Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Primitive Baptist, Sep 12, 2002.
Is Arminianism a false gospel?
Yes, I believed it for years because that's what I was taught.
Arminianism often produces a false gospel via the no-lordship, quick decision approach to evangelizing that many today use. The Arminian view of salvation is wrong; but all the adherents of this view are not neccessarily deceived. But untold thousands (perhaps millions) have been deceived by well meaning folk who have presented the "sinners prayer" and the quick decision as the key to eternal life.
The saddest picture that I can think of is these people someday standing before God to only hear "I never knew you."
why are all non-calvinists automatically categorized as armenians? This seems to be as illogical as categorizing all non-Fords as Chevy's.
That's the most mean-spirited thing I've ever heard on this board. I ask that this post be deleted and the poster reprimanded for such a thing.
Had this thing been done replacing Arminian with Calvinist this would never be tolerated.
IMO, the post does not attack anyone personally, there is nothing rude or inappropriate about it. While it may be wrong, it does not qualify for being edited. Had someone attacked you personally, it would be different.
Having said that, Arminianism does at times come close to preaching a false gospel. Yet I am not willing to put most of them in that category.
Why are all non-Calvinists classified as arminian? Because unlike cars, there are really on two options in this debate. You either believe God chooses (Calvinist) or he doesn't (Arminian). There is no other option.
I would say that if anything, Calvinism is a false gospel. It expressly goes against all of the church fathers (until Augustine decided to mesh Greek thought with the religion). Because of this synergy, it is clear that what Calvinism teaches is at its best is as much Greek paganism as it is Christian theology, a method to pretty much make themselves feel important and "chosen" in some regard. (Not all the people, of course).
Calvinism ignores the character of God in the OT, especially in terms of God's election of Israel and how that applies to the church. Calvinism (though not Calvin) rewrites the text by stating that many words have a much more limiting meaning than the text states, merely to prove its theologically misguided point. We do not even find Calvin advocating this, although he strongly advocated double predestination.
I would like to note that I engaged in the same rhetorical strategies at TimothyW. I await to see if this post remains up or if it is deleted. Either way, the response should be interesting. I attacked no one personally, BTW...
It's extremely illogical. Arminians follow a specific type of theology. Pelagians do as well. As do Open theists. As do Calvinists. As do Mormons. By this theology, atheists, Buddhists, Mormons, agnostics, and Satanists are all Arminian.
The attempt to claim that all non-Calvinists is a lame attempt to discredit Arminianism by placing them with various heretical groups.
Not really, Scott. The point is (again) that you either believe God chose for salvation or not. Arminians, pelagians, open theists are all in common belief that man chooses. Calvinists (whether 3, 4, or 5 points) believe that God chooses. No one is trying to lump you in with other people. Were were discussing something else (like sin nature), we would draw a distinction between arminians and pelagians. Were we discussing the knowledge of God we would draw a distinction between arminians and open theists. The reality is that with regards to this general question, there are two broad categories, Arminian or Calvinist.
Most people don't want to be called arminian, they want to be called a biblicist, which as I have pointed out is a useless term in this discussion.
In like manner, I ask:Why are those who believe in the Doctrines of Grace immediately labeled Calvinists as if Calvin was the originator of these doctrines and these doctrines started in Calvin's times ?
by Scott Emerson:
And I suppose you're saying you don't place Calvinists in these "heretical" groups ?
And I suppose you're saying you don't place Calvinists in these "heretical" groups ?</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think Calvinists are heretical at all! The other post was simply to show the ridiculousness of calling Arminianism a false gospel.
In like manner, I ask:Why are those who believe in the Doctrines of Grace immediately labeled Calvinists as if Calvin was the originator of these doctrines and these doctrines started in Calvin's times ?</font>[/QUOTE]We should call them Augustinians since such doctrine was not found in the church fathers before that. If you disagree, feel free to show examples from pre-augustinian theologians.
And would you agree that Arminians, Pelagians, and open theists have a different view on HOW man chooses?
Not really. The belief isn't common as far as the specifics.
How about hyper-calvinists? Could I also say that there are two groups: Hyper-calvinists and Arminians, if I'm referring to double predestination. Can't we have the two groups as Calvinists and Open Theists? Why do you choose Arminians to represent the group of those who believe man has a choice? Your logic on this point has several holes. I hope you can see how.
There are also those who don't believe God chooses nor man chooses. They don't believe in a God. Are they Arminian as well?
You idea taken to its next logical step is full of errant thinking. Please look over it again. The issue isn't as black and white as you hope it to be.
Back to the original question, as one who only
recently deliberately left Arminianism for Calvin-
ism, I request that, when responding to me,
please keep it simple. I was in that doctrine for
over 50 years, beginning to understand
Calvinism a little over the last year there and the
years following, but I have not studied it. My itty-
bitty brain cannot assimilate too many technical
terms at once, and I do not know the theologians
behind the ideas.
So, starting small, would a Calvinist please tell
me, in 50 words or fewer, what Calvinism teaches?
Similarly, would an Arminian do the same? Then,
would someone who is in between please tell me
what makes them in between in 50 words or fewer?
If, indeed, Arminianism is what I was taught, it is
a false doctrine. I was taught, in 50 words,
exactly 8o) :
Believers do not sin; if they do, they must be
saved again. While believers aren't perfect (they
do make errors in judgment) these are not sins.
Sin is a deliberate act. James 4:17 "Therefore to
him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to
him it is sin."
Someone brought up the church fathers. Bluntly,
no I do not believe what the church fathers taught,
the creeds, or the councils' decisions. They do
not convince me. If an idea must rely upon these,
rather than upon the Word, these are useless to
[ September 13, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
by Scott Emerson:
Okay, if you wish:
I shall be starting a new thread, then.
But, first, I got to go to work and pay the bills.
The problem here is the very faulty assumption is that the only way to regard man to have a free will is in the collection of other beliefs that is armenian. While I can say that the scriptures say clearly man has a free will and can make a choice, I also say that the armenian point of never having secured salvation is heresy. So I am one who believes that man chooses and that Armenians are heretics (calvinists also by the way). Therefore I don't fit into your neat little package.
Perfect example: who was wrong in the American-indian wars? They were both wrong. The same is true of calivinists and armenians.
Timothy W said:
... The Primitive Baptist brethren I know on this board wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole!
Well you can't say Ken did not try on another post to bring civility to this forum... Psalm 133: 1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore... Sorry Ken Hamilton you can't say you didn't try!... Brother Glen
I don't understand your comment, "The Primitive Baptist brethren I know on this board wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole!" I know we are of like precious faith, but I would like to know what I'm being represented as.
With all this being said, I have a question for all the Calvinists who believe all the elect will hear and believe a gospel preacher. If Arminianism is a false gospel, how can people be saved by the preaching of a false gospel, much less be saved by believing it? The only consistent side of the issue I see is the Primitive Baptist. Unless, of course, you hold that all Arminians are damned, world without end, which is something I'm not quite willing to admit.