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

You had the Coptics in Ethiopia and the Greek Orthodox. Other than that, you tell me.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from this website that may help:

It is difficult to trace Baptist churches down through history. Some Baptist historians, have made attempts at doing this, but in many cases those they refer to groups as early Baptists who did not in fact hold to pure Baptist beliefs as held today. They try to establish that "according to history, Baptist have an unbroken line of churches since Christ". (Quote from Dr. J.M. Carroll's booklet "The Trail of Blood") These historians, in an attempt to show an unbroken line of Baptists in history, have embraced groups which were clearly not doctrinal sound. In the simplest of terms a true Baptist assembly is one which follows the New Testament as his sole authority for his faith and practice. Whether these groups of believers called themselves Baptists or not, if they were doctrinally pure following the New Testament for their faith and practice they were New Testament churches and thus they can be called Baptistic. The point is there were true New Testament churches called by various names, before assemblies used the name Baptist. Some Baptists such as the the Landmark Baptist conclude they trace their history back to John the Baptist who was the first Baptist. However, John the Baptist was an Old Testament saint and the last Old Testament prophet (Matt. 3:3). He did not belong to, nor was part of the any "ekklesia." Yes he baptized, but His baptism was the baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:2) for Jews who were preparing for coming Messiah and Kingdom God had promised them. John was beheaded by Herod (Matt. 14) before the Lord Jesus announced the coming establishment of the "ekklesia." (Matt 16:18). John was God's true prophet and the forrunner of the Messiah Jesus Christ, but he was not a part of the dispensation of the institution of the local church.
In examining many so-called early "Baptist" churches you find many doctrinal errors and false teaching. Surely, no church that practiced false doctrine as many of these groups did can in truth be called a Baptist church. It is my conviction that it is not possible to "trace" an unbroken line of Baptist churches from Christ until today. However, let me strongly say there has always existed an unbroken line of churches who have not erred from the faith, and been true to the Bible, God's Word. In fact Jesus emphatically stated in Matt. 16:18, concerning the church, that even "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." These churches have always existed from the time of Christ and the Apostles until today. To call these people Baptists or Baptistic, in the sense that the believed the Bible and followed it as their sole authority for faith and practice, in the way same true Baptist churches do today, is acceptable, although it serves no purpose. To go so far as to say there is a unbroken line or succession of Baptist churches from the time of Christ until today cannot be shown from history.

This is pretty much my view of things.

"Moreover, I do not regard myself as a Protestant, although you might regard me as such, since I am a Baptist and we did not break away from Rome as did the 'Protestants'." ftd's own words! We don't have to make any accusations, they damn themselves! This is the second thread where I've seen this quote misrepresented. ftD did not mean that Baptist's were and still are part of Rome. His rejection of the "Protestant" label comes from not considering Baptists as EVER having been a part of Rome in the first place.

Amen! Thank you for explaning that point!

How could Baptists break away from an organization they were never joined to?

Amen!

The Anabaptists had problems with some things that Luther did not change. He retained the Church-State relationship and his church became the state church of Germany. He kept the hereditary concept which gave children of Christian parents a perferential or convenantal standing before God. He retained the ritual of infant baptism and did not require the prior faith of the baptized person....Many Anabaptistss groups gave aid and encourgement to the reformers hoping for some relief in their own situations, only to be disappointed by persecution that came from the groups that they helped....No other religious group was so universally persecuted. Their doctrines and practices were abhorred by the Reformers as much as the Roman Church. They were put to death literally by the thousands....Although the Anabaptists had hoped for some relief of their persecutions under John Calvin and his Presbyterian churches, they were sadly mistaken. The Presbyterian Church, following the example of their Roman mother, was soon in the persecuting business (Baptist Church History, Roy Wallace, p.99,104,110)

These are the same 'Calvinists' who are always talking about how they were the great defenders of American liberty.

The only 'freedom' a Calvinist was ever concerned with was his own.

It was the Baptists who fought for separation of church and state, not the Presbyterians!

I reject it's intent as a joke. Both you and Rev 9:11 are on a campaign of hate with me here on FR.

I am sorry that you feel that way.

Neither myself nor Rev.9:11 'hate you'.

We think you are a little 'nutty' but there is no reason to 'hate' you!

No further response will be given to you at this time! You are behaving exactly like a spiritual Tare by telling lies and expressing your hatred for me by plainly stating that I would kill another freeper on sight.

It was a joke on your paranoid state of mind, which with your silly reaction is only becoming more evident!

I will follow the words of the Lord for He fully intends to burn all the Tares (Mat 13:25)

Didn't He also say 'vengence was His?'(Rom.12:19)?

Now, why don't you go back to your 'logical' constructs. I am sure you will feel much better after a while.

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.

And these are still the beliefs of your group, right?

Along with

Does your group now renounce these statements and live in 'fellowship with them, finding common ground'?

And what about post 5 Wesley was anti reformation -- was that an error in statement?

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.