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

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

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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

Introduction: the Anti-Predestinarian Syllogism

In debates between Reformation Protestants and Arminian neo-Protestants, it is common for Arminians to invoke a peculiar and logically-fallacious syllogism in an effort to deflect attention from the evidentiary insurmountability of the Biblical Case for Reformation Protestantism. This syllogism is constructed in the form of a classic ad hominem Guilt-by-Association argument, according to the following general Form:

• Assertion 1: One of the principal advovates of Reformation Protestantism, John Calvin of Geneva, "murdered" one Michael Servetus on the charge of Blasphemy, etc.
• Assertion 2: John Calvin never Repented this "murder".
• Assertion 3: Ergo, John Calvin was not Christian; therefore his doctrines were not Christian; therefore his doctrines must be rejected.

Needless to say, it makes little impression upon the Arminian neo-Protestant that the Doctrines of Absolute Predestination were believed by Godly Christians for centuries before Calvin (i.e., 10th-15th Century Waldensian CredoBaptists, the 6th-9th Century Presbyters of Iona, the 4th-10th Century Ambrosian Catholics, Saint Augustine, the Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself, etc). What matters is the argumentative usefulness of being able to lay this charge to the particular account of John Calvin, and thus evade the theological defeat of the UnBiblical Arminian systematic heresy by re-framing the debate as a mud-throwing competition directed against one particular Reformer.

Now, before we proceed, we should observe: the Arminian neo-Protestant assertions against Calvin are not borne out by the Facts of History in the first place.

Uncomfortable Facts about Michael Servetus

Michael Servetus was:

A Criminal Foreign Insurrectionist,
Preaching that Trinitarians should be murderously liquidated as a Class,
Who was warned for weeks to leave Geneva, and refused,
Seeking the Overthrow of the Genevan Constitution,
In Conspiracy with Insurrectionist Elements within Geneva,
Towards a Re-Establishment of the sort of Anti-Trinitarian Reich,
Which had so bloodily and viciously terrorized Munster not long before.

In point of History, Michael Servetus was executed as a matter of State Punishment, as sentenced by the Civil Council of Geneva – which itself was controlled at the time by Calvin’s political enemies, the Libertines. In fact, as the Libertine Party itself rejected Calvin’s doctrine of Predestination, it is more historically accurate to say that Servetus was killed by the Anti-Predestinarian “protestants”, than to attribute the deed to Calvin (who at any rate pleaded for a more merciful execution “by the Sword”, rather than the slow burning-to-death on which the vicious Anti-Predestinarians insisted).

Be that as it may, however, it needs be asked – if it is appropriate for Arminian neo-Protestants to employ such a Syllogism against the Reformer John Calvin, is it not equally appropriate to measure by the same standard the heretical Schismatic who, perhaps more than any other single man, was fundamentally responsible for sundering the Godly unity of Reformation Protestantism into a thousand confused and competing sects – James Arminius? To that Question we now turn:

Arminius – his teachings on Politics, Religion, and the Sword of the State

The State is the Absolute Sovereign over all Natural and Spiritual affairs of Man:
The end of the institution of magistracy, is the good of the whole, and of each individual of which it is composed, both an animal [or natural] good, "that they may lead quiet and peaceable lives;" and a spiritual good, that they may live in this world, to God, and may in heaven enjoy that good, to the glory of God who is its author. For since man, according to his two-fold life, (that is, the animal and the spiritual,) stands in need of each kind of good, and is, by nature of the image of God, capable of both kinds; since two collateral powers cannot stand, and since animal good is directed to that which is spiritual, and animal life is subordinate to that which is spiritual, it is unlawful to divide those two benefits, and to separate their joint superintendence, either in reality or by the administration of the supreme authority; for, if the animal life and its good become the only objects of solicitude, such an administration is that of cattle. ~~ (Public Disputations, Disputation 25, “On Magistracy”, James Arminius)

All Authority under Heaven, concerning both Natural and Spiritual matters, is concentrated in the Absolute Power of the State


The chief magistrate is not correctly denominated political or secular, because those epithets are opposed to the ecclesiastical and spiritual power. In the hands and at the disposal of the chief magistrate is placed, under God, the supreme and sovereign power of caring and providing for his subjects, and of governing them, with respect to animal and spiritual life. ~~ (Certain Articles, Article 28, “On Magistracy”, James Arminius)

It is the sole and absolute duty of the State to enforce all Ten Commandments, and to enact all laws both civil and ecclesiastical, and to eradicate all Evil from society.


The matter, of which this administration consists, are the acts necessary to produce that end. These actions, we comprehend in the three following classes: The first is Legislation, under which we also comprise the care of the moral law, according to both tables, and the enacting of subordinate laws with respect to places, times and persons, by which laws, provision may be the better made for the observance of that immovable law, and the various societies, being restricted to certain relations, may be the more correctly governed; that is, ecclesiastical, civil, scholastic and domestic associations. The second contains the vocation to delegated offices or duties, and the oversight of all actions and things which are necessary to the whole society. The third is either the eradication of all evils out of the society, if they be internal, or the warding of them off, if they be external, even with war, if that be necessary, and the safety of society should require it. ~~ (Public Disputations, Disputation 25, “On Magistracy”, James Arminius)

All Authority over the Christian Church is concentrated in the Absolute Power of the State


The care of religion has been committed by God to the chief magistrate, more than to priests and to ecclesiastical persons. ~~ (Certain Articles, Article 28, “On Magistracy”, James Arminius)
Because this power is pre eminent, we assert that every soul is subject to it by divine right, whether he be a layman or a clergyman, a deacon, priest, or bishop, an archbishop, cardinal, or patriarch, or even the Roman pontiff himself; so that it is the duty of every one to obey the commands of the magistrate, to acknowledge his tribunal, to await the sentence, and to submit to the punishment which he may award. ~~ (Public Disputations, Disputation 25, “On Magistracy”, James Arminius)

The Utter Subjection of all Human life, whether natural or spiritual, to the Dictates of the Absolute State should be “terrified and compelled” by the Power of the Sword:


The form is the power itself, according to which these functions themselves are discharged, with an authority that is subject to God alone, and pre-eminently above whatever is human; for this inspires spirit and life, and gives efficacy to these functions. It is enunciated "power by right of the sword," by which the good may be defended, and the bad terrified, restrained and punished, and all men compelled to perform their prescribed duties. To this power, as supreme, belongs the authority of demanding, from those under subjection, tribute, custom, and other burdens. These resemble the sinews, by which the authority and power necessary for these functions, are held together and established. ~~ (Public Disputations, Disputation 25, “On Magistracy”, James Arminius)

Phew.... Thank God that America was founded primarily by convinced Calvinists, and not Arminians. Moving along, though, let us now apply the Arminian's Favorite Syllogism -- to Arminius himself.

Arminius at the Bar of the Arminian Syllogism:

• Fact 1: James Arminius, (in addition to being a proto-Stalinist) advocated Murder by the State over religious matters -- the same charge that Arminians lay to the account of John Calvin. (It may be objected that Arminius never actually murdered anyone. Neither did John Calvin, for that matter; but the fact remains that Arminius advocated State-Murder in his mind and heart -- and per Matthew 5, it's the thought that counts as much as the act).
• Fact 2: James Arminius never repented his advocacy of State-Murder; he went to his grave espousing the Absolute Power of the State to compel obedience by the Sword in all matters, natural and spiritual.
• Conclusion: Ergo, James Arminius was not Christian; therefore his doctrines were not Christian; therefore anyone who believes Arminian doctrines, believes Un-Christian Doctrines.

Hmmmm. Howzabout that.

[Wrigley]

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

What's left? Ringworm and cellulite?

The more he tries to damn all things Calvin, the worse off his position gets.

[RnMomof7]

[Frumanchu]

Will read later if Browns game becomes too depressing

[xzins]

You underestimate Wesley

[Gamecock]

The crucifix and the Sacrifice was allowed to occur.

Allowed?

I think carried out as God's will is a better description.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Why are you pinging me here? You know you often accuse me of "playing to the Jury" but this little screed by OP is essentially nonsense (accusing Arminius of advocating murder)... Arminius' postion as stated by OP merely recognizes that the power granted to the State is ordained of God and the ruler (no matter how much of a despot he is) is instrument of God's judgement.

Lies.

You are attempting to under-represent Arminius' position in order to exempt him from the argument you so love to use against Calvin. But your duplicitous little dodge won't hack it.

Acknowledge that Arminius specifically stated that the Magistrate was to Legislate and enforce by the Sword obedience to all Ten Commandments as a matter of State Policy, and I'll retract the charge that you under-state Arminius' position for your own advantage.

Otherwise, I've called your little "screed" exactly what it is -- Lies.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

How is recognizing that some Calvinists have misinterpreted or misconstrued some of Calvin's writing 'hatred'. If anything, it is offering a bit of a defense for Calvin the person and some of his writings.

Horsefeathers -- despite all your shuckin' and jivin', despite any disagreements at the margins between Calvinist Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Reformed Baptists, calvinist credobaptists and Amyrauldians (hey, steve -- I can see your house from here!), there is one absolutely-central point of Agreement which Calvin preached, which Calvinists preach, and which undergirds all your opposition to Calvin and Calvinists:

• Calvinists preach that Man must be Regenerated in order to Believe.
• Arminians (and all who agree with Arminius on this central point, like yourself) preach that Man must Believe in order to be Regenerated.

This is the cornerstone of the entire debate, and for all your smoke and mirrors, you know full well that you'd have little major theological objection to Calvin and Calvinists if we would just give up that one point. Because that one point is central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which you oppose.

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

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

Simple as that, really.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don't know that much about Wesley, but he did remain an Anglican all his life. I'll google him awhile.

But this thread is about under-estimating Calvin and over-estimating Servetus -- a favorite pasttime of n'er-do-wells and even some do-wells.

[P-Marlowe]

Acknowledge that Arminius specifically stated that the Magistrate was to Legislate and enforce by the Sword obedience to all Ten Commandments as a matter of State Policy, and I'll retract the charge that you under-state Arminius' position for your own advantage.

That was his mistinterpretation of Romans 13. He was wrong. His position was a stain upon the name of Christ. Calvin had the same misinterpretation. BTW enforcing the 10 commandments by the sword and roasting a professed believer in Christ because he claims that infant baptism is a tool of the Devil are two different things, are they not?

Where in the 10 commandments does it grant to the Christian Church or secular governments the power or the right to torture and burn people who disagree with the State's interpretation of theological questions? Where did Arminius advocate torture and execution as a means of bringing people to repentance?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

That was his mistinterpretation of Romans 13. He was wrong. His position was a stain upon the name of Christ. Calvin had the same misinterpretation.

Okay, I'll admit that point.

Given that Calvin and Arminius were guilty of the same misinterpretation of Romans 13, then...

....I think you must agree that, in the future, if anyone brings up Calvin's misinterpretation of Romans 13 in a discussion of predestinarian Theology (on which Calvin's misinterpretation of Romans 13 has no bearing whatsoever, seeing as the Waldensians were Absolute Predestinarians for centuries before Calvin as well as complete Separationists on political matters), it's equally "fair and balanced" to bring up Arminius beliefs (and the vicious imposition of those beliefs in Britain by Arminian Archbishop Laud) on the same thread.

Wouldn't you say?

Where did Arminius advocate torture and execution as a means of bringing people to repentance?

Arminius favored the use of the Sword to enforce all Ten Commandments; he said nothing whatsoever about "bringing people to repentance" -- just using the Sword on them.

Thus, for example, we see that the imposition of Arminianism in Britain under Archbishop Laud was much more enthusiastic about murdering Calvinists, than pleading with them to "repent".

Which, of course, is itself an example which is perfectly relevant to ANY thread on which bluster about Servetus is substituted for Theological Argument.

Wouldn't you say?

[drstevej]

Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the Fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others -- or rather, above all other men -- what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy. -- James Arminius

[Cvengr]

I don't know about that.

There are some finer points regarding the Immutability of God, His Just decisions, His Sovereignty, wherein the already decided Judgment of Satan and the fallen angels has been determined.

There is some well established doctrine that the history of man is made as a testimony to the angelic hosts to display the righteousness of His decisions and judgment for all to understand.

If one asserts the Father had intended the Sacrifice to have been made from the crucifix prior to its commitment while Jesus Christ was placed in torment physically, then the fallen angels might also attempt to claim that unless their fallen state also allows for the acceptance of a sacrifice then the judgment has not been just to Satan.

On the contrary, I observe a situation wherein those who were rebellious to God, became vehemently antagonistic against anything holy, and ran to their sin, relishing the suffering of Jesus Christ as though they were in victory.

But all the while, they were still created within His Creation, and remained consequently blind or dead or separated from the living Spirit, which now had an atonement being provided to allow man, a creature not so created as the angels, to now be placed in higher esteem due to the grace of God.

The Father in this fashion needed not to do anything. Quite the contrary, He remained just and holy and righteous by turning away from Christ as He bore the sins of the world.

The consequential separation, death, of the body, from soul and spirit, now still obeyed the laws of His Creation. When nothing unholy was found in Him, He then overcame death. The soul returned to the body, the spirit to the same, and He was ascended to the heaven with the Father.

To me, the real significance of this is that obedience to Him, by our own volition is always the best path. One which is intuitively obvious.

The way I see it, more honor, glory, and worship is paid to God by our instinctive obedience to Him, both by nature and by our intent, rather than only by His promotion of our will, whihc might be interpretted by some to be Him elevating Himself.

Calvin might approach this same topic from a point of view to first place God as Soveriegn so as not to entertain the thought of our will having any other choice if we are holy, but I suspect we agree on that essence.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Calvinist Presbyterians, as you know, build most of our bridges with Calvinist Baptists ~~ Don't they make a lot of noise when you pound the nails in, though?

(OP scratches head curiously)... um, no, not in my experience. I mean, not if you've affixed the gag properly, and all. Rather a strange question....

[CARepubGal]

Godwin's Law applies here: the first person who calls the other party a nazi, loses the debate. And the point is valid: when looking at the actions taken 5 centuries ago, it is helpful to consider the big picture: like the times and what was the norm. 20th century laws did not even exist in the wildest dreams of the 16th century folks. They did not have flush toilets for pete's sake.

[nobdysfool]

And the point is valid: when looking at the actions taken 5 centuries ago, it is helpful to consider the big picture: like the times and what was the norm. 20th century laws did not even exist in the wildest dreams of the 16th century folks. They did not have flush toilets for pete's sake.

Quite true. It is a common habit among the many in this era to judge the deeds and actions of others back in time by the standards we profess to hold today. So suddenly things like slavery, burning heretics at the stake, Inquisitions, seem to us to be horrid, almost inconceivable things, but to them it was the norm. By the standards of the day, these were not extreme. Now, we shake our heads, we marvel at the crassness, the blindness and the overzealousness of some, not realizing that in time our socity's preoccupation with political correctness, tolerance, and multi-culturalism will be viewed with equal disgust and loathing.

[Cvengr]

They not only didn't have flush toilets, they didn't have steel pipe, but they still had the ability to discern between taking physical action resulting in the separation of the soul from the body and actions against a person without such a separation.

Those who didn't grasp that significance were no more Christian today from then. In some aspects, due to cloder familial ties and less transportation, the impact of bodily death on familial ties was more significant then than today.

[CARepubGal]

:sigh: You don't get the fact that people had a very short lifespan in general (big families were a way to ensure ONE of the kids lived past the age of 5). And these were the first generation breaking away from a very corrupt RCC that did have a very active inquisition. Add to that the fact that the Servetus BBQ was at the behest of the CIVIL authorities (the folks who booted John Calvin a few years earlier), and that some nasty forms of warfare were the norm, the life of the average European 500 + years ago can be summed up as: Nasty, Brutish and Short. Your logic is flawed Cvenger. Nice try though

[lockeliberty]

but they still had the ability to discern between taking physical action resulting in the separation of the soul from the body and actions against a person without such a separation.

I wonder if Solomon was any less wise and a bloody murder for having Shimei killed because Shemei went to retrieve his servants?

How about Asa? He threatened to "seperate the soul from the body" for whoever would not seek the Lord whether they were great or small, man or women.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Oh, maybe some get kicked a little differently than others, some a gentle nudge, others drop kicked, but yep,..I tend to think He's acted on us first to allow us to respond.

"Tending to think" this, that, or the other is quite different from advocating the Biblical Gospel, as preached by Jesus Christ (John 3:3).

• Calvinists preach that Man must be Regenerated in order to Believe.
• Arminians (and all who agree with Arminius on this central point, like yourself) preach that Man must Believe in order to be Regenerated.

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

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

As a matter of Logical precedence, must a Man be Born Again in order to believe in Jesus?
Yea, or Nay?

[xzins]

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

Modern Arminianism truly is Wesley-Arminianism.