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]

***It almost sounds as if the Lord introducing we Calvinists as a kind of anti-virus to help stamp out the horrible liberalism within the Methodist church. ***

I prefer to consider it a return to Methodism's Whitefield roots.

[CCWoody]

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. ~ xzins

Why?

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

Nope, I'm not pretending this is personal. I used to think that. I got over feeling personal about what you guys think a long time ago.

Are you saying that you believe that one can be both a believer and a heretic? I am most definitely in the column with John Wesley. Whether you consider us heretics doesn't matter to us.

Or to God.

I won't play your games any more and I'm studying elsewhere because I readily admit you can out debate me.

So can Satan.

But don't take that personally.

[Jean Chauvin]

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

The Arminian William Pope argues:

"Arminianism holds that the Sacrifice was offered for the whole world: it must therefore for that reason also renounce the commutative theory of exact and mutual compensation; since some may perish for whom Christ died, and He would be defrauded of His reward in them."
A Compendium of Christian Theology (New York: Hunt & Eaton, n.d.) II:314.

Jean

[lockeliberty]

A Covenant is a contract. One party does his part and the other party does their part.

Yes, but it is not a contract amongst equals. The contract is between a King and his vassals. It is not: If you will have me be your King I will grant blessings. It is: I am your King and if you obey I will grant blessings and if you disobey I will distribute curses. If you think of it based on the ancient Suzerain treaties, the people came under subjection to the King first and then the King made a contract with the people under his subjection.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I, too, am saddened that many don't consider a believer to be a believer just because he also holds Arminian understandings. I don't think ALL Arminians are Christian; nor do I think all Calvinists are Christian. The parable of the sower and the parable of the tares both testify to that.

Cry me a river, Xzins.

I have not -- EVER -- accused All Arminians of "not being Believers", for all Corin's bluster on the matter.

I have charged Arminianism (the Belief System, not the Individuals) with being Heresy, back to the beginning, back to the Sadducees -- and, as usual, I can back it up.

But so what? PROTESTANTS are permitted to change their Communions -- I have not personally attacked Corin; I have done nothing of the sort. As a Protestant, he is permitted to CORRECT his Communion, without taking it personally.

If Arminianism is HERETIKOS (which it is; in fact, it actually defines the Term), then Corin can adopt a very simple remedy -- stop endorsing HERETIKOS Arminianism. He's a Protestant. It's allowed.

I have not attacked Corin personally, nor accused him of being an "unbeliever". I have (correctly) identified Arminianism as being HERETIKOS. If that bothers Corin, all he has to do is leave it behind.

He's a Protestant. It's allowed. No need for whining.

[P-Marlowe]

---

Logical order
Logical order
Logical order
Logical order
Logical order
Logical order

---

I would argue that from a logical perspective as well as a biblical perspective the exercise of Faith must come first. In the absence of our justification we are separated from God by our sins. We are justified by our faith, but our justification comes from Jesus completed sacrifice on the cross. Thus until we exercise the faith, we cannot be justified. So there is a temporal order. We certainly cannot be justified without exercising faith, but we can exercise faith without first being justified. Abraham's model makes it clear that the justification is the result of the exercise of faith and certainly not vice-versa.
So the only question is at what point do we become born again?

Once again since our sins separate us from God, the recreation of our spirit cannot occur until after we have been justified, as God cannot indwell us unless we are perfect in his eyes. And that perfection is the result of our justification, not by any works that we do.

Hence both temporally and logically the order is:

1) Faith
2) Justification
3) Regeneration

While it all may occur in the twinkling of an eye, the idea that we could be regenerated without first having both faith and justification would mean that there really is no separation of man from God because of sin. That would mean that God could and does bridge the gap without the cross and that unforgiven sin is therefore no obstacle to our fellowship with God.

You never repsonded to this post before, so I am reposting it now. Any response?

[Corin Stormhands]

No need for whining.

Then you should stop.

But you are correct, I'm allowed to leave you behind. So here's mine.

[Jean Chauvin]

"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."

Yes, that is the Arminian notion that Salvation = God + Man. The Calvinist claims, on the other hand, that Salvation is ~all~ of God!

"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."

If you look at the context of my sentence that you quoted, it mention that Christ "pays...on the cross". This is a past event. Don't get hung up on the present tense of "pays". Read the entire sentence and you might understand.

Yes, Christ, indeed, has ~fully~ paid for all of my sins with his precious blood!

"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? "

God forordained all things, but I am soley responsible for the sin that I freely choose to do.

It's kinda like when the Bible tells us that Joseph credited to God his being sold into slavery to the Egyptians. These were the free-will actions of his brothers and they were responsible for the evil which they had done. It was Joseph's brothers who did this for evil, but it was ultimately God who did this for good.

Jean

[CCWoody]

I did point this out in my last email that if the Methodists want to discuss their doctrine, then simply discuss Whitfield and the 39 Articles. But, then, it is my impression that this group simply wants to shut up the Calvinists.

It is, after all, the same spirit we find here and the core reason why Servetus is always used.

Woody.

[drstevej]

P-M:
Hence both temporally and logically the order is:

1) Faith
2) Justification
3) Regeneration

drstevej: Let's examine your temporary order.

A person according to Marlowe's dictum may be declared righteous (J) an still not be born-again (R).

A person according to Marlowe's dictum may be a believer (F) an still not be born-again (R).

Granted this is a very short time, but there is a time when these are true in your TEMPORAL system.

Logical order
Logical order
Logical order
Logical order
Logical order
Logical order

I think you need to forsake your temporal order before we preceed further.

[connectthedots]

God forordained all things, but I am soley responsible for the sin that I freely choose to do.

Are you trying to tell me that you are the one who decides whether to commit a oarticular sin?

Yes or no; did God foreordain all your sins?

[Jean Chauvin]

"The Arminians make the cross the focal point of salvation."

No. Arminians make "free-will" the focal point of salvation.

After all, Christ may have died for "everybody", but without man's "free-will" decision to accept Christ, the cross would have been for nothing.

"Free-Will" is the entire focal point of the Arminian Philosophical Paradigm. So much so, that in order to up-hold "Free-Will", Arminians must redefine God's omniscience to be "Open" or "Middle Knowledge" in order to be consistent. The crucial doctrines of the Atonement, Justification and Grace are also re-defined in order to make them consistent with their "free-will".

As an Arminian friend of mine recently told me, "If God foreknows everything, then "free-will" is a sham." (He's a good Wesleyan, afterall) To him, "free-will" was the issue. He never mentioned the cross to me. It took my reminding him of the Biblical fact that Christ's work of the cross were forordained (he disagreed) and that those who physically carried out Christ's murder were viewed to be "evil". He responded by claiming that God didn't know the specifics of who would kill Jesus on the cross, but that he knew "generally" what would happen.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"Are you trying to tell me that you are the one who decides whether to commit a oarticular sin?"

Yes. Just like Joseph's brothers decided to commit sin by selling Joseph into slavery.

"Yes or no; did God foreordain all your sins?"

Yes! Just like God forordained the sins of those who physically murdered Jesus on the cross!

Jean

[P-Marlowe]

Does not the Calvinist declare that a person can (indeed must) be born again without repenting or believing? Is not being born again the Calvinist pre-condition to either faith or justification?

So there is an order, is there not. Even the Calvinist does not believe it is simultaneous. It seems to me that the Calvinists insist that it is regneration followed by faith followed by justification. Are you sure you are a Calvinist?

I think you need to forsake your temporal order before we preceed further.

I think you need to pick one.

[CCWoody]

Sigh!

OP has his band of anti-groupies.
Steve has his Marlowe.
Jean has his ctd.

But, all the anti-Woodys are either converted, being converted, or sufficiently demonstrated to be tares that they are ignored.

Woody.

[connectthedots]

Even that Calinist amongst Calvinists considered Arminians to be fellow believers in Jesus Chriat and saved.

[RnMomof7]

'd agree that most of them cannot talk to you about the term 'prevenient grace,' but they can speak to you about the convicting power of the Holy Spirit on a person prior to that person becoming Christian.

Umm sounds like irresistible grace. If it not you can not speak of any power but mans

They are doctrinally uneducated but spiritually aware of the great questions of the faith. I think calvinists would find many of them very inquisitive about calvinist predestinarianism IF calvinists approached it with the grace of a DrE or a DrJ and not with a baseball bat.

You speak the truth here. Most that call themselves Christian only know what doctrine they might hear preached from the pulpit or on TV

Most of them ARE familiar with free will doctrines. They question why evil exists in the world. It's a naturally arising question that each Christian must deal with.

The belief in "free will "is almost a knee jerk one

Men like the thought of the control of their lives and destinies but most can not give you more than John 3:16 as evidence .

I would submit that most accept free will without question because they have always heard it.

The majority of those that count themselves as Christians never read the bible. They have no basis for their belief other than what they have been told by someone else.

They are doctrinally uneducated but spiritually aware of the great questions of the faith. I think calvinists would find many of them very inquisitive about calvinist predestinarianism IF calvinists approached it with the grace of a DrE or a DrJ and not with a baseball bat.

I had a conversation with my sister last week

She was raised Catholic, but left the church many years ago and I believe considers herself born again

She has not a doctrinal clue on the doctrines of Calvinists or Arminism .

She was saying the denomination did not matter much because other than Catholics most Christians have the same doctrine

My sister has a masters degree, she is not stupid.Yes she was completely unaware that there are many different doctrines that deal with salvation

I did not say anything as it was a brief visit to this area and not worth opening that pandora's box .I do not think she is much different than most. Go to church listen to the sermon, maybe listen to Christian music and read our daily bread..that is the extent of their spiritual lives.

[connectthedots]

Forgot to include the name Edwin Palmer as the Calvinist amongst Calvinists.

[P-Marlowe]

He responded by claiming that God didn't know the specifics of who would kill Jesus on the cross, but that he knew "generally" what would happen.

He's wrong. Even Arminius insisted that God knows everything from the foundation of the earth. Your Arminian friend is not an Arminian.

[God] knows all things possible, whether they be in the capability of God or of the creature. . . imagination or enunciation. . . all things that could have an existence . . . those which are necessary and contingent, good and bad, universal and particular, future, present and past, excellent and vile; He knows things substantial and accidental of every kind; the actions and passions, the modes and circumstances . . . external words and deeds, internal thoughts, deliberations, counsels, and determinations, and the entities of reason, whether complex or simple. Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Baker Book House, 1986), 2:120.