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]

ping to #260

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Where does, you know, basic Calvinism fit in? Or even Amyraut's Calvinism, for that matter?

Oh. Never mind.

[connectthedots]

Do a google search on hyper Calvinism. It would be fair to presume that someone such as yourself ought to be smart enough to think that the words 'extreme' and 'hyper' are synomymous.

can offer nothing more than an "I don't know"

If you, like most extreme Calvinists can offer nothing more than an "I don't know" to the problem of reconciling a belief that God predestined those who would have eternal life and those who would be condemned to Hell with the concept of a loving and just God; you lose the debate at the outset.

If you are going to quote me, please do it in context. You have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest in this particular instance. If you have no explanation other than 'I don't know' to the above problem with the Calvinist position on Predestination, just admit it. If you have one, I'd like to hear it; it would make you an icon within Calvinist circles. Good luck. If Edwin Palmer's answer to the problem was "I don't know", a doubt that you can do any better.

[Wrigley]

extreme Calvinists=hyper-calvinists=all Calvinists

[connectthedots]

I believe that on several Calvinism threads ago, I provided a link to that five-point Calvinist Dr. Phillip Johnson who quite systematically identified the traits of a hyper-Calvinist. I also recall you were strangley silent in commenting on his article.

[Wrigley]

Jean hasn't had much luck in getting ctd to show how Palmer is a hyper-Calvinist. Maybe you'll have more luck.

I'm starting to think that Palmer's book is the only one ctd has read(?) about Calvinism.

[Codie]

I was convicted by the Holy Spirit long before I ever read the Bible.It doesn't build our faith it reinforces it.

[CARepubGal]

It is like nailing Jello to the wall. :-)

[drstevej]

Provide the link to the Philip Johnson discussion. I think your recall is foggy.

[connectthedots]

Never said that. Maybe you can help OP with his problem I stated in p[ost 263. OP wants to engage in a debate on a theological point, yet he can't even offer a rational, logical, or coherent defense of the most obvious and basic problem with Calvinism's position on predestination. Is it rational for OP to expect an explantion that consists soley of 'I don't know' to prevail in any debate?

[RnMomof7]

I was convicted by the Holy Spirit long before I ever read the Bible.It doesn't build our faith it reinforces it.

Then you disagree with Paul correct?

Given even your weak kneed endorsement of the Bible . If one never goes and reads one will have a house build on sand. It will be an ineffective faith

BTW How did you even know about the Holy Spirit in order to be convinced of the truth of Him?

Codie did you tell me one time you were a Modalist ? Or do I have you confused with someone else??

[RnMomof7]

yet he can't even offer a rational, logical, or coherent defense of the most obvious and basic problem with Calvinism's position on predestination

Which is??

[lockeliberty]

Chips...... Check

Beer....... Check

Screen protector securely attached to monitor....Check

[Wrigley]

Provide where OP has ever said "I don't know" here. You're jumping ahead for no reason. But if you need to live in a fantasy world, I won't stop you.

[connectthedots]

Hear is the link to the web site containing the Phillip Johnson article on Hyper Calvinism. Will try to find the thread later today or tomorrow. Do a Google search on "Hyper Calvinism" and "Phillip Johnson" and you will get about 60 hits. I agree with Phillip Johnson for the most part.

[connectthedots]

From post 263: If you, like most extreme Calvinists can offer nothing more than an "I don't know" to the problem of reconciling a belief that God predestined those who would have eternal life and those who would be condemned to Hell with the concept of a loving and just God; you lose the debate at the outset

. Can you not read before commenting?

[drstevej]

***I agree with Phillip Johnson for the most part. ***

Just so you don't hide behind Philip's skirt, tell us exactly where you disagree with him. Otherwise, you have not defined what YOU mean by the term.

[connectthedots]

Provide where OP has ever said "I don't know" here. You're jumping ahead for no reason. But if you need to live in a fantasy world, I won't stop you.

You should have waited for his answer before posing such a question. While you are waiting, why don't you provide your solution to this logical problem?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You did provide a chart that lists Calvinists as "believers" and Wesleyans as "heretics." So, I guess it is kinda personal, but I never said you attacked me.

Okay, we obviously disagree on this point, but let me explain it ONE MORE TIME -- when you Arminians attack the Gospel of John 3:3 (Calvinism), you are attacking the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's NOT PERSONAL!!

I've never taken it as Personal. Why should I? You're attacking the Gospel of Jesus Christ... NOT ME, OP, the individual. By the same token, when I (correctly) Identify the Arminian "I am Able to Choose For God or Against God" dogma as the historically-factual definition of the term HERETIKOS... it's not personal.

It's strictly Business. Christians who love the Lord whould not willingly sell their spiritual endorsements to satanic HERETIKOS.

I did note that I believe you and many of your compatriots, while you say otherwise, don't really consider us Wesleyans to be saved. If what we believe hinges on what you call "the lie of Eden" how can we trust you when you call us heretics out of one side of your mouth and "brethren" out of the other?

Believe whatever you want. If you think that Calvinists do not believe in your own Salvation, fine -- think that of us if you want.

You forget what we believe -- God saves whom he pleases. Why should this not include Errant Arminians as well and Errant Romanists?

Methinks you find too much "judgment", where Calvinists find simply duty.

Is your FreeWill-ism a blasphemous heresy against God and Christ? Well, yeah, sure -- of course it is; has been ever since the Days of the Sadducees. That's a simple matter of History. But is that Heresy beyond the forgiveness of Jesus' Blood? Nope, never said anything of the sort. It's a Blaspheming Heresy which you have a Christian Duty to Repent in odebience to Christ, that's the matter.

I never said it was about "avoiding hell" or "securing heaven", just Righteous Christian Obedience to Jesus, simple as that.

[connectthedots]

I used the qualifying word 'most' only because I find it rare that I agree totally with everything I read. But for purposes of this thread at this time, I will state that I agree with everything in his article. What is you comment on the article? I noted that the CRC is specifically mentioned in the article and his association of it with Hyper Calvinism. While OP may think he can simply brush off my comments, he doesn't have that luxury with a Godly man like Dr. Johnson, does he?