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.

[drstevej]

***The act of regeneration occurs in eternity***

Scripture, please.

[P-Marlowe]

Scripture, please.

If being born again means that we are born from above or born of God, then the new creation occurs in eternity as that is where God dwells.

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy...

Do you assume that God lives in a temporal universe? Do you assume that God is trapped in the same time dimension as man? Is God's existence linear or is it infinite? Is it temporal or is it eternal?

BTW you ignored the essence of my post and instead changed the subject to concentrate on that which is essentially irrelevant to the question posed.

Why was the cross necessary if God is able to regenerate man and give him his new birth in Christ before he repents and believes? Indeed, you Calvinists believe that Man must first be born again before he can repent and believe, hence repentance and belief are totally irrelevant to salvation. Repentance and belief then become the byproducts of Salvation rather then the other way around. No matter how you look at it there is a temporal order. The Arminians make the cross the focal point of salvation. The Calvinists make the cross redundant.

[CCWoody]

Because if the Wesleyan admits that, he has no theology left. He becomes a Calvinist. ~ OP

You might find this interesting. I'm currently talking to a Methodist couple who have discovered that they can no longer deny the truth of Calvinism in the Bible. When they made their confession public to their church, they were subjected to the following from the "luv bunch:"


1. You are not allowed to talk about doctrine unless it is "Methodist doctrine"
2. We will no longer have any fellowship with you

You can imagine the hurt feelings. So, don't worry about being a "bat" cause your "Method" is mild compared to some. After all, we are only debating here; out there, it gets much more personal. Not that all non-Calvinists act this way cause I do have some very close non-Calvinist friends (I have to. I'm the only confessing 5-Pointer in my church today.)

Woody.

[drstevej]

***Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy...***

That verse supports this statement?

***The act of regeneration occurs in eternity***

Try again.

[Jean Chauvin]

"From the Calvinist perspective, I think they said it was necessary for Christ to die because it was part of the God's sovereign plan."

Partly correct.

The Calvinist holds to what is known as the "Substitutionary View" of Christ's atoning work on the cross.

The Substituionary View is that a perfectly "Just" God requires that the transgression of our sins needs to be paid for in full.

Now, either we pay for our sins by eternal condemnation (since we are unable to atone our own sins, that is the only possibility)

-OR-

Christ actually pays the price for our sins -each and every one- on the cross.

This is why Christ needed to be both God and man and why Christ needed to live an absolutely perfect life.

As the Arminian John Miley describes the Substitutionary View:

If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part of the system, and in full harmony with every other part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the system has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills the righteousness which the law requires of them, and suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By the nature of the substitution both must go to their account. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific accord with the whole system. And the truth of the system would carry with it the truth of the theory. It can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement be true if the system be false.
The Atonement in Christ, p. 22

On the other hand, the Arminian needs to deny the Substitutionary View because if Christ actually paid the price for the transgression of the sins of men ~AND~ if Christ, indeed, died "for everbody" on the cross, then ~everybody's~ sins would have been paid for and there would be no justification for anybody to be punished at all let alone for eternity.

Therefore, most consistent Arminians (they tend to be all over the place) believe in the "Governmental View" of Christ's atoning work on the cross.

As the Arminian Benjamin Field declared:

Christ did not pay the sinner's debt in the sense in which the objector understands that phrase. It is only in a loose sense that the death of Christ may be thus spoken of. He did a something in consideration of which it is now quite consistent with God's character as a moral Governor…"
The Student's Handbook of Christian Theology (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1889) p. 180

So, according to Arminianism, Christ did a "something" on the cross.

Therefore, it is in the Arminian system that the Cross really is unnecessary. If Christ only did a "something" and didn't actually pay the price for the sins of the men he died for, then why was it ~necessary~ that he die on the cross to begin with?

In other words, if Christ on the cross only received a percentage (less than 100%) of God's anger and wrath on account of man's sins and then man can be saved, why was it necessary that he go to the cross at all?

On the other hand, Calvinism as John Miley acknowledges, is the only system where Christ's death actually paid the price for man's sins. Therefore, Christ's work on the cross is absolutely necessary for Salvation according to Calvinism.

That is not so with Arminianism.

Jean

[connectthedots]

Ahhh, I see. You must have both a blind and irrational belief to be saved.

My eyes were wide open, figuratively, and the last thing anyone would call me is irrational.

I'll confess to Jesus, the Mormon Jesus, but God will honor that confession because I can't comprehend the kingdom of God until after I'm born again. All that matters is that I have some kind of confession and some kind of belief. It doesn't even matter if I change the gospel or if I change any verse.

Just what else did you know about the Kingdom of God prior to accepting Christ as your personal Savior besides the fact that you are a sinner who cannot meet the standard of perfection, that God sent his Son so that whosoever believes on him shall have everlasting life? Why are you making any reference to Mormonism; the only God is the Triune God of The Holy bible? Besides, what difference does it make as long as one has accepted Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior?

It makes sense. I bet you think that the Bible isn't really translated correctly either. To which version are you referring? For the most part, all translations that rely upon the most ancient and complete works are cewrtrainly suitable for use and correctly translated. Are you so without sin in your life that you can afford to split hairs on minor and pretty much inconsequential issues?

[CCWoody]

"Middle Knowledge" ~ God knows every potential outcome to a "free will" decision, but God doesn't know exactly which choice you will make until you make it. IOW, God only knows all things potentially and not actually.

These middle knowledge heretics must actually completely deny and ignore large amounts of scripture.

They are also kissing sisters to the Open Theists heretics in that both deny that God knows what your "free will" choice will be until you actually make it. Woody.

[Wrigley]

How about your wife?

[CCWoody]

From the Arminian perspective, it makes perfect sense that the cross is rendered unnecessary. ~ xzins

It simply proves that the Arminian has no understanding of Calvinism. Whether by ignorance, stupidity, or blind hatred I'll leave open....

Woody.

[xzins]

That's why the 2 Pe 2:1 verse is so significant. It shows that Christ bought everyone....therefore, it was a universal purchase.

Arminians believe that, but so do others besides Arminians.

Both would say that an item purchased is not necessarily an item accepted/applied.

However, as I've discussed with Woody, your logic is sound. If the price has been paid for everyone, then where is the necessity, what is the point, for punishing anyone?

That is why it's necessary to address the applying of the purchase.

[drstevej]

So Xzins, are you know an Amyraldian?

[Gamecock]

It's all a part of something called "The New Covenant." Opens the door for we unclean non-Jews

[Gamecock]

2 weeks ago I meet a Methodist minister who confessed that he is moving towards TULIP.

[xzins]

If they assert that God knows all potentialties/contingencies AND that God does NOT know what choice you will make, then they ARE indistinguishable from open theists. (Reading the books of open theism does help.)

This is different than the group that says "God CHOOSES not to look."

I am toying with the idea of "specified intervention" in which God HAS ALREADY PLANNED where to intervene. I don't know anyone else writing on that subject. Do you?

[xzins]

I liked your airplane illustration.

[connectthedots]

Christ actually pays the price for our sins -each and every one- on the cross.

Really? I was always under the impression that Christ already PAID the price for my sins and that what I need to do is confess them and repent. Your comment seems to be at odds with the concept of absolute predestination and foreordination. If God foreordained every sin as some of you Calvinists proclaim, why couldn't Christ have paid for those sins in advance, and if Christ did, the sins of the elect would have already been attoned. On top of that, if God foreordained all sins, how can man be responsible for something he did not have a free will to choose or reject?

[P-Marlowe]

Try again.

Just answer the main point. Why was the cross necessary if God is able to regenerate man and give him his new birth in Christ before he repents and believes?

Quit trying to avoid the question. After you answer the question then you can challenge my God dwelling in eternity theory.

Try again.

BTW if God inhabits eternity and God acts to regenerate man, then the act of God to regenerate man occurs in eternity. If that doesn't satisfy you then "I can't help you, Sundance."

[xzins]

I would say it has nothing to do with ignorance, blindness, stupidity. It is a product of the logical system that is built in Arminianism. If the choice of your salvation were made before you were born and preordained, then it makes perfect sense TEMPORALLY that Christ's death was unnecessary.

[CCWoody]

Man MUST first repent and believe. ~ PM

Impossible!


• 1 John 5:1
  Whosoever believes... ~IS~ born of God.

The act of regeneration occurs in eternity. ~ PM

It will be interesting to see what verse you use you justify that statement considering what we are told in scriptures.

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest....

Woody.

[drstevej]

***I liked your airplane illustration.***

Thanks... (posted for others to consider. it proves nothing, it only illustrates a point.)

HEAR A PARABLE of the AMYRALDIAN

A wealthy man buys ten tickets to Hawaii and has his Son pay cash for them. He sends a letter to ten people with a ticket purchased for them and invites them to join him in Hawaii.

He also sends a Special Courier to deliver three of the tickets to a select group of the ten and has the Courier earnestly persuade them to go {His persuasion is irresistable!} The Courier then escorts them onto the plane insuring they get to Hawaii.

The other seven get the letter and the ticket that has been purchased for them, but because they hate the wealthy man [he makes them feel guilty] they refuse to use the ticket. They each think. If I ever go to Hawaii, I'm going MY way. No one is paying my way, especially not That Guy!

The wealthy man, his son and the courier rejoice with the three in Hawaii. The other seven never make it and their tickets, while paid in full, are never used. While the three are in the beauty of Hawaii with the wealthy man a plague strikes the home towns of the seven and they perish.

NOTE: This is an artificially constructed parable to show how the price can be paid in full for those who refuse to receive the gift. The Father's election and the Spirit's persuasion are limited to the elect, yet a ticket purchased by the Son is legitimately extended to all.

Unlimited Atonement yet Limited Attainment