Can Armenianism Deter People From Christ?

Don't feel too bad about the initial typo, mnw. It's a very, very common typo.

 

I would argue, however, that such an extreme view is not Calvinsim at all since it goes against the reformed teaching of the sovereign will of God. It seems to be more of a mean, vindictive smear against Arminians. It reminds me of some comments made by Pastor Johnny Hunt last year at the Pastor's Conference where he made a snide remark about being careful that none of the non-elect get saved. There is a lot of mean vindictive statements made on both sides of the issue by people who are fairly ignorant about what the other side believes, and in this case here, seem to be ignorant about what their own belief sustem is. Other than that I agree with you.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Of course there are "Reformed theologians" like E. D. Manard who agree entirely with the statement from this site. I have one of his books entitled The Grace of God that Justifies. In this book he begins by arguing that the Gospel presented by the reformers (i.e. 5-point Calvinism) has been the only true definition of the Gosepl throughout all of church history. He argues that absolutely no one is saved unless he believes and perseveres in that Gospel without even the slightest variation. He calls "Moderate Calvinists" like Geisler "Arminians". He explains each point of Calvinism and argues that any deviation from their strict definition is a "false gospel" used by Satan to deter people from the true Gospel. Even 4-point Calvinists who believe in some kind of "general atonement" that is efficient only to those who believe in a doctrine that is "a false gospel, the height of odium, and everyone holding it unregenerate." There is a section called "The Hypocricies of 'Tolerant Calvinism': The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?" in which he lashes at Calvinists who dare accept anyone else as being saved:

The next logical conclusion would be that "tolerant Calvinists" who accept that non 5-point Calvinists can be saved don't believe their own Gospel requirement; therefore, "tolerant Calvinists" could not be saved either because they would be just as "unbelieving" as non-Calvinists. Indeed, that is precisely what we see later:

How's about them apples.

 

the OP asked:

Rather, the question ought to have been:

Can Arminianism deter Christ from His people ?

Is one elect because he is a Calvinist ?
Is one non-elect because he is an Arminian ?

 

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? 1 Cor. 3:1-4

Please insert "Calvin" for "Paul" and "Arminius" for "Apollos" here.

And this E. D. Manard clown is the height of carnality.

 

Of course there are "Reformed theologians" like E. D. Manard who agree entirely with the statement from this site. I have one of his books entitled The Grace of God that Justifies. In this book he begins by arguing that the Gospel presented by the reformers (i.e. 5-point Calvinism) has been the only true definition of the Gosepl throughout all of church history. He argues that absolutely no one is saved unless he believes and perseveres in that Gospel without even the slightest variation. He calls "Moderate Calvinists" like Geisler "Arminians". He explains each point of Calvinism and argues that any deviation from their strict definition is a "false gospel" used by Satan to deter people from the true Gospel. Even 4-point Calvinists who believe in some kind of "general atonement" that is efficient only to those who believe in a doctrine that is "a false gospel, the height of odium, and everyone holding it unregenerate." There is a section called "The Hypocricies of 'Tolerant Calvinism': The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?" in which he lashes at Calvinists who dare accept anyone else as being saved:

The next logical conclusion would be that "tolerant Calvinists" who accept that non 5-point Calvinists can be saved don't believe their own Gospel requirement; therefore, "tolerant Calvinists" could not be saved either because they would be just as "unbelieving" as non-Calvinists. Indeed, that is precisely what we see later:

How's about them apples. </font>[/QUOTE]If he believes that anyone or anything can thwart the will of God, then he is not a 5 point Calvinist.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph_Botwinick said:

Reading this book, Manard clearly argues that no one can thwart God's perfect will; therefore, he seems to believe that God's perfect will, indeed, is that the actual "good news" of the true Gospel is imputed sovereignly by God upon the most microscopic of portions of all of humanity. And according to Manard, you are not a true 5-point Calvinist if you are in the least supportive of anyone who is not a 5-point Calvinist.

 

Who cares? I'd rather be a Christian.

 

I've read that article before and some other by the same author. I was a little taken back by some of his strong language. I would be curious to know exactly what he meant by "deter" people from the Christ of the bible. For we calvinists believe that the elect cannot be deterred from Christ, and the non-elect are already deterred by their own blindness to the truth.

I don't think he means deter as in people are prevented from believing the true gospel, but that the arminian gospel is the means by which man, whether saved or not, retains his boasting before God. The arminian gospel denies God his full glory and thereby brings judgement on man for his impudence.

Of course, in the end, God will have His glory and man's pride will be ground into the dust.

Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe [unto him], through whom they come!

 

Every position has its weak side. When a proponent of that position goes bad, he falls in that direction.

Manard is a textbook example of Calvinism gone bad, and serves as a good warning to others: pull back before you enter The Stupid Zone.

 

Take a look at this conversation. I could nickname Manard the "Ruckman" of Calvinism.

Pipedude said:

This is the kind of thinking that should keep any believer humble.