is done.

You have said all you have authority to say. In the execution of such a commission, the question will come to you again and again— Can these bones live? But in your felt incompetency to quicken the dead which strew the valley of vision into which the Head of the Church may carry you, call to mind the truth to which attention has been already directed; remember that you are a co-worker with God; that whilst you have charge of the external call, there is another— an internal call—given by the Omnipotent, life-giving Spirit, whose it is to shine into the hearts of men, and give them to behold that glory of God in the face of Christ which it is yours todisplay before the minds of men in their natural estate." (Free Presbyterian Magazine, Vol. 37: 1).

(v) THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

The fifth and last point of Arminianism implies that saving grace is not an abiding principle, and that those who are loved of God, ransomed by Christ, and born again of the Spirit, may be cast away and perish eternally. Against this false and God-dishonouring doctrine of the Arminians, Christopher Ness advances twelve arguments proving that special grace cannot be totally and finally lost. Saving grace, he points out, "is called a 'seed,' remaining in those that are born of God (1 John 3: 9), an 'incorruptible seed' (1 Peter 1: 23). Grace never differs from itself, though a gracious man does from himself. Saving grace cannot be lost, though as respecting its acts and operations it may not always be in exercise; but degrees and measures of grace (formerly attained to) may be lost. 'Thou hast left thy first love' (Rev. 2: 4).

"The last and twelfth argument for the final perseverance of the saints is taken from the whole concurrent voice of Scripture testimony. 'The Word of the Lord shall stand for ever.' Dr. Moulin and others have computed the texts of Scripture, which declare the doctrine of the saints' final perseverance, at six hundred: the twelve following may, however, suffice (merely as a sample) to establish it as a gospel truth: Romans 11: 29; John 10: 28, 29; Luke 22: 32; Romans 8: 30, 38, 39:1 John 2: 19, 27; 2 Cor. 1: 21, 22; Phil. 1: 6; 2 Timothy 2: 19; Malachi 3: 6; John 14: 19; Jeremiah 32: 40; 1 Peter 1: 3, 4, 5.

'This is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing .… that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6: 39, 40).

The Need for an Uncompromising and Vigilant Witness

Against Arminianism

"Warnings from the pulpit and denunciation of the errors of Arminianism are not now heard as once they were. Even in pulpits where the truth is preached, it is to be feared that, in some cases, a faithful witness is not raised against Arminianism. The cause of this may be due in a measure to the fact that in defending the cause of truth new forms of error have to be exposed and assailed, with the result that the old enemy is left so far unmolested as if it were dead. Unfortunately this is not so; Arminianism is very much alive in the pulpit, in the theological and religious press, and in the modern evangelistic meeting When we bear in mind the horror with which our forefathers regarded Arminianism, the modern attitude to it indicates how far the professing Church has drifted from the position of the theologians of those days." (' The Reformed Faith' by the Rev. D. Beaton, p. 18).

Arminianism was the false gospel of John Wesley and his followers in the eighteenth century, and of D. L. Moody in the nineteenth. It is the stock-in-trade of well nigh all the popular evangelists of this century from Billy Graham downwards. The gospel halls of the Brethren, Open and Closed, are nurseries of Arminianism. The active agents of the Faith Mission and the Salvation Army, notwithstanding the moral and social results to the credit of the latter, spread the plague on every side. All the sects which have sprung up in these latter times, however divergent in their doctrines and practices Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostalists, Mormons, Christadelphians, Cooneyites, etc., etc.,.have all in common, the fatal lie of free-willism. It is Satan's sovereign drug, which causes the soul to sleep in delusion, and the end of such delusion is death. "Free will," says Spurgeon, "has carried many souls to hell but never a soul to heaven."

Arminianism is armed to the teeth in enmity to true and vital godliness. Where it flourishes its fruits are a superficial goody-goody form of godliness—the lamp and the light of the foolish virgins which went out in death and in despair. The Declaratory Acts of 1879, 1892 and 1921 in Scotland, and in 1901 in the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand threw open the flood-gates to the deluge of Arminianism. Spiritual death and desolation followed. The fat land was turned into barrenness, and the Churches adopting these Declaratory Acts are now well on the road to Rome. The 'sovereign drug' of Arminianism has flourished beyond the wildest dreams of priests and Jesuits. It is not by open and unabashed passing of nefarious Declaratory Acts that Satan as an angel of light now works. Subtle infiltration is his present policy and technique. What need there is for the 'denunciation' and the 'horror' the Rev. D. Beaton refers to, as the cloven-hoof of Arminianism is unmistakably seen far within the tents of the popular evangelical conventions, fellowships, and unions of our day! The Scripture Union, the Inter-Varsity Fellowship, the International Council of Christian Churches, the conventions of the Keswick fraternity etc., are all riddled with the cancer of Arminianism.

__________________________________

There is a doctrine so diabolical, so sinister and wicked that it deserves, in this author's opinion, a unique claim to the name "The Devil's Doctrine." This teaching is sheer poison to the soul which embraces it. Like a spiritual AIDS, it kills the soul's built-in immune system, the conscience, and it convicts the sinner in his sins and errors almost without hope of conversion. It either throws the sinner into a bottomless despair for his sins, or (more often today) it forces him into another sin against the virtue of hope: the deadly sin of presumption. The doctrine is none other than the familiar Calvinist one of "perseverance of the saints," commonly expressed by that snidely presented query: "Are you saved, brother"?
The teaching is totally unbiblical and untraditional. In other words, it isn't Christian. Yet, many who call themselves Christian, especially in America, hold this doctrine and make it a major part of their religion. Various Baptist and Presbyterian sects hold it as revealed truth, as do countless nondenominational, independent "Bible Churches" influenced by these larger sects.

TULIP

John Calvin (1509-1564), the Swiss Protestant "Reformer," authored a system of grace known by the acronym, TULIP. "Five Point" Calvinism, as it is called, holds the following doctrines: (1) "Total Depravity" from original sin; so total, in fact, that man lost his free will in the fall. (2) "Unconditional Election," which means that those who are predestined to heaven are saved without any merit or good will on their part (consequently, those predestined to hell can literally do nothing about it). (3) "Limited Atonement," which means that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross was only for the elect, and not for all men. (4) "Irresistible Grace," the idea that God's grace is impossible to resist (by bad will), therefore, we do not and cannot cooperate with God. If He gives us the grace to do something, like puppets, we do it no matter what. (5) "Perseverance of the Saints," which would have us believe that once we are put in the state of grace, we cannot lose that state, but will infallibly be saved. "Once saved, always saved," is the Calvinist battle cry associated with this last part of TULIP.

So that the reader does not think mine is a rude caricature of this teaching, I cite C. H. Spurgeon (1834-92), a famous English Calvinist preacher of the last century. Spurgeon, a Baptist, gives us this Calvinistic doctrine in its simplicity: "[N]or can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." (Charles H. Spurgion, "A Defence of Calvinism.") Ironically enough, this same fiery preacher claimed, "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's [Scottish Calvinist founder of the Presbyterian Church] gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."

Such is the error we mean to refute in this article. As we will see, neither St. Paul nor St. Augustine preached the "truth" that was preached by Calvin, Knox, or Spurgeon.

Given the internal logic of TULIP — and it is ruthlessly logical with itself, each piece fitting perfectly with the others — if any one of its five planks is destroyed, the whole Calvinist platform tumbles down. Therefore, this article, which is intended only to refute "perseverance of the saints," will effectively refute the whole Calvinist system.

There are several passages in Holy Scripture that repudiate the "once saved, always saved" position. We present some of them here, but by no means pretend to include all of them. Since most "eternally secure" Protestants use the King James Version of the Bible, for the sake of polemics, all of the Biblical texts we will use in this article will be from that Bible (not that we in any way endorse this Protestant Bible over our Catholic Douay-Rheims). We should note that the grammar conventions and orthography (spelling conventions) of the original are preserved in these Bible quotes.

The Old Testament

Justification, or Righteousness, existed in the Old Testament and the holy people of that time were called to persevere in their holiness. The Old Testament shows us example after example of saints and sinners. One interesting Old Testament pair is King David and his son, Solomon. David, who was holy and just, became a terrible sinner, but then repented and died a saint. He is regarded as a saint by the Catholic Church. His son, Solomon, while he was more wise than his father and had achieved great personal holiness, fell away and became an horrendous sinner: an adulterer, idolator, murderer, etc., all sins which, by name, exclude people from heaven. (Of course, we don't know how he died, but most authors are not optimistic about his salvation. The Church does not regard him as a saint.)

The Old Testament book of Ezechiel teaches the following doctrine: "But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die." (Ezekiel 18:24-26.)

This passage clearly shows that the "righteous" man (the just man, the man in the state of grace) can "fall away" from that righteousness and "die" in his "sin." In Scriptural language, to "die in one's sins" is to be a reprobate, damned. As our Lord said, "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)

The Gospels

The Gospels should always be our starting point in the New Testament, since therein are recorded the sacred utterances of the Son of God Himself. Jesus personally assures us, "he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 10:22). Commenting on this verse, Saint Cyprian (AD 200-258) says, "So whatever precedes the end is only a step by which we ascend to the summit of salvation. It is not the final point wherein we have already gained the full result of the ascent" (On the Unity of the Church, 21). Cyprian here shows the classical distinction Catholics make between being "saved," i.e., in heaven; and being "justified," i.e., put in the state of grace while on earth. The first in the order of time is justification, from which, if we persevere, we "ascend to the summit of salvation."

In the Parable of the Sower, recorded in the eighth chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, the Divine Master illustrated for us the different ways the Gospel is received by different people. As the sower (God) spread his seeds (the faith), four different things happened: "(1) some fell by the way side... (2) some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture... (3) some fell among thorns... (4) other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold."

The group that concerns us is the second, of whom our Lord says, "They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13).

They "receive the word," and they "believe," but then they "fall away." Remember what Spurgeon said: "[N]or can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called." He confesses that he cannot comprehend — will not accept — the Gospel as it was preached by Jesus Christ.

Saint Paul

Next we proceed to that author most used (and abused) by all of the so-called "Reformers," St. Paul. In his Epistle to the Romans (11:19-22), he says, "Thou wilt say then, The branches [the Jews] were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear, For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." [The capitalizations within the sentence are in the original. This same convention appears in some of the biblical passages to follow.]

Here we have St. Paul addressing believing, genuinely born-again Christians who lived in Rome. As he puts it in the beginning of the Epistle (1:7): "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints..." He further says of these people to whom he writes that their faith "is spoken of throughout the whole world" (1:8). He also calls their faith, "the mutual faith, both of you and me" (1:11). These Romans, then, had the same faith as Paul; therefore they were true believers. And they were "beloved of God," that is, in the state of grace, justification, or "friendship of God."

According to the Calvinist doctrine, these Romans were safe. They had the "blessed assurance" of their salvation because they were true Christians (after all, since they had a mutual faith with an inspired writer of the Bible, they had to be true Christians). Why then does St. Paul tell them to "fear" that they could be "cut off"? The answer is simple: Though they presently believe and are "beloved of God," they can fail to "continue in his goodness" and lose their salvation.

Again St. Paul affirms that the justified Christian can lose grace, when he tells the Galatians, who were being deceived by Judaizing heretics: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Gal. 1:6). The guilty Galatians were "removed from him," that is, removed from Christ. He affirms in the third chapter of the same epistle that they, "having begun in the Spirit," now fail to "obey the truth" (Gal. 3:1-3). Recall once again what Spurgeon said above, that he opposes, "a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called." The Gospel of St. Paul is such a one, since he accuses the Galatians of being removed from Christ and brought to a different doctrine.

Saint Paul himself — who was called directly by Christ, who bore the wounds of Christ in his body and had been raptured to the third heaven — feared for his own salvation. Writing to the Corinthians, he says, "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (I Cor. 9:27). Are we any better than the Apostle?

Other Epistles

The Catholic Epistles ("General Epistles" in the King James Version) furnish us with more examples. St. Peter warns, "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" (2 Pet. 2:20-22).

With vivid allegory, St. Peter shows the misery of the believer who has "escaped the allurements of the world" and then is "again entangled therein." Since, in accordance with our Lord's formula "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48), the believer is entrusted to keep Christian Faith and morals, the "latter end" of the fallen from grace "is worse with them than the beginning."

The Prince of the Apostles emphasizes his point in the next chapter: "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness" (2 Peter 3:17).

After enumerating the great evils of those "having not the Spirit," Saint Jude exhorts the faithful: "Keep yourselves in the love of God" (Jude 21). To "keep" is to "not lose." St. Jude would not waste the inspired words of his epistle, if it were impossible for them to fail to keep the love of God.

St. John, again speaking to people who have already been made just, says, "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

St. James, in his epistle, gives the example of an erring believer and how he can be brought back: "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20). "Any of you"! Note again that he is talking to people who are of the flock. If a Christian errs from the truth and is converted, the good man who helps him reaps these spiritual benefits.

All Scripture

The whole spirit of Scripture, with its countless warnings to be vigilant, to practice virtue, to avoid sin, to fear God, to keep hope, etc., tells us the just can lose what he has been given, and does so by his own free will. If the true Christian cannot lose his righteousness, then God's issuing a whole series of moral commands in Scripture is something of a waste of words. The command not to sin is superfluous — either because the true believer cannot sin, or because, even if he did sin, it really wouldn't matter since he is still saved. (As we will see, this second view — sin really doesn't matter — is the common Protestant opinion.)

Paul, who says that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, is a fool for telling Timothy to "keep thyself pure" (1 Timothy 5:22) since Timothy, the true believer, either cannot commit fornication, or if he did, would not thereby lose his righteousness. He is a fool for telling Christians to "grieve not the holy Spirit of God" (Eph. 4:30) if by doing so they would still have "blessed assurance" of their salvation. Too, he is a fool for commanding that we "be angry and sin not" (Eph. 4:26) unless sins against charity presented a spiritual danger: the danger of becoming a reprobate. St. Peter's exhortation to "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8), makes him equally a fool, since the "blood bought" Christians to whom he wrote were assured of their salvation.

Our Lord, too, would be guilty of great folly for His many exhortations in the Gospels, like this one: "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Why "watch" and why "pray" if the justified Christian is guaranteed to "stand before the Son of man" in heaven at the end of time? Countless other exhortations and warnings could be cited. Anyone who picks up a Bible and reads for a few minutes will find one himself.

The Fathers

From Scripture we move to the early witnesses of the Apostolic Faith, the Fathers of the Church. Were they Calvinist? No. They flatly oppose the doctrines of Calvin regarding free will and perseverance. We will begin with two early authors. The first-century author, Hermas (+c. 80), says "But if any one relapse into strife, he will be cast out of the tower, and will lose his life. Life is the possession of all who keep the commandments of the Lord" (The Shepherd 3:8:7). Ignatius of Antioch (+c. 110) lets us know that repentance is possible for those who lapse: "And pray without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God?" (Letter to the Ephesians 10) Note the use of the words "arise again," which suggests that they had, previous to their fall, "arisen" to Christian justice.

Calvin admitted that St. John Chrysostom's (+407) teaching on grace and free will was "for many ages taught and believed." Chrysostom clearly didn't hold the Protestant view when he said, "Whom he draws, he draws willingly," a clear proof of the necessity of our cooperation with divine grace. In fact, Calvin goes to the trouble of attempting a refutation of that Father (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, chap. 3, sec. 10). But in order to legitimize his heresy, Calvin had to present his new teaching as something ancient. Therefore, he appealed to the authority of St. Augustine. But Augustine, "the Doctor of Grace," was in no way a Calvinist, for in one sentence, he rejects TULIP: "If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, `I have not received,' because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received." (Rebuke and Grace, chap. 9 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, a Protestant edition) In the same work, a work which the African Bishop wrote to show the benefit of a rebuke for the sake of repentance, he writes "…we still rebuke those, and reasonably rebuke them, who, although they were living well, have not persevered therein; because they have of their own will been changed from a good to an evil life, and on that account are worthy of rebuke; and if rebuke should be of no avail to them, and they should persevere in their ruined life until death, they are also worthy of divine condemnation for ever." (Rebuke and Grace, chap 12 in NPNF edition) By way of beating a dead horse, permit me to insert yet another reminder of the lie of the Calvinist Spurgeon: "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day…"

Another early Christian (and a foremost authority on the Bible), St. Jerome (+420), also holds the Catholic view (he was a Roman Catholic, after all). Jerome had a celebrated controversy with a heretic named Jovinian. One of Jovinian's principal errors was that the just man could never sin. He used this text from St. John as his major apologetic: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (I John 3: 9).

In St. Jerome's refutation of Jovinian, he gives the following paraphrase as the true understanding of that text: "Therefore I tell you, my little children, whosoever is born of God, committeth no sin, in order that you may not sin and that you may know that you will remain sons of God so long as you refrain from sin." (Against Jovinian, Book II, chap. 2. emphasis added.) In the two italicized portions, Jerome teaches (1) that the just man has the free will to choose to sin, and (2) that he will forfeit his justice if he does sin.

He continues in the same vein, commenting on the Our Father, "Why do we pray that we may not enter into temptation, and that we may be delivered from the evil one, if the devil cannot tempt those who are baptized? The case is different if this prayer belongs to the Catechumens, and is not adapted to faithful Christians. Paul, the chosen vessel, chastised his body, and brought it into subjection, lest after preaching to others he himself should be found a reprobate…" (Against Jovinian, Book II, chap. 3).

At the beginning of this article, we stated, "The teaching is totally unbiblical and untraditional. In other words, it isn't Christian." The above proofs from Holy Scripture and the Fathers authenticate this.

What the Church Teaches

For the record, we should cite the authority of the Church condemning Calvin's view of perseverance. The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) was convened primarily to condemn the Protestant heresies that had started earlier in the same century. In two canons, the council censures the teachings of Calvin on perseverance. Canon 15 states, "If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema." Canon 16 adds, "If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema."

Thus the Church backed up with her solemn authority the teaching which had, since the beginning of the Church, been believed by all Catholics. It was only necessary that she do so because the likes of Calvin questioned the orthodox doctrine.

The Devil's Doctrine?

The Church was harsh on Calvin's teaching for good reason: It is error. But is it really justified to say that it is the "devil's doctrine"? Yes. Let me illustrate with a true account of something that just happened to me. When I was preparing this article, I wanted to find an example of a modern church that teaches "eternal security." Spurgeon has gone to his reward, but I wanted a living example to show the præternatural evil of this heresy. I had a few Chick Tracts that I got at a truck stop, so I flipped through them to see if they had this teaching. (For those who are unfamiliar with Jack Chick, he runs an international fundamentalist "ministry" which produces and distributes small cartoon tracts.) None of the four tracts I had explicitly expressed the "blessed assurance" doctrine, but they all had this on the inside back cover:

Nobody else can save you. Trust Jesus today!

(1) Admit you are a sinner.

(2) Be willing to turn from sin (repent).

(3) Believe that Jesus Christ died for you, was buried and rose from the dead.

(4) Through prayer, invite Jesus into your life to become your personal Saviour.

What to Pray:

Dear God, I am a sinner and need forgiveness. I believe that Jesus Christ shed His precious blood and died for my sin. I am willing to turn from sin. I now invite Christ to come into my heart and life as my personal Saviour.

Did you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal Saviour?

Next to the question, there were two check boxes, one marked "yes" and the other "no," with a line to write down the date.

Having no direct proof that Chick promotes the Calvinist doctrine on perseverance, I took advantage of the phone number on the back of the tract. I told the lady who answered the phone that I had a question about the Bible. She put me on the line with "Brother Jim," who was only too happy to preach to me. I posed the question, "If I say this prayer and mean it in my heart — really mean it — (he interrupted me to assure me that he knew I meant it)... does this mean that I'm saved"?

"YES!" came the reply.

"Can I lose that...?"

"NO!" (He also assured me that my name was written in the book of life!)

I asked him about what St. Paul had told the Romans and the Galatians (see above) regarding being "cut off," "removed ...unto another gospel," etc. His answer was that we can be cut off from fellowship, but not friendship. Neither are we removed from sonship. He gave the typical Calvinist example that when you are born "biologically" (i.e., naturally) your parents will always remain your parents, so when you become a son of God, you can't lose that either. (This is a poor example, since a child can be cut off from his inheritance by being disowned, and salvation is our supernatural inheritance. The question, then, becomes, "So God doesn't have the same right that even a natural parent has to disown his bad child?")

It didn't take long before he hung up on me, but my mission was accomplished. Without any tricks or manipulations from me, he said that I would literally never forfeit my salvation once I said Jack Chick's little prayer. Nothing could ever make me go to hell. Literally nothing. I was amazed. (For the record, I neither told any lies nor even suggested a single untruth during the conversation. I mostly asked questions and let him answer. The few declarative sentences I used — e.g. "I read this tract," "I am reading from the King James Bible," etc. — were all true.)

This is why "blessed assurance" is diabolical: Somebody finds a Chick tract at a truck stop. He's lived a bad life and knows it. He reads the tract that shows pictures of people like him being thrown into hell by the angels, while nice Calvinist folks are flying up to heaven. He gets a little scared, but then he sees that all he has to do is say the "Chick prayer" and he's saved. He recites the prayer — probably becoming very emotional — in some private place in the truck stop. Then he hops in his rig and goes on his merry way, thinking that nothing he does can keep him from heaven. If he gets drunk, commits adultery, or repeatedly cheats the Teamsters out of his dues, he is still saved. If he feels guilty, he calls "Brother Jim" at Chick Publications, who tells him that the devil wants him to doubt his salvation, but since he was born again, he cannot go to hell. Since his salvation is already accomplished (it's a "finished work"), the man never sincerely and humbly prays to be saved, which prayer God would hear and reward with grace. That grace, if cooperated with, would lead him to the truth (Catholicism).

This satanic psychology doesn't go just with Chick tracts, but with most common forms of Fundamentalist, Evangelical, or Reformed Protestantism, no matter where they can be found. These people have infected themselves with the dirty needle of presumption. When a Catholic talks with one of them about the Faith, the very first thing that comes to mind, no matter what doctrine is being discussed, is "I'm already saved." The fundamentalist repeats it like a mantra, and treats any contrary evidence (Holy Scripture, etc.), as the devil trying to get him to doubt his salvation so that he can't lead others to God.

Of course, God's grace can convert the fundamentalist, but one task of the Catholic is to show him that he cannot have such assurance of his salvation. Once this diabolical "first line of defense" is knocked down, if he has good will, his conversion will begin.

A Catholic Alternative

But what is the alternative to the Protestant "perseverance of the Saints"? Hope. The Christian should never fall into the sin of despair, thinking that he cannot be saved. But neither is he permitted to presume that he will have the grace of final perseverance. What all sound authorities say, including Fathers and Doctors of the Church, is that we may, with the indispensable aid of divine grace, obtain the grace of perseverance by constant and unremitting prayer. Indeed, what better thing is there to pray for than one's salvation? The prayer of St. Peter, simple as it is, is a good starting point: "Lord, save me." (Matthew 14:30)

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.