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.

[Corin Stormhands]

You shoulda paid closer attention. I was better at it.

[xzins]

Good, fair, honest post, Rn. I'm convinced that the days are growing shorter and that the necessity of proclaiming Christ is upon us. You can view that statement eschatologically, or you can view it as coming from a 51 year old he sees his own mortality in the frailty of his 76 year old father who surpasses him in age by only 25 years, and who remembers the man running marathons not too many years back.

[xzins]

I have always believed in the absolute foreknowledge of God and have never seen where Wesley or Arminius believed otherwise.

[xzins]

Jesus declared the error of the Sadduccees to be their rejection of the resurrection. I do not recollect a passage where he took them to task for free will-ism.

[Jean Chauvin]

"[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 "

To reiterate on what Woody rightly concluded. This is nothing more than the "Middle Knowledge" heresy. Here Arminius is re-defining God's "omniscience" to be that God knows all things "possible".

In "Middle Knowledge", God is said to be so smart that he "knows all potentialities". He doesn't know anything ~really~ until that event actually happens in time. However, he has known of it's potential reality and has contingencies in place in the event of any possible reality to ensure his "plan" will be accomplished.

In reality, God does not know much of anything if he doesn't ~really~ know what will indeed happen!

We can read further from the section you have quoted from:

XLIII. The schoolmen say besides, that one kind of God's knowledge is natural and necessary, another free, and a third kind middle. (1.) Natural or necessary knowledge is that by which God understands himself and all things possible. (2.) Free knowledge is that by which he knows, all other beings. (3.) Middle knowledge is that by which he knows that "if This thing happens, That will take place." The first precedes every free act of the Divine will; the second follows the free act of God's will; and the last precedes indeed the free act of the Divine will, but hypothetically from this act it sees that some particular thing will occur. But, in strictness of speech, every kind of God's knowledge is necessary. For the free understanding of God does not arise from this circumstance, that a free act of His will exhibits or offers an object to the understanding; but when any object whatsoever is laid down, the Divine understanding knows it necessarily on account of the infinity of its own essence. In like manner, any object whatsoever being laid down hypothetically, God understands necessarily what will arise from that object.
-from Arminius' Works, On the Understanding of God, XLIII

We also can read the following from the Wesley Center Online:

Further, Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley also have in common the concept of "scientia media," or God's "middle knowledge," as an attempt to resolve the paradox of omniscience in order to maintain compatiblist view. It is this common denominator that I wish to explore this essay.

The Wesley Center Online goes on to say:

That Arminius advocated free-will is a well-documented fact of history. What is often overlooked is the fact that, like Molina, Arminius also an appeal to middle knowledge.

Furthermore, the Wesley Center Online says the following about John Wesley:

...the material indicates that Wesley did see the immediate value of the concept of middle knowledge to his Arminian position.

Well, Marlowe. It seems that True and Classic Arminianism indeed ~DOES~ deny the Omniscience of God!

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

Ping to my Post #325

Arminius and Wesley most definately did ~NOT~ believe in the absolute foreknowledge of God.

You, to your credit, buck the historical Arminian position on God's sovereignty...presuming, of course, that you define "absolute foreknowledge" as God pre-knowing absolutely everything with certainty and not mere "possibility".

Jean

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to your post!

Looks like someone was just picking a fight!

[xzins]

God does know everything.

Honestly, Jean, even after attending a Wesleyan seminary, I can think of nothing I ever read or had suggested to the effect that Wesley did not believe in absolute foreknowledge of God.

[Jean Chauvin]

Perhaps part of the problem is found in the tendency to redefine the traditional definition of theological words.

Those who adhere to "Middle Knowledge" believe they can rightly say that because God knows all "possibilities", that "God knows everything".

If that is the case, you could easily have been simply unaware of the meaning of those using the phrase "God knows everything".

I had a similar situation in College when taking an Astronomy class by Howard VanTill author of The Fourth Day. Although Prof. VanTill is a really nice guy, he's still a theistic evolutionist. Part of the problem he caused was his redefining the word "creation". He could wholeheartedly say that God "created" man. Now most non-evolutionary Christians would believe that meant that God created man distinctly from the Animals. That wasn't what Howard meant, however. He defined "created" as "providence". So, when man evolved from primates, Howard could easily say that God "created" man because God provided the evolutionary mechanism for man to evolve from lower forms of life.

Most in the class were ignorant of that fact and thus could find nothing wrong with what Prof. VanTill taught.

This is also true of "Middle Knowledge". By claiming that God "knows everything" they mean that God doesn't know everything ~really~ -but that he knows everything potentially.

This Middle Knowledge (as well as "Openness Theology") exists because these folks recognize that if God foreknows absolutely everything in reality, then everything he knows ~necessarily~ will occur and there is no freedom of the creature (man) to do "other".

Jean

[xzins]

Now that is a hypothesis I could run with, given the audacity that theologians show about the meanings of words....democrats have nothing on theologians, or Alice's Cheshire Cat.

I see no difference between middle knowledge and open theology.

I do see a difference between those who say that God can know BUT chooses not to know what choice you make.

The open theologians are pretty bold about saying that God CAN not know.

[Jean Chauvin]

I think the "Openness Theologians" actually do claim that God "could know" the future but choose not to. In that they are different than Middle Knowledge Theologians.

~IF~ God ~could~ know the future, but voluntarily chooses not to, implies that the future is indeed "knowable".

This, of course, begs the question that if the future is "knowable", then what have the "Openness Theologians" really "solved" by claiming that God "chooses" not to know the future.*

Jean

*This line of thinking did not originate with me. ;)

[xzins]

Boyd says that the choices are unknowable by God because they are free. He says that the contingencies, regardless of choice, are perfectly known by God. I'm in New Jersey at the moment and my copy of Boyd is at home, otherwise, I'd cite it.

[Jean Chauvin]

I'll have to check my info later. You could be correct as I could have cited from memory those ~describing~ "Openness Theology" as opposed to those ~professing~ "Openness Theology".

It's off to bed now.

Jean

[xzins]

Have a good night.

[Jean Chauvin]

You as well.

Jean

[fortheDeclaration]

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.

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

Rather than simply admit that Arminianism is, in fact, HERETIKOS -- the false doctrine of "Human ability to choose", as defined by the Ancient Christian Church

First, it would not matter what any Church Father said about anything, only what the Scripture says.

Second, Predestination was not an issue of any major debate until Augustine of the 4th century.

[DouglasKC]

If you subscribed to DouglasKC's version of "Binitarianism", I'd call your beliefs a Heresy also, and urge you to Repent them. Nothing Personal -- just Truth and Charity.

Imagine my shock when scrolling through this thread and finding me mentioned.:-)

Of course the bible happens to agree that the father and son are the only "persons" that make up the Godhead in heaven...and further that the Holy Spirit is their power and glory working in the created universe.

And btw, I would urge that you give up your heretical, unbiblical viewpoint that is a perversion of the gospel and based primarily upon tradition. Nothing personal though, just truth and charity. :-)

[CCWoody]

Based on how many congregations? I grew up in the CRC. I heard a "salvation" sermon on a weekly basis. And I've been to many CRC churches in all parts of the country. ~ Wrigley

Well, I can understand the desire to slander the CRC based upon what ctd has revealed to all of us. But, if we wishes to go down that road, I have ample personal experience from Arminian churches and I will give solemn testominy that I have never heard the gospel from an Arminian church. Their sad, damning people to hell, travisty of the truth ranges from "be baptised" to "make a decision" and you will be saved.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

Are the heretics the main course or the entertainment? ~ Gal

As if there is a difference.

Woody.