Socinianized Arminianism

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Jarthur001, Apr 29, 2008.

  1. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Socinianized Arminianism is said to be the main factor that killed the evangelistic effort of the Great Aweaking in New England. Do we see traces of Socinian (I'm not speaking of Trinity views but evangelistic views) teaching in Arminian churches of today that has once again lead to many weak churches we find today?
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    From Robert Culver's "Systematic Theology"

    According to this theology, mankind was created in the condition of mortality. The first man possessed no high degree of wisdom or knowledge. Since
    his knowledge was imperfect and his will untried, desire (concupiscence) was stimulated by the command not to eat and being overpowered by it he yielded. It is almost as if God,Himself,were responsible for Adam's sin. The fall deprived neither Adam nor his descendants of the power of the will to good or evil.There is no inherited inclination to sin. Socinianism holds that scriptural commands to repent and believe show conclusively that ordinary people have inherent power to do either. (page 389)

    Socinianism was essentially a revival of ancient Pelagianism and forerunner of the optimistic view of modern liberalism which views man as morally good at heart, to be saved by good environment, teaching, example,etc. All God requires for forgiveness is repentance by the sinner . In such a case atonement is unnecessary, even immoral. The pattern for salvation (forgiveness)is the Parable of the Prodigal Son ( Luke 15:11-32) not the cross of Christ. This is to be found in the literature of 'liberal' religion from Socinus to John Hick ( who espouses it vigorously). ( page 564)
     
  3. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon=
    wow, hadn't heard this before. recently there was a discussion like his in Sunday school, many were either saying or agreeing with this kind of thinking. This is not taught at our church, not believed by leaders, certainly not the pastor, this comes from some people, who are armanian, and who do not know what the bible says because they never bother to study, or to fully study a topic if and when they do some type of study. What surprises me is these are all older people, at 43 I'm the baby in the class, some old enough to be my parent or grandparent, and yet on average, they know basically nothing past Jn 3:16. We've been there since 1991 and have found good teachings, good classes available, where have these people been, and what have they been listening too outside of church.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I hear you Donna . In some of the soundest churches a number of the people still seem untaught .The biblical understanding of these old infants is limited to the surface level of a fraction of the Bible .
    And that's a good question about what have they been listening to outside of Church. It's a good possibility that their own Pastor's sermons are being contradicted by the other stuff they listen to .The itching ear syndrome perhaps . They have been on a milk diet for a while now .
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    A lot of folks on the BB hold to this idea .
     
  6. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0

    Indeed and this is why I start the tread. Arminian feel their view that God is love and nothing else is a great way to spread the gospel. In short we hear by many...."God loves you....now get saved".

    That is not the gospel and has been shown through history to damage evangelistic effort and not help it. This is not to say that Arminian intent is to bring damage, because I feel they think it will help in the salvation of others. But changing who God is to win the lost makes weak believers, or better, believers of another god then what one finds in the Bible.

    Pelagians and the Socinians and the Arminians all teach that exposer to the truth and teaching of the truth is all that is needed. I agree that we should do this, but I also know I can do no more then this and exposer to the gospel alone cannot overpower the sin found in all men. Holy Spirit MUST work on the persons heart and remove the darkness, bring understanding and light. This is what is forgotten about in the Arminian camp. If the non-believe does not believe, the Arminian needs to "better" express it. They want to use logic and reason so that the non-believer will be saved.

    One should never feel it is cleaver words of men that help the gospel. I have seen people take Christ as Lord when a message on church government is preached, and on the other hand, I have also heard the best gospel message preached and people that need Christ work out the door.

    In the end this line of thinking shows God as a weak God and also removes the power of the Word God and leads to easy-believism. A low view of God leads to low views of worship followed by liberalism.
     
  7. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Our old teacher, who was very indepth, pastor says some of his teaching was seminary level, always said, they may have been christians for 40 years, but they've repeated year 1 40 times and babes still on milk.
    It takes work to advance.
     
  8. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    It seems to me that some people just have a barrier to advanced learning that they can't overcome. And I don't think it's an issue of intellect, but one of attitude.

    In my own teaching, I feel so frustrated because there are certain people that simply shut down mentally as soon as I use a word over two or three syllables or ends with "ism" or "istic", no matter how elemental I make it. With these people, I have to resort to children's Sunday School methods to teach the subject, howbeit ever so shallow.
     
  9. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, these are reasonably intelligent people, some went to college, one is a doctor, a couple were school teachers. They chose not to learn and understand, it's their way or it doesn't exsist.
     
  10. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who's to say they don't want to learn...but reject what you are teaching? Some on this thread are sounding quite judgemental.
     
  11. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    No, mister quick trigger, that's not what's happening. For example, I have one student that is a life-long dispensationalist. She can map out the entire Clarence Larkin time line with scripture proofs, but as soon I say the word "dispensationalist", her face goes blank. She asks me why I have to use those "big words". This has been going on a long time. To this day, whenever I say "dispensationalism", I have to look at her and say "you know, what you believe about the tribulation, the rapture, the Church, Israel, etc.", to which she used to always reply, "why didn't you just say that", to which I reply, "it's easier to say 'dispensationalism' than it is to say 'the teaching that there are seven dispensations beginning with the dispensation of innocence, followed by..[all the other dispensations]...and then finally the lost are cast into Hell and the eternal state of bliss begins".
     
  12. reformedbeliever

    reformedbeliever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quite funny actually..... :laugh:
     
  13. Bethelassoc

    Bethelassoc
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've experienced what others have said on here, and it doesn't have to deal with doctrines of grace. One time I discussed with an individual about a pastor being someone who can "feed us meat" to chew on, they replied, "nah...I want someone that'll give me the gist of what they are saying, you know, like the top layer." It went something along those lines.
     
  14. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't find it funny. What is funny about someone belittling a class they are teaching? What kind of teacher does this?!?
     
  15. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is what they want to learn they are in the wrong church.

     
  16. MB

    MB
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    13
    I found this little bit of information really intresting since you want to compare socinianism to Arminianism.
    "Socinians held views rooted in rationality only and rejected orthodox teachings on the Trinity and on the divinity of Jesus, as summarised in the Racovian Catechism. They also believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen), and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). They believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible; and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience. They are to be differentiated from Arians, who believed in a preexistent Christ. The Socinians held that the Son of God did not exist until he was born a man."
    quote above taken from wickipedia:
    I would say this sounds more akin to Calvinism than Arminianism
    MB
     
  17. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I would say that your understanding of Calvinism is in need of dire repair."More akin to Calvinism" -- that's nonsense.Care to demonstrate anywhere in which we deny the Trinity or say Christ did not exist until His incarnation ? Have you even glanced at the 1689 London Confession of Faith ?And we certainly do not believe that God takes contingencies into account .He not only knows the future ,He determines it .All the prophecies in the Bible which have been fulfilled were brought about from His All-Powerful Hand.The Lord is not looking for possible contingencies.If you think one can harmonize Socinianism with Calvinism you're barking up the wrong tree Bud.
     
  18. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    If one would take the time to read the OP one would read..."I'm not speaking of Trinity views but evangelistic views"

    Also please note from your very words posted...

    Their doctrine was clearly based on limiting Gods omniscience in order to protect human will. That my dear friend is Arminianism 101.

    It also should be noted that Socinian doctrine could never exist within the ranks of a Calvinist church because they left up God and say God can choose who HE WILLS, for man has no free will.

    As to the phrase Socinianized Arminianism.

    This phrase was not made for the purpose of this thread. One may wish to remember that Socinianized Arminianism existed way before anyone on this board was born.

    Please take the time to read a few pages of "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia"

    LINK HERE

    You will see that Socinian and Arminian are link in Soteriology. Again Socinian doctrine of old had other doctrines that no Baptist would hold. But the fact remains that in Soteriology, Socinian and Arminian held the same doctrine.

    In the book... "A Manual of Church History" By Albert Henry Newman page 674 you will find how Yale and Harvard rejected the Great Awakening because of their Socinianized Arminianism views. I think we see the out come of that today.

    Newman goes on to say....


    Now will such doctrine hurt the spread of the gospel as it did in Edwards days?
     
  19. MB

    MB
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    13
    When did you consider Arminianism?

    There really is no such thing as Socinianized Arminianism. Arminians believe in the trinity and the preexistance of Christ before the physcial Life of Jesus. To lump all Arminian's with Socinian's is deceptive. The moment they became Socinian's they were no longer Arminian's

    Socinianism is now unitarianism. To assume that it must be Arminianism is hog wash. Arminianist are not Antitrinitarianist
    Not true at all. The moment any Arminian would change there belief about the eternal existance of Christ and the trinity, they became unitarianist.
    Yale and Harvard both taught Calvinism exclusively of course there view would be slanted towards what they presume to be there enemy. "The dreaded Arminians".
    There doesn't seem to be much come about in two thousand years to stop the gospel, or hinder the Holy Spirit my friend. The Romans the Russians the Islamics and Hitler all tried and failed. To a Calvinist any one who denies the doctrines of Grace is either Catholic or Arminian. Being in love with the idea that (Other than Calvinism) there just isn't any other doctrine worthy of a believer.
    It seems the Socinian's and Calvinist have more in common that you're willing to admit since they both have the same views on limiting God on who He can save. He must save those whom He knew He would, no exceptions. That is the similarity between the two. There are no other possibilities. This limits God when it comes to All things are possible with Him.
    As far as man's rebellion of God it happens to be our nature to rebel against Him and as long as we do we will not be saved. It isn't that we cannot be saved because we have some power God can't over throw. Men have to be convinced and convicted before they can wear the righteousness of God.

    What this boils down to is can we call someone a Socinianized Arminianist when the two do not believe the same things. That would be like calling Calvinist, "Catholic Calvinist". Is there such a thing? who knows anything is possible. I mean we have African Americans and Mexican Americans Why not go all the way and start calling people "Catholic Calvinist Arminianist" We all have something in common we all claim Christ. Being a separatist is easy. To say you as a Calvinist have nothing in common with Socinianist just isn't true. The truth is you have more in common with them than you are willing to admit.
    MB
     
  20. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Socinianized Arminianism is not Arminian, I would agree. It is a movement that runs from Calvinism into mans logic as has others have shown. 1st stop is Arminianism and then a mix of both Socinian and Arminian doctrines then into Socinian proper. Its much the same as going the other to the other extreme into Hyper-Calvinism. This has been shown in more then one history book to what happens and not something I have made up. Now you may not like it, but that is in fact what has happened in the past.


    Not just now, it always has been. But agian I set that aside in the OP if you care to read it.

    And if you would take the time to read the OP you would know I never said Arminian did not believe in the trinity. I don't know how you keep missing this. However, they do have the same Soteriology views. This you cannot deny.

    In the beginning yes...you are right. In fact what was it?....48 of the 1st 50 schools were founded and ran by Calvinist? Some of the best schools. What you fail to admit is that it is when they rejected Calvinism and open their doors to Arminian views, is when they also fell into Socinianized Arminianism.

    Point taken. Yet there are clear times in history when man has done the wrong thing and God has removed the blessing. Yet man never learns and will keep returning to the old mud hole when they could be in a coffee shop.


    Yes..and these were from outside the church. Most of the cooling that comes within the church, is when the church focus of salvation turns into "saving as many as you can, before its to late" with no regard for doctrines. When this happens man thinks it is man that saves and not God.

    .
    I know of no Calvinist that is so simple to claim this. Please state your source.


    I have no idea what you mean here.


    Socinianism limits no one. I have no idea why you would say such things. Socinianist are Universalists. They clame all will be saved in the end. This shows the next step down from Arminian hold doctrine.


    Universalists believe God will save ALL of mankind and God died for ALL of mankind.



    No, but the fact remains they are joined in the doctrine of salvation.

    No ...they call themself Augustinian Catholic.

    yes

    That is a rather silly statement and has nothing to do with the subject
     

Share This Page

Loading...