Arminian Aberrations

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by preacher4truth, Jan 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rebuttal at Canon of Dordt against Arminian error:

    Someone raised this argument concerning the theological thinking of some camps:

    In response to this quote, one stated if that is what they think Arminians believe, then he doesn't blame them for rejecting it. But what do they teach? The view above is not as far off from their teachings as one would think.

    We have this quote as reflective of Arminian teachings:

    I corrected the above statement to reflect what the author intended to say. Here is the correction of the word “without” to “within” made by the author:

    SALVATION IS NOT SOLELY OF GOD IN ARMINIAN TEACHING

    Notice the statement "it is still within our ability." A contention was made that the above quote should have been left as saying “without” (placing salvation solely upon God alone as is ones “stated” belief) as this would have definitely supported what an Arminian says he believes, that it (salvation) is solely of God. I agree. But, changing the word to “within” shows where we have a contradiction between stated belief and actual teachings. At one point it is denied it is within us and/or conjured up, then later on it is argued to be within us, and that we must “act” or do something. I am certain ones argument is against the term “conjure up” which I can agree with, but the thing is the Arminian still argues it is by choice, or in man, "within his ability" as stated above, and a readily available option regardless of mans fallen state, again; "it's within his ability." This doctrine stems from the false notion of freewill. This is where the departure from salvation resting solely upon God is abandoned for a synergistic view. “Salvation is solely of God after we act?” This is where the main problem came in via Arminius teachings, and one major reason his teachings were rejected at the Canon of Dordt. Remember this was Jacobus Arminius reasoning, his theology was aimed at and against Sovereign God choosing man by Divine appointment. Scripturally it is wholly of God and according to His choosing alone, yet this didn’t sit too well in his thinking, so he sought to insert man into the equation, making man a part of this, and in reality making man the cause. These would argue man is not the cause, but in fact their teaching denies their argument.

    Note that salvation is equated to and caused by something we do, specifically upon an act of man, or "within his ability." That to the Arminian is the pivot point. It is accurate to say that salvation of persons is ultimately a result of their choosing rather than being solely of Divine appointment in Arminian thinking.

    But the Scriptures say it is not of him (man) that wills, (which is literally “to choose” “chooses”) Romans 9:16. In the context in Romans it is about God showing mercy on whom He wills, and is directly against any part of man in it, including man “willing” it, or “running” for it. Salvation instead is of Divine Appointment, not of man choosing, but clearly in Scriptures it is God Who has chosen us, 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Acts 13:48; 2 Peter 1:10; 2 Timothy 2:8-10; Ephesians 1:4.

    THE ARMINIAN ERRANT VIEW OF FAITH

    The above errant teaching of Jacobus Arminius has lent itself to many errors concerning faith. Most of these errant teachings on faith reside in Arminian and non-Calvinist camps. One extreme belief, that is completely false is that we have faith residing in us, and being saved is as simple as trusting a bridge we walk on to be safe, and by having mental assent to the Gospel, that belief becomes equated with “saving” faith. This belief stems from an errant view of faith in Arminian theology, "ability within" and from said theologies belief in man’s freewill, which is a denial of the true depraved state of man, and denies man being enslaved as per Christ, not free, John 8.

    Is faith a gift, or not? To the Arminian faith is a gift, by statement, and these affirm this by statement. But somehow this faith, this perfect gift of God given to man somehow has a meltdown and fails to accomplish its task and objective within Arminian theology. Why, who thwarted Gods counsel, will and purpose to save whom He wills to save? According to their theology it is now up to man, man again is the cause, the power and cause now is man, "it is within his ability" thus salvation is no longer, in fact it has never been solely God alone in their teaching. In statement? Yes. In teaching? No.

    Scripturally, faith is a gift. It is what we refer to as “saving” faith. Faith is not the cause of salvation, but is instead the proof of salvation. But to the Arminian it becomes the cause, not the proof or evidence of salvation. These would state that faith doesn’t save us, that grace does. OK. That’s interesting. But again, look at the teaching, not what they give as statements. According to an Arminian, we, man, have to do something, we have to act, which makes man the cause of salvation, not grace, and makes grace conditional, or received because of, rendering grace no longer free and no longer a gift. The whole entire premise boils down to a theology that is against God Himself doing the choosing and of salvation being solely of God.

    ARMINIAN STATEMENTS OF BELIEF ARE NOT FORTHCOMING

    The said beliefs of Arminians on the surface sound Scriptural. After looking at what they actually are in fact teaching, we can see that their statements are not at all accurate, and, that they do not factually represent what they really believe.

    In each of our “camps” it is not important that we can recite a creed, or that we can state what we believe via statement. We are forgetting something of greater importance. What we actually teach is what we believe, not what we say we believe. First, we should see what we are teaching, and then formulate these teachings into statements. Our apologetic would then be reinforced and be an accurate representation of our true belief system.

    OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN

    Please share, not only what Arminians say they believe, but show how what they actually teach denies their stated beliefs. Also share how what one says as a statement of belief may not be accurate, or, how we can make a statement of belief while denying it in our actual teachings. Please do not limit your discussion or examples to Arminians only, but also include non-Calvinist's as well.

    A quote for thought:


    - Peace
     
  2. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    good posting!

    Side point is that it appears to have laid the framework for aberrations such as Christian Universalism, Word of faith, man is little god, positive confession/faith etc into the modern church!
     
  3. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks.

    It's not difficult to see how this theology gave rise to other errors within the church, and you've mentioned only a few.

    Like I said, the truth of what one claims to believe in a statement is not always accurate, rather, their true beliefs come out in what they are actually teaching.

    - Peace
     
  4. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,971
    Likes Received:
    97
    you guys are both correct.... Dort defined the doctrines of grace for which historic orthodox Christianity measures salvation. Moreover, the synod denied conditional election....IE God's choice is based on something in those whom he elected. I am very surprised that the Arminan fraction of this board is unwilling.... maybe unable to debate synod declarations? Perhaps they deep down agree with them!
     
  5. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol... you're correct.

    The issue with them being incapable and unwilling lies within the fact that this presentation is based upon documented evidence.

    I'd rather go this route than to offer some polemic subjectivity that another employs relentlessly on his anti-calvinist agenda. There's no need to wonder why his fabricated theories are readily dismantled.

    The accusations and conclusions of said are completely unfounded strawman arguments and remain totally baseless. That others are hoodwinked into believing such subjective twaddle is proven in the countless replies consisting of simple emoticons. Nothing of any theological substance is added.

    But that's their arena and the extent of their apologetic. Such is life in the arminian and non-cal world of delusion.

    - Peace
     
    #5 preacher4truth, Jan 28, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2012
  6. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. If becoming an Arminian would really be a temptation to boast for you, then please remain a Calvinist.

    Arminians are typically accused of holding to a view that allows us to boast, because we chose to receive God's gift when others did not. Now, most people are grateful to receive gifts, and thank those who give them to us.If calvinism (DoG) is protecting you against a temptation to vainglory that you might fall into otherwise then do remain a calvinist (DoG).

    2. If you think that God empowering people to accept or reject Jesus somehow makes Him weak, impotent, or powerless, then you really should continue in your Calvinism.

    Most of us consider it a sign of strength and confidence to give someone else the opportunity to accept or reject something--love, a job, a gift, whatever. In God's case, it would be the offer of salvation. Giving us the power to accept or reject that gift shows us that He is sovereign regardless of what our choice is. His deity does not depend on controlling our response. He is God whether we acknowledge Him or not; He just graciously invites us into His family. But if giving us the opportunity to respond would somehow diminish God in your eyes--if God can't be God without predetermining the individual response of each person--then by all means, hold tight to Calvinism.

    3. If you actually think that God cannot remain sovereign without dictating the minutia of every event that occurs, then by all means, remain a Calvinist.

    Some--not all--Calvinists believe that God's sovereignty necessitates an absolute determinism in which He predetermines every event that has occurred or will occur. We Arminians believe that God remains sovereign--that His reign will be established and His will will be accomplished--despite allowing room for creaturely freedom, or even rebellion against His plan. He is so great that creaturely rebellion against Him cannot possibly have any impact on His final plan--He is so great that He doesn't need to directly control every event in the universe. But if you have trouble with this--if your view of God is such that He must micromanage His creation in order to get His will done, then by all means, cling to Calvinism.

    4. If you actually believe that accepting a freely-given gift of salvation somehow would make you your own "co-savior," then please don't abandon your Calvinism.

    Personally, I can't fathom this. I can't imagine thinking, "Yes, God became flesh and Jesus lived a sinless life and sacrificed Himself, dying a brutal, torturous death, all the while restraining Himself from calling a legion of angels to rescue him; He died and then rose, conquering death and the grave, showed Himself to His disciples and empowered them through the Holy Spirit to share this gospel and pass it down the generations; God did all this--but I get credit too, because I accepted the invitation! I'm my own co-savior!" But since this charge is thrown against Arminians as the "logical consequence" of our soteriology, I can only conclude that that is precisely how many Calvinists would view their own salvation if they adopted the Arminian view. If that's you, then please grab hold of your Calvinism and don't let go.

    5. If adopting an Arminian view of salvation would somehow make you really feel that salvation is "man-centered" rather than "God-centered," then for God's sake, hold on to your Calvinism.

    If you can take a plan of salvation that was chosen before the foundations of the world by God, provision for that plan made by God, an offer based on that plan made available by God, our own ability to respond positively to it graciously granted to us by God--if you can take this whole thing and somehow make it "man-centered," just because human beings are empowered to accept it and be included, or reject it and exclude themselves--if you don't see how salvation is, from beginning to end, Christ-centered, then whatever you do, please do not abandon the Calvinism that cuts you out of any active participation in the process whatever. Better to think that salvation has nothing to do with you than to believe that somehow you place yourself in the center of the process simply by virtue of your acceptance or rejection of it.

    http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2008/05/reasons-to-remain-calvinist.html
    (edited)
     
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    :applause::thumbs::applause:

    I love this...absolutely love it.
     
  8. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,693
    Likes Received:
    242
    Explain this one.
     
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Arminians believe God enables people to accept the gospel, just as Calvinists do, but just not by irresistible means. Thus, those enabled to accept also can still reject.
     
  10. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Now, this I agree with 100%.
     
  11. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    www.schooleyfiles.com/2008/05...calvinist.html


    No calvinist will be following schooley and other NPP heretics...any time soon

    :laugh::laugh:
    I am not returning to Rome; no works for salvation...or to mmaintain salvation...nope...not anytime soon.
    The new perspective has been heavily criticized by conservative scholars in the Reformed tradition, arguing that it undermines the classical, individualistic, Augustinian interpretation of election and does not faithfully reflect the teachings of their founding theologian, John Calvin (as N. T. Wright had asserted). It has been the subject of fierce debate among Evangelicals in recent years, mainly due to N. T. Wright's increasing popularity in evangelical circles. Its most outspoken critics include Calvinists John Piper,[25] Sinclair Ferguson,[26][27] C. W. Powell,[28] Mark Seifrid, D. A. Carson,[29] Tom Holland,[30] Ligon Duncan.[31] Barry D. Smith has claimed that the New Perspective's challenge to the traditional view of Jewish faith practice as legalistic is misplaced.[32]

    [edit] Catholic and Orthodox reactions

    The new perspective has, by and large, been an internal debate among Protestant scholars. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox writers have generally responded favorably to new-perspective ideas,[citation needed] seeing both a greater commonality with their own beliefs and seeing strong similarities with the views of many of the early Church Fathers.
     
    #11 Iconoclast, Jan 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2012
  12. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icon, SURELY you are a bigger man than trotting out the "h" every single time you get the notion over the slightest thing YOU don't like or don't agree with. Please don't be that way.

    As everything else theological, the NPP is a very wide stream.
     
  13. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe (think) the commonly accepted "non-calvinist" (armininan) term might be prevenient grace.
     
  14. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icon, I am not asking you to follow anyone other than your Lord and your heart with regard to such matters. I am simply (as a teacher by profession) attempting to present some clear, articulate thoughts regarding interpretive matters of scripture which could suggest one could look at things differently than does yourself and others. That's all.
     
  15. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,693
    Likes Received:
    242
    Does God begin His work of prevenient grace with or without the will of man?
     
  16. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I" believe HE begins it because HE loves HIS creation.
     
  17. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    More Arminian Ambidexterities:

    Oh? But this is so against the teachings of non-cals and Arminians view of spiritual death. And he knows it. Enabling means inability. To these, within their theologies, man is not unable as we continue to look into what they teach.

    We also have this concerning man in their teaching:

    As one can see, we still have to get from what Arminians use as statements to what they actually teach. The first quote above is one of those "statements." It all sounds good if one weren't aware of the juggling act of Arminianism. Again, one must go from what they state they believe to what they actually teach, which is represented in the second quote above.

    It is also represented within the doctrine itself, as one here is obviously lacking Armininian acumen, as their actual teachings refute his first statement:


    and:

    also:

    These are teachings of Arminian theology which were condemned, and rightly so by the counsel at this Canon, or "The Decision of the Synod of Dordrecht."

    Thus Arminian theology is a rational rejection of Sovereign Grace and has exalted the ability of man.

    Furthermore, what we really have within the errors of Arminianism are these; 1) If and since God is the One who chooses, enables, saves whom He wills, it is deemed unfair, so an attempt to rectify this is made by placing the ability within man (freewill), which they affirm by teaching ("it is within mans ability") but deny by statement, for the end that the blame could be upon man, and not upon God; 2) That the Sovereignty of God cannot be as such an as the case in which Scriptures proclaim Him to be, Ruler over all things and leading all things to the purpose of His will and calling, therefore blame must be placed upon man, or Holy God to them would be the author of sin. All of these are feeble man made attempts to displace the truths of Scriptures, albeit hard truths. These truths are to be preached, defended, and heralded, not rectified by mans reason, nor to be rationalized away.

    We also have this:

    The revelation of truth confirms the statement "it is still within mans ability to act" is errant and unScriptural, yet it is a belief of Arminian theology.

    One must affirm that it is only by God's grace, only by His enabling power, and only by His quickening from the dead that man can and will be saved, and that there is no ability within man. Teaching otherwise must be rejected.

    - Peace
     
  18. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,693
    Likes Received:
    242
    So, God does it without asking permission. Now, are you saying men have no ability to choose till God, on His own initiative, has done a special work in their hearts to endow them with this power, or are you saying that all men are born with this power and that God did His work of prevenient grace in the creation of Adam?
     
  19. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is where I may depart from others including Skan. I see nothing in the record of the mans fall which indicates he loses the ability to respond to God's initiative or revelation. Nothing in God's "curse" to man indicates this, and yes I believe this God granted "pre-grace" is granted to every person who draws breath on this planet.
     
  20. Cypress

    Cypress
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    QF,
    I agree with you here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...