Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction!

As a theological system Arminianism tries to mediate between the supralapsarianism of Beza, who taught that God willed the fall of man in order to accomplish his decrees, and the Pelagian view, which denied original sin, regarding grace as unnecessary for salvation.

Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction: on the one hand it affirms predestination and grace, while on the other hand denying it or gutting it of any real significance by asserting that it is conditional upon man's free will.

The theologian Otto Heick describes Arminianism as an oxymoron, an "absolute conditionalism":

"God in his decrees is conditioned by man's free will -

Man in his search for salvation is conditioned by God's grace".

rufus

 

Arminius --In rejecting Calvinism, and in the attempt to construct his own scheme of beliefs, Arminius made the fatal mistake of mixing Pelagian dogma with the Scriptures.

PELAGIUS -- Early in the fifth century, the English monk Pelagius sought to reform the Roman Catholic Church. He thus became a life-long theological antagonist of Augustine. Pelagius insisted that man did not inherit Adam's sinfulness, but was only affected by his example. He believed that man's will was free to choose for, or against, God. Hence, via Arminius, we have our present-day "Christian humanism," i.e., man is master of his fate, with God's help--if he chooses it.

ARMINIANISM TODAY -- Coming from humanistic Pelagianism instead of from the Scriptures, Arminianism bases salvation upon the will of fallen man. It is an anti-sovereignty, anti-security, anti-dispensational, anti-grace, pro-works religion. The teaching is that God, through redemption, bestows a "common grace" upon all men, thereby making it possible for the individual to exercise his free will either for, or against, God.

FREE WILL? -- According to Arminianism, man is not totally depraved--his will remains free to decide his own destiny. Its maxim is, "It is mine to be willing to believe, and it is the part of God's grace to assist." To Arminianism, "foreknowledge" means that God foreknows those who will receive the Saviour, and upon that basis He elects them. Those who choose to reject the Saviour, He condemns.

Since the final decision is made by man, and God then acts upon that decision, man is sovereign. In that case, God determines nothing, He gives nothing except so-called common grace which removes the inability to choose Him, and He secures nothing.

Thus the sinner's choice of God, and not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate factor in Arminian salvation. Those elected by God are chosen only in the sense that He foresaw their faith and good works--which arise from themselves and are not wrought of God. The human will is exalted to the place of sovereignty and, according to this system, man becomes his own saviour.

As Dr. A.H. Strong wrote, "It is important to understand that, in Arminian usage, grace is simply the restoration of man's natural ability to act for himself; grace never actually saves him, but only enables him to save himself ... if he will.

SOVEREIGN MAN? -- In that the Arminian begins on the premise of his own free will, his end is on the same assumption. He feels that since he can come in, he can therefore go out, by his free will. What little security and assurance of salvation he has is founded upon his own momentary merit, plus whatever emotional experiences he can muster along the way.

Doctrinally established unconditional eternal security grounded upon faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ is utterly rejected by the Arminian. He sedulously avoids all Scripture that establishes eternal security, or at best seeks to discredit and deny it. He gravitates to out-of-context references that seem to him to militate against eternal security.

Arminianism's misleading error in the field of salvation is that it persists in attempting to build the Christian's standing upon his feeble and faltering daily life, rather than on the sufficient and immutable merit of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Arminian salvation becomes little more than a system of human conduct; for, though the idea of regeneration is incorporated, it is, in the Arminian idea of it, of no abiding value, being supported only by a supposed human merit. --L.S. Chafer (Systematic Theology III:356)

SEMI-PELAGIANISM -- Through a process of modification, Pelagianism spawned Semi-Pelagianism. It has been described as follows:

Though it retained much of the philosophical basis of its parent's humanism and rationalism, as opposed to divine revelation, Semi-Pelagianism compromised with truth sufficiently to gain favorable audience with some Christians. It became, thus, a far more dangerous form of infidelity than its parent. As such, it eventually overcame the Roman Catholic Church and returned it to the very Pelagianism condemned by Augustine. Semi-Pelagianism changed its disguise and further altered its voice at a later date to become known as Arminianism, following some refinements and adjustments to Christianity.

Dr. Lorraine Boettner has stated:

Arminianism existed for centuries only as a heresy in the outskirts of true Christianity. In fact, it was not championed by an organized Christian Church until the year 1784, at which time it was incorporated into the system of doctrine of the Methodist Church in England by John Wesley.

Today, Christendom has been overrun by Arminianism. It has been spread mainly by the Pentecostal and Holiness movements, and especially by the out-of-control Charismatic movement. Then too, there is the influence of the many Arminian denominations, such as the Assembly of God, Nazarene, Mennonite, Christian & Missionary Alliance, and many others.

Almost all truly born-again Christians begin as Arminians, with their "free will" and their self-centered life and service for "Jesus." The tragedy is that far too many never get beyond that baby stage, but go on into the fleshly emotionalism of full-fledged charismatic Arminianism.

A clearer view of Arminianism may be gained from the following listing:

Human depravity has not rendered man incapable of savingly exercising his will to trust Jesus for salvation.

God's grace is resistible in the final sense so that man can ultimately thwart His purpose to save him.

God's election is conditioned upon His divine foresight of faith in certain men whom God, then, designates as His elect.

Jesus' atonement was exactly the same for everyone with no discrimination whatever, rendering all men savable, but actually guaranteeing the salvation of none.

Final salvation is possible for believers, but ultimate victory rests with their continuance in faith, so that ultimate apostasy may be possible for the saved.

STATEMENT -- Dominated by the free will of man, Arminianism is characterized by fleshly lawlessness. The Arminian's center and object is himself. It is all to be rejected! "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

rufus

 

WHEN A SYSTEM HAS A CONTRADICTION, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS AND FACTUALLY FALSE.

I repeat: Arminianism is FALSE because it is CONTRADICTORY!!

 

Bro. Bill, the ONLY view I care about is the BIBLICAL VIEW.

Your interpretive method is different than mine (as I pointed out a while back)and therefore your conclusions are different than mine.

The inductive inferences of all the relevant passages dealing with this issue result in the doctrine that men are dead in sins and do not seek God; rather God seeks men in Christ and quickens (makes alive) some of them by the Spirit through the Gospel. The ability to believe is just as much a gift from God as is the grace upon which salvation is based.

The conditional Free Will of Man position is at odds with the Good Book and is internally contradictoy and therefore unbiblical and false.

Since do not use the same hermenuetical principles of exegesis, I seriously doubt we will ever AGREE! on this issue. Different hermenuetical starting points will lead to different interpretive conclusions.

Be safe in the Lord, Bro. Bill and I pray He blesses you and yours.

rufus

 

Bro. Bill, the ONLY view I care about is the BIBLICAL VIEW.

Your interpretive method is different than mine (as I pointed out a while back)and therefore your conclusions are different than mine.

The inductive inferences of all the relevant passages dealing with this issue result in the doctrine that men are dead in sins and do not seek God; rather God seeks men in Christ and quickens (makes alive) some of them by the Spirit through the Gospel. The ability to believe is just as much a gift from God as is the grace upon which salvation is based.

The conditional Free Will of Man position is at odds with the Good Book and is internally contradictory and therefore is unbiblical and false.

Since we do not use the same hermenuetical principles of exegesis, I seriously doubt we will ever AGREE! on this issue. Different hermenuetical starting points will lead to different interpretive conclusions.

Be safe in the Lord, Bro. Bill and I pray He blesses you and yours.

rufus

 

Bro.Bill said: "Have fun avoiding Arminians that challenge you."

rufus says: "lol"

I wonder if Bro. Bill has read any of the numerous rufus post avoiding Arminians challenging him.

Bro. Bill, happy Scripture twisting and keep on using the ad hominem statements, which roll off this old preacher like water on a duck's back. I assure you. Can't win the argument, abuse the man making the argument. Too bad.

I have some nice exegetical tools I'll be happy to share with you, if you are really interested in truth finding, good sir.

rufus