The seriousness and extent of Arminian thinking can be a point of contention at times. It is not unheard of that in Reformed circles critical comments about Arminianism are met with blank stares, a degree of indifference, or even a degree of hostility. The hostility may arise as it is felt that the criticism is unjust, extreme, inaccurate, or, even if it is correct, unnecessary as despite the differences those holding to Arminian theology are still Christians.
In recent reading I came across some remarks concerning Arminianism which showed both the seriousness and extent of Arminian thinking and how it is incompatible with the Reformed faith which, after all, is the Scriptural faith. In essence, in Arminianism we have a different gospel (see 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-8), a gospel which denies salvation is the complete gift of the sovereign God who graciously justifies sinners through faith alone.
Just to refresh your memory, Arminian thinking, so soundly renounced in the Canons of Dort, denies God's sovereign eternal election unto salvation. While affirming God's grace, Arminianism claims that God merely offers salvation and it is up to man who decides to accept or reject the gospel. One author summed up Arminian thinking as follows,"....God was made dependent on free-will-equipped-men for whom He politely had to wait, looking to see whether the man would be so kind as to believe"(1).
Though the Reformers of the early 16th Century did not have to contend with Arminianism as such, since Arminianism arose late in the 16th century and early in the 17th century, they did have to contend with its theological cousin, Semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man is spiritually sick. As such he does need the help of God's grace in order to get better. However, it is up to man to take the spiritual medicine which God offers. God must have man's co-operation. In theological terms this was called "synergism". You can see the similarity to the Arminian position. The Reformers responded to this by stressing the sovereign grace of God, as heard in the cry "Sola gratia". God calls those dead in sin to new life (see Eph. 2:1-10). The Reformers stressed the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace. This was a point of unity between the Reformers despite differences about other issues. (2) In the Book "The Bondage of the Will" this was the point that Luther argued with Erasmus.
We should note then that Arminianism is a reincarnation of Semi-Pelagianism with its emphasis on man's freedom. This explains why the churches acted so resolutely with respect to Arminianism. They saw it as a serious threat to the gospel and condemned it "as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer's thought). Arminianism was,indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as unchristian and anti-Christian as the other."(3)
The Reformed faith thus teaches the helplessness of man in salvation. Arminianism, in typical Semi-Pelagian style, teaches self-help religion. It is sovereign God versus sovereign man. It is indeed the different gospel which Paul warned about. It is appealing because it extols the dignity of man. It is a lie because man is dead in sin, totally helpless.
While the aforementioned points show the seriousness of the Arminian teaching and how it stands in contrast to true Reformation theology, to what extent is it found today? One author stated that"Arminianism ... has had American evangelicalism in a stranglehold since the days of Charles Finney."(4) Charles Finney (1792-1875) was a revivalist preacher who was very influential with his revival techniques. Another author states that 86 percent of American evangelicals hold to the Arminian position as comes out in their agreement with the phrase, "God helps those who help themselves." (5)This comes out very clearly in the writings of the well known Billy Graham who has even written a religious self-help manual titled "How To be Born Again" in which the various steps to salvation are clearly spelled out.(6)
The apostle Paul fought with great vigor against the"different gospel". In that gospel they will speak of Christ and use words like grace, election, faith, regeneration, etc. Yet, it is not the gospel of sovereign grace received through faith but of grace received on the ground of one's faith. The earlier mentioned reference linking Rome and Arminianism is worth drawing to your attention again.Actually,there is a common denominator in all false religion in that it ascribes ability and free will to man by which he can effect his own salvation if he so wishes. It displays the arrogance of sinful man,even more so when he dresses lies with words of the gospel. That makes the enemy all the more difficult to detect as he works in his subtle way. We can all the more understand Paul's warning about Satan disguising himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14).
Personally I don't enjoy having to harp on the point of the Arminian danger. I fear, however, that it is necessary because it is not realized how serious and extensive a threat it is. The true church glories in the gospel of sovereign grace where God rescues dead sinners and grants them the righteousness of Christ through faith. Let me conclude quoting in full Paul's words in Gal. 1:6-9,
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel --not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
1. K. Schilder, Extra-Scriptural Binding - A New Danger (In AmericanSecession Theologians on Covenant and Baptism & Extra-ScripturalBinding). (Neerlandia: Inheritance Publications, 1996. p. 131.)
2. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, "Historical and Theological Introduction," in Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Cambridge: James Clarke/Westwood, N.J.:Revell,1957, pp. 57-58)
5. M. Horton, In the Face of God. (Word Publishing, 1996) Appendix CURE (Christians United for Reformation).
6. To give just two examples, Graham writes "The context of John 3 teaches that the new birth is something that God does for man when man is willing to yield to God", and "He gives the Holy Spirit to draw you to the cross, but even after all this, it is your decision whether to accept God's free pardon or to continue in your lost condition." (B. Graham, How To Be Born Again. Originally published 1977. Quoted from the 1989 edition by Word Publishers, pages 150, 162)
Here is your strawman DHTM. It's most easily summarized as "Arminianism" Is this your gospel?
Free Will or Human Ability
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man�s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man�s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God�s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God�s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit�s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man�s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner�s gift to God; it is man�s contribution to salvation.
Conditional Election
God�s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man�s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner�s choice of Christ, not God�s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Universal Redemption or General Atonement
Christ�s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone�s sins. Christ�s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.
The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted
The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit�s call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man�s contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man�s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ�s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God�s grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.
Falling From Grace
Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith. etc. All Arminian, have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ � that once a sinner is regenerated. he can never be lost.
According to Arminianism:Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man(who must respond)�man�s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, �choose� to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man�s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.REJECTED by the Synod of DortThis was the system of thought contained in the �Remonstrance� (though the �five points� were not originally arranged in this order). It was submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the ground that it was unscriptural.
Arminianism is not my gospel, I'd never heard of the term before coming on this site. Just as I can safely assume that you do not believe exactly like Calvin or Luther about every little thing, I can state that I do not believe like Arminius, even though I do believe in freedom of will and salvation thru faith.
As far as works versus faith goes, faith and works simply being compared in the same chapter makes them, logically, about as similar as righteousness and sin. If I really have to put all the verses here that directly contrast faith and works, I might be here a while. Even the verse you referenced is still contrasting them both. I probably shouldn't have used the word "opposites" to describe this relationship between the two words, but come on...in the context of justification and salvation, they are direct opposites, even though faith is dead without works. :rolleyes:
Does the "Synod of Dort" determine biblical truth? Sounds like a "majority rules" mentality, or how they determined truth in the dark ages. I highly doubt you would refer to any catholic papal bull to negate any of Luther's claims. How many rejected Luther's calls for reform? Are we done reforming? I'm of the opinion that human beings are quite pendulous, and in response to the works-laden position of the catholic church, the zealous reformers went 180 degrees in the wrong direction. "Absolutely no ability by man to do ANYHTING at ALL. EVER.", which goes against just as many bible verses as the works-focused doctrine of the catholic church, but I have a feeling, that as time draws to a close, and the pendulum stops, we'll be back where we're supposed to be. Saved by grace through faith.
"Then Jesus beholding him, loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions."
So. I presume that you would say that this rich Jewish ruler was not elected, but did Jesus love him?
