preacher4truth
Active Member
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
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
