Do You Consider Arminianism To be Either heresy Or Error?

[JesusFan]

or do you see it as teaching what the Bible promotes?

Just curious as to how this system of theology is viewed by regular posters here on BB!

 

[glfredrick]

Either/both/neither depending on how one argues it, sees it, believes it, or promulgates it.

It is certainly an anthropocentrically derived doctrine, in that ultimate sovereignty rests on the will of man, however much lip service is first given to God and God's grace.

As to the actual issue of Arminianism, I tend to side with this citation (Why I Am Not An Arminian, Robert Peterson and Michael Williams)

The Synod of Dort was right to condemn the Arminian representation of the saving ways of God. Yet we do not think of Arminianism as a heresy or Arminian Christians as unregenerate. You see, calling someone a heretic is serious business. Heresy is not merely doctrinal error; it is damnable error. The heretic so mangles the gospel of Jesus Christ that it no longer communicates the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Heresy is such a corruption of the grace of God in Christ that it invalidates either Jesus as the Savior or grace as the way of salvation. The Arminian tradition does neither.

 

[th1bill]

I find that a reasonable case for either of the two recognized positions are supported by scripture, depending on which set of Proof Texts you choose to ignore. I am a Biblicist and that falls somewhere in the middle and is not generally recognized.

 

[Allan]

or do you see it as teaching what the Bible promotes?

Just curious as to how this system of theology is viewed by regular posters here on BB!

First it depends on what 'type' of Arminianism.

However if we go the classical or Reformed Arminian approach -
It is my view that it is a system with "Error" in it, just as Calvinism is

 

[JesusFan]

Either/both/neither depending on how one argues it, sees it, believes it, or promulgates it.

It is certainly an anthropocentrically derived doctrine, in that ultimate sovereignty rests on the will of man, however much lip service is first given to God and God's grace.

As to the actual issue of Arminianism, I tend to side with this citation (Why I Am Not An Arminian, Robert Peterson and Michael Williams)

So you would tend to say that it is a theology that misunderstands what the bible is really teaching on grace of God/Election/salavation etc

But that there is still "enough' of the Biblical truth/Gospel in it that one can be saved by it?

 

[JesusFan]

First it depends on what 'type' of Arminianism.

However if we go the classical or Reformed Arminian approach -
It is my view that it is a system with "Error" in it, just as Calvinism is

Would you agree that one might be"more correct" than the other, but both are still able to save, have "enough" of the message of the gospel/cross in them?

 

[Winman]

I think Arminianism is much closer to what the scriptures truly teach than Calvinism, but it also has errors, the greatest error being teaching a person can lose salvation.

That said, I know of numerous verses that can easily be interpreted to teach that you can lose salvation. So, I can understand their view, although I think it can easily be refuted.

As th1bill said, the truth is inbetween Calvinism and Arminianism. I agree with this.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Neither....I see it as still another way to view theology

 

[kyredneck]

...Do You Consider Arminianism To be Either heresy Or Error? ...

Of course I see them as in error but there are many among them whose intentions are good, they just don't 'get it':

38 Now as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at the Lord`s feet, and heard his word.
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving; and she came up to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 But the Lord answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled about many things:
42 but one thing is needful: for Mary hath chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her. Lu 10

The Lord loved Martha and Mary both.

Martha represents free willers.

Mary represents those who know better than the free willers.

As Martha, the free willers are always going to complain against us Marys, but we Marys have the promise from our Lord; sitting at His feet and hearing His word will not be taken away from us. [edit] ...and guess who's gonna know about His word, heheh......

 

[glfredrick]

So you would tend to say that it is a theology that misunderstands what the bible is really teaching on grace of God/Election/salavation etc

But that there is still "enough' of the Biblical truth/Gospel in it that one can be saved by it?

I would say that, yes. Is there enough left? Depends on who is teaching!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course I see them as in error but there are many among them whose intentions are good, they just don't 'get it':

38 Now as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at the Lord`s feet, and heard his word.
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving; and she came up to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 But the Lord answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled about many things:
42 but one thing is needful: for Mary hath chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her. Lu 10

The Lord loved Martha and Mary both.

Martha represents free willers.

Mary represents those who know better than the free willers.

As Martha, the free willers are always going to complain against us Marys, but we Marys have the promise from our Lord; sitting at His feet and hearing His word will not be taken away from us. [edit] ...and guess who's gonna know about His word, heheh......

I see it a bit differently. The example I frequently use is thru observing my wife @ Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. In order to get better they preach that you need to follow some steps but ones that really count my friends are (1) admitting you have a substance abuse problem & (2) That you have to turn it over (completely) to your Higher Power / God. Both these steps really involve admitting brokenness & total commitment to God to be brought back to sanity. I say this without trying to be insulting to Arminians but I believe that Calvinists, give it over better.

 

[JesusFan]

I see it a bit differently. The example I frequently use is thru observing my wife @ Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. In order to get better they preach that you need to follow some steps but ones that really count my friends are (1) admitting you have a substance abuse problem & (2) That you have to turn it over (completely) to your Higher Power / God. Both these steps really involve admitting brokenness & total commitment to God to be brought back to sanity. I say this without trying to be insulting to Arminians but I believe that Calvinists, give it over better.

Think all of us , especially those of us of the Calvinist bent, would be surprised just HOW much Cals/Arms affirm in common though...

Both say God is soverign
Both say man is a sinner
Both say must have Grace of God to save us
Both say must exercise faith in Christ

main differences are that arms say basically man wounded by the fall, cals say killed by fall
Arms say all could be saved, only those choosing jesus will get saved
cals say those who God knows/elects will be saved

 

[annsni]

I find that a reasonable case for either of the two recognized positions are supported by scripture, depending on which set of Proof Texts you choose to ignore. I am a Biblicist and that falls somewhere in the middle and is not generally recognized.

I like what Spurgeon had to say on this:

I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other.

I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

 

[Winman]

Think all of us , especially those of us of the Calvinist bent, would be surprised just HOW much Cals/Arms affirm in common though...

Both say God is soverign
Both say man is a sinner
Both say must have Grace of God to save us
Both say must exercise faith in Christ

main differences are that arms say basically man wounded by the fall, cals say killed by fallArms say all could be saved, only those choosing jesus will get saved
cals say those who God knows/elects will be saved

Yes, I know this is the greatest difference between myself and what Calvinists/Reformed believe, although I also differ quite a bit from non-Cal/Arminian position.

I do believe that something happened to man in the garden when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

What do I think happened? They got the knowledge of good and evil! But what does that mean?

I think what happened is that temptation was no longer external. They could have obeyed the Lord, there was no internal temptation to eat of this tree, or rather their natural passions were balanced with the will. Thus, Satan introduced the external temptation. He aroused Eve's natural God-given desires and lusts. There had been a balance before of God's external commands with their natural internal desires. They were balanced for lack of a better term. They could resist any internal desire.

But when they ate of this tree, temptation now became an internal force. The desires were excited by the knowledge of evil. Whatever you eat becomes part of you, and now this knowledge of evil became a part of man. Now, temptation could arise from within, in fact, man could imagine evil or invent evil that did not exist before.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

But... lusts and desires are not evil. It is not evil to be hungry, we need to eat to be healthy. It is not wrong to desire sex, as long as it is confined within marriage as God intended. But now man became imbalanced, his desires and temptations were stronger, and now originated within, whereas before they were external.

Thus we became WEAK, we became INFIRM. This is what the scriptures say repeatedly.

Matt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Why did Jesus say pray? So that we enter not into temptation.

Rom 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

Notice how the words infirmities and weak are related? Infirmity by definition means weak.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Again, see how the scriptures connect our infirmities (weakness) with temptation?

Jesus came in the flesh. He felt physical weakness like we do. He got tired, he got hungry. When he fasted 40 days, he was very hungry like any man would be, but he never obeyed his lusts when it would cause him to sin.

Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Where I disagree with many, is I believe many confuse temptation with sin. They are not the same. Jesus was tempted when the devil told him to turn stones into bread, but he never gave his will over to this temptation. Temptation turns to sin when our will agrees or goes along with it.

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

We are now all tempted by these internal desires which were increased when temptation became internalized. The lust or desire originates within now, before the fall it originated from without man. But temptation is not to be confused with sin, nor does having temptations cause death. Only when a person surrenders the will to temptation does he sin. And it is actual sin that causes death. That is an important distinction many miss.

Now, I know no one asked for this, but this is how I see the fall. Man became imbalanced. The earth also became imbalanced. Before the earth only produced good fruit, now it produced thorns and briars. This made it much more difficult to farm. Likewise, we also have thorns and briars springing up inside us as temptations to do evil. We are now weak from these strong desires, we are infirm.

But I do not believe man lost free will, or the ability to choose right. I believe it is much more difficult, almost impossible sometimes, but man can choose to do right. As much as that offends some, I would ask you, did you ever really HAVE to sin? I mean, was it absolutely beyond your control? I don't know about others, but honestly I have never been forced to sin, even by my own strong internal desires. I always knew what right and wrong was, and I always knew I could have done right, although MANY times I didn't.

This is what I see happened to man from scripture. I see no decree from God that cursed man's moral nature.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Though we have a sin nature Winman, I agree with you that it can be controlled but sin is overpowering. Prior to my salvation I only wanted to sin....it was my dear dear sin & I enjoyed it. But now I have a conscience & it always prohibits me from sinning. Does that mean that I dislike sin......nooooooo. But something in my head now tells me that sin is bad & it brings death. God has shown mercy to me, a heinous sinner & pulled me up & saved me & I still do not know why! Trust me, I did not do it.....it was not because of me. It was God from start to finish.

Can I sin, sure......but I dont want to (& I still marvel that I AM SAYING THAT LOL). Can I cheat on my wife.....sure but then I hurt both her & God; Can I do illegal stuff & make money.....sure but then I hurt God; Can I drink & do drugs.....sure but then I hurt God & myself given enough time anyway. Heres my point.....God saved my life & made me a happy guy, peaceful & contented.....I owe Him my life......He has for what ever reason chosen me (a very sinful man) & I am grateful. Are you rejoicing in the Lord Jesus Christ with a joy which is unspeakable & full of Glory? This to me is Calvinism..... IE Salvation as a gift from God from start to finish. I dont see Arminism giving me this. I have to do something..... that which I would never in a million years have done for myself if it was up to me.

 

[Berean]

I find that a reasonable case for either of the two recognized positions are supported by scripture, depending on which set of Proof Texts you choose to ignore. I am a Biblicist and that falls somewhere in the middle and is not generally recognized.

When we get to Heaven we will find a large group of both Calvanist and Armenians, But the largest group will be the ones who don't know the difference.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When we get to Heaven we will find a large group of both Calvanist and Armenians, But the largest group will be the ones who don't know the difference.

There will probably be enough of them all in the other place too.

 

[Winman]

Though we have a sin nature Winman, I agree with you that it can be controlled but sin is overpowering. Prior to my salvation I only wanted to sin....it was my dear dear sin & I enjoyed it. But now I have a conscience & it always prohibits me from sinning. Does that mean that I dislike sin......nooooooo. But something in my head now tells me that sin is bad & it brings death. God has shown mercy to me, a heinous sinner & pulled me up & saved me & I still do not know why! Trust me, I did not do it.....it was not because of me. It was God from start to finish.

Can I sin, sure......but I dont want to (& I still marvel that I AM SAYING THAT LOL). Can I cheat on my wife.....sure but then I hurt both her & God; Can I do illegal stuff & make money.....sure but then I hurt God; Can I drink & do drugs.....sure but then I hurt God & myself given enough time anyway. Heres my point.....God saved my life & made me a happy guy, peaceful & contented.....I owe Him my life......He has for what ever reason chosen me (a very sinful man) & I am grateful. Are you rejoicing in the Lord Jesus Christ with a joy which is unspeakable & full of Glory? This to me is Calvinism..... IE Salvation as a gift from God from start to finish. I dont see Arminism giving me this. I have to do something..... that which I would never in a million years have done for myself if it was up to me.

I am always amazed at the testimonies of Calvinists. They all seem to say they absolutely loved sin. This was not my experience, I did not enjoy sin. Oh trust me, I sinned plenty and still do, but I didn't love it, in fact it made me feel guilty and very unhappy with myself. Even before I heard and understood the gospel it was important for me to do good.

Continued on next post...

 

[Winman]

continued from last post...

The first time I really heard and understood the gospel I accepted Christ. I had no difficulty accepting I was a sinner, I KNEW I was a sinner.

Now, I'm not saying I am better than you, I assure you I am worse. But I did not enjoy sin.

So, I am always a little shocked when I hear people say they loved sin. And I know I am not alone, psychologists make a living off of people who are unhappy with themselves.

But I would not say we are born with a sin nature, as Jesus had the same nature as us according to the scriptures. I believe it is more accurate to say we have a temptation nature.

 

[glfredrick]

continued from last post...

The first time I really heard and understood the gospel I accepted Christ. I had no difficulty accepting I was a sinner, I KNEW I was a sinner.

Now, I'm not saying I am better than you, I assure you I am worse. But I did not enjoy sin.

So, I am always a little shocked when I hear people say they loved sin. And I know I am not alone, psychologists make a living off of people who are unhappy with themselves.

But I would not say we are born with a sin nature, as Jesus had the same nature as us according to the scriptures. I believe it is more accurate to say we have a temptation nature.

To this, I would say that we all start in a different place, because of Godly parents and upbringing, or perhaps the opposite. Some have never heard of sin or the gospel, and the do what comes "naturally." We know what Paul had to say about that in Romans 1, not to mention the myriad of other places where the Scriptures explicitly explain sin or imply sin by the described actions of individuals.

What we are discussing, however, is how one comes to know a salvific revelation concerning the means to extract ourselves from that life of sin. In that, there are probably 3 choices (I use the word "probably" here because I'm sure that someone will come up with other options, not because I am unsure of what I am writing). 1) One can simply remain in the natural state and go on to die in a lost condition. 2) One can come to some realization that they are acting in some form of sinful condition and work to be "better" in purely human terms, whether from a religious perspective (some sort of faith-based effort) or from a human psychological perspective (we have book stores with shelves lined with self-help books, many stemming from a Judeo-Christian perspective!). Or, 3) We can be born again from above, made a new creation in a supernatural act of God whereby our old sin nature is crucified with Christ and it is no longer I that live, but Christ.

I see a general lack of comprehension between points 2-3, with many people supposing that they hold point 3 as their own, yet having a doctrine that perfectly illustrates point 2, or laying out law-based requirements that also illustrate or exemplify point 2. I find Roman Catholicism a classic example of a point 2 religious exercise (but that does not eliminate the potential that some are indeed point 3, same goes for all others as well). I also find many "legalistic" and human-centered theologies and doctrines falling into category 2. It is up to a man to make the right moves to satisfy God, so that God will save their soul, all of which purportedly can happen without God first making the person into a new creation in a supernatural means that only God can accomplish.

I do not dismiss the zealousness or faithfulness of those who are in a point 2 lifestyle. Neither do I (as I said above) dismiss the possibility that point 2 persons have indeed had that supernatural occurrence with God. They may be mistaken in the order or means that their encounter with God happened, which could further drive their theology or doctrine, nevertheless, the Scriptures are clear that God alone is the author and finisher of our faith.