Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Christ of Arminianism
A Puritan's Mind ^ | unknown | Rev. Steven Houck

Posted on 09/07/2003 6:36:06 PM PDT by nobdysfool

The Christ of Arminianism

The Bible warns us that in the last days in which we live there will be many false Christs-those who claim to be Christ but who are imposters. Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many." (Matt. 24:4-5). We who profess to be Christians must take heed. We must be very careful that we are not deceived. Our calling is to trust, love, and follow the true Christ and Him only. We may have nothing to do with the false Christs who are so numerous in our day.

We know about the Christ of the cults and other religions. He is a good man, a prophet, the first creation of God, a great spirit, a divine idea, or even a god himself. But he is not true and eternal God. He receives his existence from another who is greater than he. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ.

We know about the Christ of Roman Catholicism. They profess that He is true God. He suffered and died for the forgiveness of sin. He arose again, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. But he is not a complete Savior. The Christ of the Roman Catholics can not save sinners without their own good works and the intercession of priests. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ.

There is, however, another false Christ who is much more dangerous than the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism. He has deceived people for many years and he continues to deceive millions. This Christ is so dangerous that, if it were not impossible, he would deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24). He is the Christ of Arminianism.

This false Christ is extremely dangerous because in many ways he appears to be the True Christ. They say that he is true God, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. They say that he died on the cross to save sinners. They even say that he saves by his grace alone, without the work of man. This Christ will have nothing to do with the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism.

But watch out! Be warned! The Christ of Arminianism is not the Christ of the Bible. Do not be fooled!

1. The Christ of Arminianism - loves every individual person in the world and sincerely desires their salvation.

The Christ of the Bible - earnestly loves and desires the salvation of only those whom God has unconditionally chosen to salvation. (Ps. 5:5, Ps. 7:11, Ps. 11:5, Matt. 11:27, John 17:9-10, Acts 2:47, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:10-13, Rom. 9:21-24, Eph. 1:3-4)

2. The Christ of Arminianism - offers salvation to every sinner and does all in his power to bring them to salvation. His offer and work are often frustrated, for many refuse to come.

The Christ of the Bible - effectually calls to Himself only the elect and sovereignly brings them to salvation. Not one of them will be lost. (Isa. 55:11, John 5:21, John 6:37-40, John 10:25-30, John 17:2, Phil. 2:13)

3. The Christ of Arminianism - can not regenerate and save a sinner who does not first choose Christ with his own "free will." All men have a "free will" by which they can either accept or reject Christ. That "free will" may not be violated by Christ.

The Christ of the Bible - sovereignly regenerates the elect sinner apart from his choice, for without regeneration the spiritually dead sinner can not choose Christ. Faith is not man's contribution to salvation but the gift of Christ which He sovereignly imparts in regeneration. (John 3:3, John 6:44 & 65, John 15:16, Acts 11:18, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:1,Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 1:29, Hebr. 12:2)

4. The Christ of Arminianism - died on the cross for every individual person and thereby made it possible for every person to be saved. His death, apart from the choice of man, was not able to actually save anyone for many for whom he died are lost.

The Christ of the Bible - died for only God's elect people and thereby actually obtained salvation for all those for whom He died. His death was a substitutionary satisfaction which actually took away the guilt of His chosen people. (Luke 19:10, John 10:14-15 & 26, Acts 20:28, Rom. 5:10, Eph. 5:25, Hebr. 9:12, I Peter 3:18)

5. The Christ of Arminianism - loses many whom he has "saved" because they do not continue in faith. Even if he does give them "eternal security," as some say, that security is not based upon his will or work but the choice which the sinner made when he accepted Christ.

The Christ of the Bible - preserves His chosen people so that they can not lose their salvation but persevere in the faith to the very end. He preserves them by the sovereign electing will of God, the power of His death, and the mighty working of His Spirit. (John 5:24, John 10:26-29, Rom. 8:29-30, Rom. 8:35-39, I Peter 1:2-5, Jude 24-25)

As you can see, although the Christ of Arminianism and the Christ of the Bible may at first seem to be the same, they are very different. One is a false Christ. The other is the true Christ. One is weak and helpless. He bows before the sovereign "free will" of man. The other is the reigning Lord Who wills what He pleases and sovereignly accomplishes all that He wills.

If you believe and serve the Christ of Arminianism, you must recognize the fact that you do not serve the Christ of the Bible. You have been deceived! Study the Scriptures and learn of the True Christ. Pray for grace to repent and trust Christ as your sovereign


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780781-787 next last
To: Jean Chauvin
***"Whence he shall come to judge some of the living and some of the dead."***

Nor does it say...

"Whence he shall come to judge all of the living and all of the dead."

=====
The statement has enough latitude to include either eschatological position. Had the writers wanted to exclude premils it would have been easy. They didn't.
761 posted on 09/12/2003 6:43:36 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; xzins
Yes, Corin, a Pre-Mill interpretation of the Apostles Creed is linguistically possible, but it is not an honest interpretation!

I think you missed my point that I wasn't interpreting the Creed either way.

762 posted on 09/12/2003 6:49:37 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (9/11 Tribute www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
"The statement has enough latitude to include either eschatological position. Had the writers wanted to exclude premils it would have been easy. They didn't."

When we tell sinners that Jesus is coming and will Judge people, do you think that they are thinking that this judgment will only be a partial judgment? Or are we tring to convey to them that Christ will judge ALL men?

The natural interpretation of the Apostles Creed is that Jesus will be coming to judge ~ALL~ men becuase we know from the Scriptures that Jesus will indeed be coming to judge all men.

Furthermore, Pre-Millennialism also believes that Jesus will eventually judge all men.

However, if you tell a person that Jesus will be judging all men and, assuming your Pre-Millennial persuation, you then make the statement to that man, "He (Jesus) ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead," what do you think that man will be thinking.

Obviously that man will be thinking that Jesus will be coming back for the express purpose of judging all men.

Yes, I agree that a Pre-Millennial interpretation of the Apostles Creed is linguistically possible, but it is not an honest interpretation. It needs Clintonian parsing in order to be correctly understood according to Pre-Millennial theology.

Jean

(I thought you didn't get into these Pre-Mill discussions?) ;)

763 posted on 09/12/2003 6:53:50 AM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
"I think you missed my point that I wasn't interpreting the Creed either way. "

I understood your point.

However, while ~you~ were not interpreting the Apostles Creed either way, you ~were~ declaring that the Apostles Creed was indeed able to be interpreted either way.

I will then say that you have missed ~my~ point. I'm not crticizing your interpretation, I'm criticizing your contention that the Apostles Creed can honestly be interpreted in agreement with Pre-Millennial theology.

Jean

764 posted on 09/12/2003 6:57:46 AM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
I don't debate eschatology, but I do make comments from time to time.

I can affirm the Apostle's creed without reservation including the line under discussion. Consider me dishonest if you wish. I disagree.

Now back to your regular programming.
765 posted on 09/12/2003 6:58:11 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
I've allowed myself the luxury of a new rule on debates. There are 3 rounds of responses. This is my 3rd (4th) and final. You are welcome to the last word.

I honor your commitment to Christ and to your theology. Our disagreement is on the flexibility of the "thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead." I see it as broader, and therefore, more flexible than you do. I think that flexibility is grammatically present and I think it is biblically present.

Now, don't you wish the search engine on FR allowed for advanced searches?

766 posted on 09/12/2003 7:03:42 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
If the swarm does not wish to be offended, then you have to learn not to be offensive.

The difference here is that while the "swarm" may be confrontational, we don't (at least I know I haven't) question someone's salvation, or make a statement to the effect that the person is not a Christian, or is out of fellowship with God simply because they don't agree with Calvinism. We engage on the basis of scripture, logic, and consistency. But, I do not believe any of us have ever said that an Arminian wasn't saved, wasn't in fellowship with God, or in danger of hell fire. Calvinism doesn't save anyone, neither does Arminianism. Jesus Saves. I think we all agree on that.

767 posted on 09/12/2003 7:05:09 AM PDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: snerkel
What are all your latenight fans gonna do if you're gone....out doing the wife, work, family thing? :>)
768 posted on 09/12/2003 7:05:39 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
However, while ~you~ were not interpreting the Apostles Creed either way, you ~were~ declaring that the Apostles Creed was indeed able to be interpreted either way.

Jean, Jean, Jean, Jean...

I made no comment regarding the Apostles Creed. I commented on your logic.

That's all and nothing more. Anything else is extra-FReepial on your part.

769 posted on 09/12/2003 7:19:21 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (9/11 Tribute www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool; xzins; Revelation 911
The difference here is that while the "swarm" may be confrontational, we don't (at least I know I haven't) question someone's salvation, or make a statement to the effect that the person is not a Christian, or is out of fellowship with God simply because they don't agree with Calvinism.

Well, I don't know how you would read that "Arminians are heretics who believe in a false Christ and the lie of Eden" to really imply that you want to fellowship with us.

Check your tagline.

770 posted on 09/12/2003 7:22:15 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (9/11 Tribute www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: xzins; DouglasKC
"Our disagreement is on the flexibility of the "thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead." I see it as broader, and therefore, more flexible than you do. I think that flexibility is grammatically present and I think it is biblically present."

Then what is to prevent some un-orthodox reading of the Creeds.

It seems to me when we take into account what is 'grammatically present', we can end up with a whole host of un-orthodox positions of which anyone can then make the claim, "I think that flexibility is grammatically present and I think it is biblically present."

Afterall, with the gammatical wording, couln't even DouglasKC wholeheartedly embrace the Apostles Creed? The Apostles Creed makes no claim that Christ rose physically. The Apostles Creed makes no claim that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Trinity. Afterall, Douglas does believe in the Holy Spirit, but he doesn't believe the Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Trinity. The Apostles Creed doesn't specifically tell us this.

This "grammatically present" flexibility you call for sounds much like the liberal belief in a "living and breathing" constitution.

Jean

771 posted on 09/12/2003 7:22:19 AM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
"I made no comment regarding the Apostles Creed. I commented on your logic. "

And in commenting on my logic, you were claiming that the Apostles Creed could be interpreted either way.

You then presented an analogy to demonstrate that.

I backed up my logic by showing the flaws in your analogy.

Jean

772 posted on 09/12/2003 7:24:32 AM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; xzins; drstevej
you were claiming that the Apostles Creed could be interpreted either way.

ohfercryinoutloud Jean. Did somebody step on your puppy this morning?

All I was saying is that you needed a better argument, not that you were right or wrong. You did a better job in your response to me. But you apparently have such a chip on your shoulder you have to project meaning into what I said.

Give it a rest.

773 posted on 09/12/2003 7:35:34 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (9/11 Tribute www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
My puppy's outside. She has a defect in that one of her ureters enters the sphincter muscle rather than above it.

We have her kidney removed in 2 weeks.

Prayer for a dog? Sigh. She's a beautiful, loving 10 week old chocolate Lab that my wife has wanted for years.

It hurts when someone steps on your puppy.
774 posted on 09/12/2003 7:40:39 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Labs are great dogs.

"Santa" picked out a chocolate Lab puppy for our son when he was in the 4th grade (our son that is, not Santa). But when we went to the shelter the black puppy was the friendliest and attached himself to our son right away.

Here's a picture of Frodo and Sam on The Flat Frodo Tour


775 posted on 09/12/2003 7:54:25 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (9/11 Tribute www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
Nice tour with flat Frodo.

Sam seems more personable to me, though.

(How long ago was it that Santa was in the 4th grade?)

776 posted on 09/12/2003 7:58:08 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Follow the links back on that page to the "Renegade Chaplain" info. You'd appreciate it.
777 posted on 09/12/2003 8:00:45 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (9/11 Tribute www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
What's with the 'passive-agressive' attitude?

I have no 'chip'. I'm perfectly calm and reasoned.

Your "Ward/Corin the Victim" game is getting old.

Jean

778 posted on 09/12/2003 8:44:59 AM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Your "Ward/Corin the Victim" game is getting old.

Don't be an idiot Jean. You read something into what I posted to you that I didn't say.

That's not MY problem. But it is YOUR pattern.

Get over it. You're better AND smarter than that.

779 posted on 09/12/2003 8:48:39 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (9/11 Tribute www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
Nice renegade tribute.

Who's the renegade with jump wings?
780 posted on 09/12/2003 8:52:52 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780781-787 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson