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.

[nobdysfool]

No humility at all, I see. I will pray for you, that God would enlighten you to the Truth, and remove the scales from your eyes. You have injured me, but I do not hold it against you. You simply do not know any better.

[Cvengr]

#669 is an example of the aischrologia which I never intended towards others in posts to you. Those posts which I mentioned salvation and returning to Him, I will provide to any fellow Christian wherein I observe a fallen nature. I sense you are between thumos and kakia, which was never my intent when I mentioned salvation or encouragement to repentence.

[Cvengr]

Thanks for the links. I agree with most of the Belgic,..at least as far as I have read. It is better wordsmithed than many of the positions advocating Calvinism in these threads which have sparked some of my stipulative objections. Thanks again.

[Jean Chauvin]

[CARepubGal]

Holland's TULIP days? :-)

[Jean Chauvin]

Your welcome.

btw, the Belgic Confession is one of the earliest Calvinist documents (1561).

It is modled after, but not plagaraized from Calvin's French Confession from a few years earlier.

You will also notice a difference in the Belgic and Heidelberg compared to the later Canons of Dordt as well as the Westminster Confession and Catechisms -the idea of "regeneration" during the reformation was defined as the movement of the entire lifetime of the believer towards God.

Thus, the Belgic and the Heidelberg both use the concept with that understanding. The Canons and Westminster documents both speak of "regeneration" as the act which preceeds faith and initiates conversion.

This does not mean that these documents conflict, but it should be taken into consideration when reading them.

The Belgic is a wonderful confession -take a read on the biography of Guido deBres who wrote the confession. It's quite moving.

Also spend time in the Heidelberg Catechism -the preferred confession of we "Dutch" Reformed.

You will instantly notice the emphasis of the HC towards the comfort of belonging to Christ as the HC opens, whereas the Westminster Confession of Faith tends towards a more formal doctrinal beginning. Not wrong either way, but as a matter of emphasis and comfort, I prefer the HC.

The HC, btw, was intended to be an ecumenical document. The authors were Caspar Olevianus and Zacharius Ursinus. Olevianus was a student and protege of Calvin. Ursinus is credited by most historians as the one who did most of the writing. He was a protege and personal friend of Philip Melanchthon -Luther's close friend and associate. It is perfectly understandable, then, that Philip Schaff describes the Heidelberg Catechism as being entirely "Melachthonian".

Jean

[Cvengr]

Whenever I find myself facing an apparant dilemma in Scripture of God's attributes, I've found I'm either focusing on the wrong lesson or have not taken all factors into consideration either sequentially or simultaneously.

In the problematic verses where many are tempted to adopt a truism that God uses sin to accomplish His Plan or implement His Will,..I instinctively wince. Sin is simply disobedience to His Will. So if he uses sin to advance His Plan, then he uses something which is against His Will in order to advance His Will. This would entail God as inconsistent. But we know He is immutable and Perfect Righteousness. Therein lies the apparant conflict.

I then look more closely at the predicaments and passages surrounding the cases where He is atributed as using sin to advance His Plan, and discover that there may be other lessons to be learned by those agents surrounding the sins being 'used'. e.g. the 1stKings22 passage regarding King Asa and the lying spirit.

One case of sin involves actions which are 'good for nothingness'. It might be the case, that if He is faced with a situation consequent of His creature's volition, that they have been so rebellious or sinful, that their souls are so scarred that they will not accept truth.

In these situations, in order to not violate the volition which He created as good, He needn't force the volition of His creature, but instead, might have the bounds eradicated by the creature's scarred state to where it doesn't matter what is communicated to the creature, a lie or truth, because the information is good for nothingness anyways.

The use of the lying spirit might be better phrased as allowing the lying spirit his will, thereby allowing the volition of both King Asa, his prophets, the lying spirit, and God's Prophet to be cast into play. The result still displays His Soveriegnty without marring His righteousness or His Holiness.

Whenever I observe sin associated with His Plan, I tend to believe His real justification is of more significance and the will associated with sin is immaterial to His decision.

[Cvengr]

"...The truth is, man needs major heart surgery, performed soley by the Holy Spirit, for without that surgery, man will die."

Good point, but even further, without that regenration man is already dead.

[Jean Chauvin]

Yup. Prettier Dancers!

(I guess that's what you get for being on the sandy shores of Lake Michigan!)

Jean

[CARepubGal]

LOL! I bet those dancers are Calvinist! Oh NO! (sarcasm off)

[Cvengr]

What evidence of faith do you find shallow for me to develop through faith in Him?

[Cvengr]

Good questions.

1) Where did sin originate? A: When Lucifer became Satan upon his declaration of the 5 "I wills".

2) Can sin occur without the permission of God? A: The phrasing of the question is a bit awkward. Considering God is Sovereign over all things, then the answer is no. Since God is Soveriegn over all things, His Sovereignty is also in the environment of all situations, so its a rather moot question. His permissiveness might be merely lack of action against it. His Soverignty still isn't threatened by that as He still is in control and nothing will remove His Soveriegnty. From our perspective, we wouldn't know one way or the other, because He is still in control even if we are not in the picture.

3) Is sin like all things used for the Glory of God? Segue from answer to #2. Technically yes.

This can be misleading because to the uninformed, ...a deceptive argument might ensue that sin is justifiable because all things are used to God's glory, so let's glorify Him by sinning. I stipulate this as an exaple where such a theological question in and of itself can be used to promote degeneration rather than encourage regeneration.

This is where I have the most heartburn with 'quasi-Calvinist' statements. Those which are pregnant with deceptive leads promoting degeneracy rather than encouraging fellowship with God through Christ.

[Jean Chauvin]

Related Thread:

The Church's Witness to the World

This is an exposition of the Belgic Confession by Peter Y. DeJong.

This specific article is dealing with Article 13 of the Belgic Confession.

Jean

[nobdysfool]

#669 is an example of the aischrologia which I never intended towards others in posts to you. Those posts which I mentioned salvation and returning to Him, I will provide to any fellow Christian wherein I observe a fallen nature. I sense you are between thumos and kakia, which was never my intent when I mentioned salvation or encouragement to repentence.

Quit strutting around like a pompous peacock and make your statement in plain English! I asked for an apology and you give me this drivel. It sure doesn't look like an apology to me. I see it as another not-so-subtle attempt to belittle and marginalize me. I'm not asking for much, just that you acknowledge that you wrongly questioned my relationship with the Lord, and did so publicly to build yourself up at my expense.

I made an orthodox confession of faith and have defended that confession. You questioned my salvation, called me "soulish", speculated that I might in fact not be saved, impuned my posts, and even now are hinting that you believe I have a fallen nature, which is tantamount to saying that I am not a Christian. How dare you make such accusations, such slander, and such false statements?! Who gave you the right?

You have quite graphically displayed for all to see here, that you have not exhibited a Christian attitude, but a Gnostic and pompously proud attitude, not only toward me but toward others here. Your attitude disgusts and offends me.

[lockeliberty]

In these situations, in order to not violate the volition which He created as good, He needn't force the volition of His creature, but instead, might have the bounds eradicated by the creature's scarred state to where it doesn't matter what is communicated to the creature, a lie or truth, because the information is good for nothingness anyways.

Hey Boy... you're twisting yourself into knots trying to save God. He don't need your help.

[Cvengr]

I still tend to believe the Lord acted passively upon the lying spirit's active will considering the Calvinist appeal to James 1:13-15. Do you see it otherwise?

[connectthedots]

Funny you should ask that. In reality, I have no absolute control over my life, because God is sovereign over all.

Funny that you answered a question I did not ask. The question was concerning total control, not absolute control. Answer the question asked; not the one you want to answer.

[Cvengr]

No, I'm working through these Scriptures in order to understand how they fit together without inconsistency, implied or contrived by some extremists who seek to neither be patient, loving or perseverent.

[connectthedots]

You see, for ctd to insist that in order for God's love to be true love there must be the possibility that the Father might reject the Son.

I never said nor implied that. You are a liar. Point to the post where I made such a claim. The only thing you have managed to do is to intentionally misconstrue pretty much everything I have posted because you are unable to intelligently address issues I have raised.

[connectthedots]

CCwoody is lying about what I have posted. i dare you to locate a post where I said or implied what he claims. Woody is intellectuaqlly dishonest, and I would think that an honorable person such as yourself would tolerate such lies.