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.

[Cvengr]

The entire posting might make sense to the soulish man, one not yet a believer, for such a person is dichotomous and things of the sirit are foolishness to him.

But for the human with salvation, who now possesses a spirit, reborn, regenerated, having accepted Christ, the article now merely displays a lack of discernment between soul and spirit. By confusing the two, one is forced to ignore the royal family into which we have now been born and the assets available to us.

It further will tend to grieve those who are saved, but may not have studies Calvin, into believing that perhaps they don't understand salvation and instead are tempted to follow religion rather than God's Will and Plan by Scripture. It further attempts to encourage the saint to reject His personal relationship with God through the Spirit and instead place manmade things before Him.

You are on the right track to study Scripture. Now study it after returning to righteous relationship with Him and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you where one's soul may have been previously scarred.

[Cvengr]

My, that is an incredible leap of logic. An observation by no means is a judgment. Discerning between soulish things and things of the spirit are foolishness to those not yet saved. If this is foolishness to you, then perhaps you are not in fellowship with Him. Man is originally born with only soul and body, so those unsaved will not understand these things. Also, one who has been saved, but has fallen without repentence and acting out of human good, rather than divine good, also might not see them.

Do you understand them?

[nobdysfool]

If you sincerely believe God's design of all things was to create sin, then you have things backwards. Now can you chew on that, and rephrase yourself so that the public isn't misguided to believe your implication that God condones sin to promote His Will.

Oh, how they twist and turn on the spit when the truth is stated! I did not say God created sin. Nowhere have I ever, EVER, said that. You read, but you do not understand.

I said God created Lucifer, knowing he would rebel, and created him anyway, because that rebellion was necessary to God's Plan. Read that very carefully. Who sinned? Was he forced to sin? Was He ordered to sin? But God knew He would sin, did He not? One of two things is true given those facts: Either God did not want Lucifer to sin, in which case Lucifer upset the apple cart, so to speak, and God had to alter His Plan, OR, God had already planned for Lucifer's sin, and therefore Lucifer, while thinking he was causing God problems, actually established God's Plan. I'd bet my money on "B".

What is that Plan? To allow Rebellion to play out to the end of the line, to show sin for all that it is, and how it is not stronger than God, nor can any rebellion ever succeed. To defeat sin and rebellion utterly and totally, so it never again plagues God's Creation. In order to achieve that end, sin is a tool in God's Hand. He turns the results of sin to do His will, to the Praise of His Glory. The chosen glorify God in His Salvation. The Wicked glorify God in His Justice. In all this, he does not sin, nor is sin chargeable to Him. He utilizes rebellion against Him to ultimately glorify Himself, and to destroy rebellion in the process. That, my friend, is the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Almighty God in action, and it is a wonder to behold!

[Cvengr]

I disagree with the statement that sin was necessary in God's Plan.

Nowhere is it condoned or approved by God.

Indeed many sinful actions correspond to consequent results which happen to glorify God,...all the more to show those who sinned, that their rebellion failed to bring them anything but risk and failure.

I find it much more glorious and honoring of Him to recognize that He doesn't need us or sin for Him to be glorified. His Plan continues and isn't thwarted by sin.

But this is a different track in worshipping His Sovereignty, than attempting to worship sin, even where it might lie coincident with His plan.

When I worship Christ and the Cross, I worship how the Father's Plan was made manifest by Jesus Christ's obedience in faith to Him, and the ressurection of the man by the Spirit leads us to hope in Him for things eternal and eternal life beyond even the spirit.

We don't worship how He was beaten and crucified, then died. Rather we worship Him in that He remained faithful to the Father even as the Perfect sacrifice.

So again, where was sin necessary? BTW, such neccessity also casts doubt on volition.

[nobdysfool]

Do you understand them?

I understand them much better than you do. Do not presume to question my salvation. My relationship with God is 5 by 5. I am in fellowship with Him, and doing well.

what you refuse to see is that you're theology is man-centered, and historically is Semi-Pelagian. You have a wrong concept of God's Sovereignty, and of His Omniscience.

Man is originally born with only soul and body, so those unsaved will not understand these things

Scripture, please?

You're ranging far and away from the topic...Free will, remember?

[nobdysfool]

But this is a different track in worshipping His Sovereignty, than attempting to worship sin, even where it might lie coincident with His plan.

Who said anything about worshipping sin? Not me! Now you're trying to drag a red herring across the discussion. Stick to the topic!

So again, where was sin necessary? BTW, such neccessity also casts doubt on volition.

And God forbid that anything would call into question man's sacrosanct volition! Your whole theology is built on the idea that man must have a free and unfettered choice. That ain't bible! Man is a sinner, born in sin, born to sin, and incapable of anything but sin. To say that God somehow sets aside man's depravity so he can choose for or against God does serious violence to scripture. Your theology is wrapped up in a human, emotional idea of fairness that has no analog in scripture. Arminianism is heresy. Go back and read the article I posted to you on the Myth of Free Will, and this time open your mind to what it says.

[nobdysfool]

You are on the right track to study Scripture. Now study it after returning to righteous relationship with Him and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you where one's soul may have been previously scarred.

Oh, are you presuming to be my "mentor" now? "There, there, it will be alright. Just go to God in prayer and ask Him to show you your error, and let Him lead you..."

I tire of your condescension. You are unwilling to accept the truth. You would rather cling to your man-centered theology than release yourself to the sovereignty and comfort of God. You have lost the ability to state clearly that which you wish to say, but want to couch it in buzz-words and code words to make yourself sound more learned than you are.

Yes, I'm a little miffed by your questioning of my salvation. I find that offensive in the extreme!

[connectthedots]

Just got in from being away for a good part of the weekend. Will look for it Monday night. Have a lot going on during the day tomorrow. Your request is a fair one.

[connectthedots]

He's God. That's enough for me.

That sounds a lot like "I don't know" to me! Is God a God of reason or unreason?

[connectthedots]

Actually, the "I don't know" position was attributed by you, CTD to mythical and imagined "extreme Calvinists" (whose names, beliefs, and intellectual pedigrees you are still utterly unable to define).

Check the link in post #275. Also, Edwin Palmer stated "I don't know" and that the Calvinist position on predestination is not logical in his book The Five Points of Calvinism. drstevej has a copy of the book and I'm quite sure if I have misrepresented what Palmer stated in this regard, he will point it out for both me and you.

BTW, I do not see where you offer any explanation for the logical problem Calvinism has regarding its position on predestination being consistent with a loving and just God. Unless, you can offer a reasoned explanation, I will have to assume that your answer falls within the scope of "I don't know".

[connectthedots]

Based on your failure to address the logical problem of Calvinism with respect to predestination as to the souls of men with the concept of a loving God, I must assume your answer is also "I don't know".

[CARepubGal]

Do you accept God's absolute sovreignity in your life CTD?

[connectthedots]

I view "fallen" and "depraved" as absolutes. "Total" is implied by definition. Kinda like "pregnant." A woman is either pregnant, or not.

The comparison to pregnancy is without merit. Are you stating that you believe man is 'absolutel;y depraved'?

Using the legal principle concerning the rules of caonstruction, the word 'total' in 'Total depravity' must mean something different than just the word 'depravity' would imply. If not, the word 'total' could have no meaning that modifies the word 'depravity'. IOW, if the word 'total' neither adds nor substracts from the meaning of 'depravity', why is this Calvinistic asseretion not merely listed as simply 'depravity'?

[connectthedots]

Do you accept God's absolute sovreignity in your life CTD?

Sure, and that is a problem because of.....?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Why is this Calvinistic assertion not merely listed as "depravity?"

Because then it would be DULIP. 8~)

I think the modifier "total" was included for added emphasis.

Given man's obvious discomfort in accepting the enormity of the Fall, it doesn't hurt to stress its "totality." Even with the extra adjective, men still scoff at its logical consequence.

Man is dead in sin, and only God's grace can regenerate him and bring him to salvation.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...the concept of a loving God.

Does God love those who burn in hell? Forget words like "pity" and "remorse" and "regret" and "sadness."

Does God love those men who burn in hell?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Did God intend for Judas to betray Christ?

Or would God have preferred Judas refuse the silver, thus permitting Jesus to live to a ripe old age?

Of course, then there'd be no Crucifiction, no Resurrection, and no salvation for you and me,

God works all things to His glory.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

Excellent post!

It would be nice if the Calvinists actually read what the Arminians wrote, rather then just believe what their propaganda machine tells them!

If the Calvinists on these threads have any problem with the Arminian position they also have one with the Unlimited Atonement Calvinists, who hold the same position regarding the extent of the Atonement.

[fortheDeclaration]

Clement of Alexandria: "The soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace

No Arminian would disagree with that.

The rest of the guys are pretty skimpy on the quotes.

As my post stated, citing Boettner, men before Augustine stated strongly both Predestination and free will.

Just like the Baptists do!

As for the Bible passages, who is disagreeing with Predestination.

What we are disagreeing is with how one is Predestinated, and that is by faith in the Risen Christ.

That faith results in regeneration, and is not caused by it, since we are saved by it and through it.

[fortheDeclaration]

The first three centuries of Christanity (as stated by Boettner) were non-predestination and they were not Romanist either. Augustine is the father of the Roman Catholic church. [sigh] What is wrong with these statements, given the following (also a quote from you)? First, it would not matter what any Church Father said about anything, only what the Scripture says. You keep sticking your foot in your mouth, because you dance all around. When it suits your purpose, nothing but scripture is authoritative. When that doesn't work, you trot out quotes from others and present them as authoritative. You can't have it both ways. OP gave you a whole list of scriptures, and you demanded commentary from others. Yet 6 posts earlier, you declare that it doesn't matter what any Church Father says, only what scripture says. Make up your mind, and take a stand on one or the other!

Hey, you nitwit, I was only responding to the Calvinist misinformation that Predestination was always taught.

I never said it was wrong because it was taught later, only that Predestination was taught later, and that Wesley was returning to the earlier church in his teachings, not stopping with Augustine.

That does not make Wesley right, only that it is a fact that Predestination was not the original teachings of the early church.

Don't bring up the Fathers again and I won't since I could care less what they taught or didn't teach.

Now, it is clear you cannot even deal with a simple request to honor what you told me you would do, stop pinging me with you inane posts!

You really are quite dense and not even half as intelligent as you think you are!