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

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

[drstevej]

***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?***

The Westminster Shorter Catechism

Q32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?

A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of
justification,[1] adoption,[2] and sanctification, and the several benefits
which in this life do either accompany or flow from them.[3]

Proofs

[1] Romans 8:30;  [2] Ephesians 1:5;  [3] 1 Corinthians 1:26, 30.

Comments

These benefits may be seen as being part of what is called the ordo salutis (order of salvation), which may be formally defined as the order in which the Holy Spirit applies the various benefits of the work of redemption to the hearts and lives of elect sinners. This order, it must be carefully noted, must not be understood in the purely temporal sense, as if each of the benefits of salvation is to be granted to the sinner in a definite sequence of time. For, firstly, when a sinner is united with Christ, he receives Christ in all His fullness, which means that he receives all the benefits of salvation. Secondly, the various benefits cannot really be ordered in time rigorously. For example, strictly speaking justification follows sanctification. But faith is really part of sanctification, and the Scripture says we are “justified by faith” (Rom 5:1; etc.), which means that we cannot be justified (albeit subjectively), before sanctification has begun. Thus, when we talk about the ordo salutis, we must bear in mind that it is the logical order we are concerned with, rather than the temporal order.

[drstevej]

It might help for you to study Calvinism before pronouncing what they believe.

[RnMomof7]

"They can speak to you about the convicting power of the Holy Spirit on a person prior to that person becoming Christian"... Per'zackly. That's exactly the point.

Funny I just posted to that myself. Language means things . The man can testify that BEFORE he was saved there was an act of God. God acting on man first. Not a general wooing but a load of grace falling on the man .

[CCWoody]

From your quote, I can only conclude that Arminius believed in Middle Knowledge. Do you have any quote which demonstrates that Arminius also believed in Natural Knowledge?

Woody.

[connectthedots]

I personally don't think OP is much of a debater. He's great at making claims, but very weak when it comes to responding to logical criticisms of his thinking. While he may know Calvinism better than you can dispute, it by know stretch of the imagination that what he believes is true.

False premises almost always lead to false conclusions.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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?

Oh, gee, It's KINDERGARTEN THEOLOGY time!!

Well, Mr. Rogers, why don't we think about this one REAL HARD. Is Romanism a serious Ecclesiological heresy (yes)?? Does that mean that ALL Romanists are necessarily UnBelievers (no)!!

So... Yes, you THIN-SKINNED, HYPER-SENSITIVE, OVERLY-PRESUMPTUOUS... (OP cools off, takes a deep breath)... "professing brother in Christ". (grumbling admission)

YES, it is possible for one to be both a Believer and a Heretic.

• If Papal Romanism is not a major Ecclesial Heresy, then I don't know what it is. But if you think that damns every single Romanist Christian to Hell, then you can go damn them yourself; I'm busy right now.
• Likewise, Free-Willism is the first and most fundamental of all the Soteriological Heresies -- hairetikos, "able to choose". But until I have actually accused you personally of being an Unbeliever... well, until that time, I haven't accused you personally of being an Unbeliever, have I now?

I am, together with Athanasius, quite exacting about the term FATAL HERESY which pertains to UnBelief; and I have not used that term, have I? Don't think it's because I'm shy; I do apply it to Mormonism.

But I have not, ever, applied it to you -- Have I now.

So howzabout you get off the indictment of what I have not said -- that you are an "UnBeliever" -- and return instead to what I have said:

That Free-Willism is, and has ever been, the philosophy of Heresy -- from the Sadducees through the Pelagians through the Jesuits even now to the Present Day.

That ain't personal. Deny it if you can (though I don't much rate your odds); it's history, not Personal Attack.

[connectthedots]

I have charged Arminianism (the Belief System, not the Individuals) with being Heresy, back to the beginning, back to the Sadducees

I guess that would mean that Calvinists are Pharisees, wouldn't it.

[jude24]

Since the Christian Church was in essence in active rebellion against the power of the State, it can be argued that the Christian Church itself was in a similar state of Apostacy and heresy and insurrection as Servetus was when he fell into the hands of Calvin and his City Government.

Only if you consider nascent Christianity and Unitarianism morally equivalent.

I reiterate what I said on the Severtus thread: we see Calvin's actions as repugnant, not because they are morally wrong, but because they are contrary to the ideals of our tolerant, democratic society. But the Law makes one thing clear: In God's eyes, heresy was a crime punishable by death in the Israelite theocracy. Now, what God considered moral in the Israelite theocracy cannot now be postively immoral now. Geneva's duly elected officials decided that there was a compelling state interest in protecting orthodox Christian doctrine, and thus the law said that Severtus deserved to die. Severtus was not caught off-guard by this law; indeed, he flouted it. Accordingly, he justly must have been punished according to the letter of the law.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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. ~~ I think one must be born again before one can truly comprehend the Kingdom of God.

Bingo. You CANNOT admit what Jesus Christ said:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Everything but what Jesus Christ actually said CTD; everything but what Jesus Christ actually said. For if Man must be Born Again in order to even SEE (let alone "truly comprehend") the Kingdom of God, what objection have you against Calvinism?

Little indeed. And since you must have an Objection against Calvinism in order to feel theologically-satisfied... why don't you get back to me when you can address Jesus' actual words, rather than re-wording it as you go along?

Feel free to flag me. I'll be waiting.

I admit I expect I'll be waiting a long, long time.

[Corin Stormhands]

Oh, gee, It's KINDERGARTEN THEOLOGY time!!

Well thanks for the reminder that God has called me to better things than "debating" with you and your crowd.

[RnMomof7]

I've repeated it over and again that you cannot convince an Arminian that that "impedes" God's sovereignty BECAUSE the Arminian believes that "God set that plan up; it's God's idea."

I think that is because Wesley among others redefined sovereignty >

Let us say I have a plan for a city . I have the blueprints and the material and the cash.

Now I give a man the blueprints and the material and the cash and then leave. Am I sovereign over that project just because I had the idea and the wherewithal to carry it out? Or is the contractor sovereign because the ultimate outcome is fully in his hands.

It is very nice that you credit God with the work of men..but it is not honest.

I always am amazed that Arminians believe that God intervenes to preform miracles and blocks the intent of men when it suits their own spiritual desire .

It is fine that God saved 100 in a plane crash, but he is not in charge of the crash or the deaths

It is fine to give God the glory for the men that are saved ,but not allow the thought that just as He saved you he did not save someone else. It is a doctrine of contradictions created so man can feel good about God. Nothing more

Arminians pray like Calvinists as if they believe that God had anything to do with anything .

These are brought about by DrSteveJ's verse, 2 Pe 2:1, which seems to indicate to me that something is missing in BOTH the calvinist and the Arminian positions.

I know it gives you comfort that maybe the Calvinists are wrong on limited atonement , but in the wash it still comes out that only the elect are saved.God is still the sole author and finisher of man salvation

[RnMomof7]

Does it mean that God knows all contingencies of any individual's decisions?

It is basically what your church teaches

This is a view suggesting that God's foreknowledge is separated into three parts. "Middle knowledge" is what makes Molinism distinct from other systematic portrayals of foreknowledge, because it is suggested that God does not foreknow the free acts of men. (This is very Wesleyan)

Considering that Calvinism believe in the Biblical basis of God's sovereignty, there is a very large clash with "Molinists".

The fact is that the Bible speaks very clear about God's sovereignty, and Molinism and the new breed called "Open Theism" have a certain way of taking this attribute from God in order to assure man that he has all the freedom he needs and no real need of God or assurance of salvation since God doesn't know much more than him.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I personally don't think OP is much of a debater. He's great at making claims, but very weak when it comes to responding to logical criticisms of his thinking. While he may know Calvinism better than you can dispute, it by know stretch of the imagination that what he believes is true. False premises almost always lead to false conclusions.

I personally don't think Connecthedots is much of a debater. He's great at making claims, but very weak when it comes to responding to logical criticisms of his thinking. While he may know Philosophy well enough to pretend a coherent dispute, it by know stretch of the imagination that what he believes is true. Nonexistent logical premises almost always lead to emotivistically-derived conclusions.

Don't make me laugh, CTD.

The "external sideline commentator"? You're actually attempting that schtick?
My, my, am I ever impressed. Lemme tell ya.

Here's a fair bet -- I'll engage you dead-on regarding Total Depravity and Unilateral Regeneration. (I'll win). OR... I'll engage you regarding "Born Again" versus "Seeing the Kingdom of God" (I'll also win).

OR, frankly any other theological debate you wanna choose, provided we mutually agree to the Terms of Definition beforehand. Name any Theological Debate, on any subject whatsoever, on which we disagree... and so long as we we mutually agree to the Terms of Definition beforehand, I'll Win.

Everytime, no exceptions, without even trying that hard.

I'm just not impressed with you anymore, CTD.

I'm just not impressed.

[P-Marlowe]

It might help for you to study Calvinism before pronouncing what they believe.

I've been studying it for 3 years. Almost universally I am told by the Calvinists and I see in Calvinist writings that Calvinists insist that before a man can exercise faith or believe that he must FIRST be regenerated. (Temporal order-- regeneration before justification). That somehow the regeneration occurs while the man is still in a state of sinfullness and that it occurs prior to his being justified or forgiven-- prior to his exercise of repentance and prior to his justification and prior to his sanctification.

Are you saying that regeneration is not a pre-requisite to belief? Do you have any quotes from prominent Calvinists to support your contention?

[CCWoody]

It is very nice that you credit God with the work of men..but it is not honest. ~ RnMomof7

Indeed not! It is fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that Arminians preach that God didn't save anyone; He merely made it possible for them to be saved. Ultimately, man must perform that which makes him saved.

In a lot of ways, it is akin to the simultude of Adam's transgression.

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

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.

Actually Steve I believe that it is Arminians that make the cross of no effect. Jesus died without saving anyone. For al he knew no one beside the thief would come to Paradise.

The cross was not effective unless men chose it

Calvinists on the other hand believe that God ordains the means and the method

There was a covenant between Jesus and the Father that Jesus would come and save the men that the Father ordained to save.

Jesus was foreordained as the means to satisfy Gods wrath, Gods Justice demanded payment for the offense. The only one that could satisfy Gods wrath was God Himself

Typical of men , they think the cross is all about them . Jesus died because of the father's wrath not because any man deserved it

This plan was put in place before the foundation of the world

  1Pe 1:18   Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers;     
1Pe 1:19   But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:   
  1Pe 1:20   Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Before The foundation of the earth was laid God and Jesus agreed on the method of the satisfaction of mans offense against the holiness of God

God then ordained a people on which to receive His forgiveness through the blood of Christ

Eph 1:4 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:

Jesus because of the covenant with the Father became a propitiation for the sins of these men

Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

It is sad that some men think that the cross is all about men and fail to see it is all about God and his righteousness, not them

Rom 3:25   Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

They see it's value only in how it affects them That is the Pride of Life .

[drstevej]

***Almost universally I am told by the Calvinists and I see in Calvinist writings that Calvinists insist that before a man can exercise faith or believe that he must FIRST be regenerated. (Temporal order-- regeneration before justification).***

P-Marlowe the word "first" can be either temporal or logical. I just cited commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism denying what you say Calvinists affirm.

Don't play games.

[RnMomof7]

"I was raised CRC, but then thank God I got saved." His point was that prior to about age 45, he had never heard a salvation message is any of the CRCs he faithfully attended for so many years. He heard lots of messages on Calvinism to be sure, but the knowledge of Calvinism has not saved a single soul.

And your point? I was 35 when i was saved .No one in Calvinist churches believes they are automatically saved by the church .

My Presbyterian pastor teaches the salvation message at least once a month

So Dot were all theses guys in your dance group?

[CARepubGal]

If going to church makes someone Christian, why do we need Jesus? Simply put, CTD, attendance at meetings does NOT equal salvation points. That is the kind of nonsense Mormons teach and it is Not God's teaching. :sigh: Maybe CTD's bias regarding the CRC can be put aside to allow some common sense to seep in.

[P-Marlowe]

I just cited commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism denying what you say Calvinists affirm.

What you quoted did not even mention the word regeneration. Is it not true that Calvinists insist that before you can have faith or believe you must FIRST (both literally and logically) be born again? Do you not FIRST become a new creation in Christ before you exercise faith, repent, believe and become justified?

Or are faith, belief, repentance and justification all necessary elements of regeneration thereby making regeneration the biproduct of salvation rather than the condition precedent?

Don't play games.

I'm not the one playing games here, steve. I'm serious.