Heresy?: Calvinism or Arminianism

Bob Krajcik · Jul 8, 2005

C. H. Spurgeon:

Let me add, dear friends, I feel persuaded that false doctrine, inasmuch as it touches God’s sovereignty, is always an object of divine jealousy. Let me indicate especially the doctrines of free-will. I know there are some good men who hold and preach them, but I am persuaded that the Lord must be grieved with their doctrine though he forgives them their sin of ignorance. Free-will doctrine — what does it? It magnifies man into God; it declares God’s purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God’s will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent upon human action. Denying election on the ground of injustice it holds God to be a debtor to sinners, so that if he gives grace to one he is bound to do so to all. It teaches that the blood of Christ was shed equally for all men and since some are lost, this doctrine ascribes the difference to man’s own will, thus making the atonement itself a powerless thing until the will of man gives it efficacy. Those sentiments dilute the scriptural description of man’s depravity, and by imputing strength to fallen humanity, rob the Spirit of the glory of his effectual grace: this theory says in effect that it is of him that willeth, and of him that runneth, and not of God that showeth mercy. Any doctrine, my brethren, which stands in opposition to this truth — “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” provokes God’s jealousy. I often tremble in this pulpit lest I should utter anything which should oppose the sovereignty of my God; and though you know I am not ashamed to preach the responsibility of man to God — if God be a sovereign, man must be bound to obey him — on the other hand, I am equally bold to preach that God has a right to do what he wills with his own, that he giveth no account of his matters and none may stay his hand, or say unto him, “What doest thou?” I believe that the free-will heresy assails the sovereignty of God, and mars the glory of his dominion. In all faithfulness, mingled with sorrow, I persuade you who have been deluded by it, to see well to your ways and receive the truth which sets God on high, and lays the creature in the dust. “The Lord reigneth,” be this our joy. The Lord is our King, let us obey him and defend to the death the crown rights of the lying of kings, for he is a jealous God.
Click to expand...

OldRegular · Jul 8, 2005

Bob Krajcik

I agree with essentially all of Spurgeon's remarks regarding the doctrine of free will in your last post. However, though I believe it is a perversion of the Scriptural doctrine of Salvation I do not believe that it falls to the level of Heresy.

I have stated in an earlier post that I am of the opinion that any belief that denies the true nature of God and His purpose in Salvation is heretical. However, I suppose that since to some extent heresy is in "the eye of the beholder" and it could honestly be claimed that freewillism denies God's purpose in Salvation.

I choose not to call it by that name, rather to simply say it is grevious error.

Bob Krajcik · Jul 8, 2005

I can remember when every direction you turned, there was someone preaching about the essentials of the faith. Hold the essentials was the battle cry. But, IMO, there is a problem as I see it. The essential nature of God is left out as regards what is termed the essentials of the faith. The Author of the faith has His attributes left out of what is defined as the essentials of the faith. Therefore man advances to the forefront, man thought to be sovereign over God. Words have lost meaning as man advances in his usurped position of supposed sovereignty over God. The distinction between truth and error is lost, and while there is talk of essentials, the nature of God and so God Himself is denied His rightful place.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio

Bob Krajcik · Jul 8, 2005

These are strong words from the pen of A. W. Pink, speaking of Election.

It is a separating doctrine. The preaching of the sovereignty of God, as exercised by Him in foreordaining the eternal destiny of each of His creatures, serves as an effectual flail to divide the chaff from the wheat. "He that is of God heareth God's words" (John 8:47): yes, no matter how contrary they may be to his ideas. It is one of the marks of the regenerate that they set to their seal that God is true. Nor do they pick and choose, as will religious hypocrites: once they perceive a truth is clearly taught in the Word, even though it be utterly opposed to their own reason and inclinations, they humbly bow to it and implicitly receive it, and would do so though not another person in whole world believed it. But it is far otherwise with the unregenerate. As the apostle declares, "They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 John 4:5, 6). We know of nothing so devisive between the sheep and the goats as a faithful exposition of this doctrine. If a servant of God accepts some new charge, and he wishes to ascertain which of his people desire the pure milk of the Word, and which prefer the Devil's substitutes, let him deliver a series of sermons on this subject, and it will quickly be the means of "taking forth the precious from the vile" (Jeremiah 15:19). It was thus in the experience of the Divine Preacher: when Christ announced "no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father," we are told, "from that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:65, 66)!

True it is that by no means all who intellectually receive "Calvinism" as a philosophy or theology, give evidence (in their daily lives) of regeneration; yet equally true is it that those who continue to cavil against and steadfastly refuse any part of the truth, are not entitled to be regarded as Christians.

It is a neglected doctrine. Though occupying so prominent a place in the Word of God, it is today but little preached, and still less understood. Of course, it is not to be expected that the "higher critics" and their blinded dupes should preach that which makes nothing of man; but even among those who wish to be looked up to as "orthodox" and "evangelical," there are scarcely any who give this grand truth a real place in either their pulpit ministrations or their writings. In some cases this is due to ignorance: not having been taught it in the seminary, and certainly not in the "Bible Institutes," they have never perceived its great importance and value. But in too many cases it is a desire to be popular with their hearers which muzzles their mouths. Nevertheless, neither ignorance, prejudice, nor enmity can do away with the doctrine itself, or lessen its vital momentousness.

In bringing to a close these introductory remarks, let it be pointed out that this blessed doctrine needs to be handled reverently. It is not a subject to be reasoned about and speculated upon, but approached in a spirit of holy awe and devotion. It is to be handled soberly, "When thou art in disputation, engaged upon a just quarrel to vindicate the truth of God from heresy and distortion, look into thy heart, set a watch on thy lips, beware of wild fire in thy zeal" (E. Reynolds, 1648). Nevertheless, this truth is to be dealt with uncompromisingly, and plainly, irrespective of the fear or favor of man, confidently leaving all "results" in the hand of God. May it be graciously granted us to write in a manner pleasing to God, and you to receive whatever is from Himself.

Copied From: A. W. Pink, The Doctrine Of Election
Click to expand...

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
July 8, 2005

Bob Krajcik · Jul 8, 2005

The Sovereignty of God is absolute and irresistible:

“All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?” (Daniel 4:35).

The Sovereignty of God is true not only hypothetically, but in fact. That is to say, God exercises His sovereignty, exercises it both in the natural realm, and in the spiritual. One is born black, another white. One is born in wealth, another in poverty. One is born with a healthy body, another sickly and crippled. One is cut off in childhood, another lives to old age. One is endowed with five talents, another with but one. And in all these cases it is God the Creator who maketh one to differ from another, and “none can stay His hand.” So also is it in the spiritual realm. One is born in a pious home and is brought up in the fear and abomination of the Lord; another is born of criminal parents and is reared in vice. One is the object of many prayers, the other is not prayed for at all. One hears the Gospel from early childhood, another never hears it. One sits under a Scriptural ministry, another hears nothing but error and heresy. Of those who do hear the Gospel, one has his heart opened by the Lord to receive the truth, while another is left to himself. One is “ordained to eternal life” (Acts 13:48), while another is “ordained to condemnation (Jude 4). To whom He will God shows mercy, and whom he wills He “hardens” (Romans 9:18).

Copied from: A. W. Pink, The Godhead Of God
Click to expand...

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
July 8, 2005

Bob Krajcik · Jul 9, 2005

"Yet we hold the doctrines commonly called "Calvinism" to be none other than the essential basement doctrines of our holy faith." (Copied from, C. H. Spurgeon, MTP Vol 47, Salvation By Grace, No. 2741, Summer 1859)
Click to expand...

Consider these words from A. W. Pink:

Now the Gospel of God’s grace is epitomized in Ephesians 2:8-9,

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”

All genuine reforms or revivals in the churches of God must have as their basis a plain declaration of this doctrine. The tendency of Christians is like that of the world, to shy away from this truth which is the very sum and substance of the Gospel. Those with any acquaintance with Church history know how sadly true this is. Within fifty years of the death of the last of the apostles, so far as we can now learn, the Gospel of God’s grace almost ceased to be preached. Instead of evangelizing, the preachers of the second and third centuries gave themselves to philosophizing. Metaphysics took the place of the simplicity of the Gospel.

Then, in the fourth century, God mercifully raised up a man, Augustine, who faithfully and fearlessly proclaimed the Gospel. So mightily did God empower both his voice and pen that more than half of Christendom was shaken by him. Through his instrumentality came an heaven-sent revival. His influence for good staved off the great Romish heresy for another century. Had the churches heeded his teaching, popery would never have been born. But, they turned back to vain philosophy and science, falsely so called. Then came the Dark Ages, when for centuries the Gospel ceased to be generally preached. Here and there feeble voices were raised, but most of them were soon silenced by the Italian priests. It was not until the fifteenth century that the great Reformation came. God raised up Martin Luther, who taught in no uncertain terms that sinners are justified by faith, and not by works.

After Luther came a still more distinguished teacher, John Calvin. He was much more deeply taught in the truth of the Gospel, and pushed its central doctrine of grace to its logical conclusions. As Charles Spurgeon said, “Luther had, as it were, undamned the stream of truth, by breaking down the barriers which had kept back its living waters as in a great reservoir. But the stream was turbid and carried down with it much which ought to have been left behind. Then Calvin came, and cast salt into the waters, and purged them, so that there flowed on a purer stream to gladden and refresh souls and quench the thirst of poor lost sinners.”

The great center of all Calvin’s preaching was the grace of God. It has been the custom ever since to designate as “Calvinists” those who emphasize what he emphasized. We do not accept that title without qualification, but we certainly are not ashamed of it. The truth Calvin thundered forth was identical with the truth Paul had preached and set down in writing centuries before. This was also the substance of Whitefield’s preaching, which God honored so extensively as to produce the great revival in his day.

Copied from: A. W. Pink, Gleanings In The Godhead
Click to expand...

§

By Grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio

David Ekstrom · Jul 9, 2005

Thank you for this thread. While we debate passionately, we sometimes get caught up in our emotions and we fall into bitterness. Let me say here and now, for my own benefit, that I honor all my Arminian brothers and sisters who hold the faith. They do not deny Calvinism because they hate God. They fear that Calvinism makes God the author of man's sin and that Calvinism asserts that God takes pleasure in destroying people whom He created for the purpose. In order to stop such blasphemy, they renounce Calvinism. I affirm their love for God and their desire that God be honored.
Thanks for the Spurgeon quotes. They were excellent, except that in the last one he uses the word "heresy" to describe Arminianism. Note, however, that he begins by conceding that many "good men" preach Arminianism.

David Ekstrom · Jul 9, 2005

Harold O.J. Brown has an excellent book on heresy. He points out that the early church had a "nascent" orthodoxy, that is, an orthodoxy that was assumed, albeit not really written down on paper. Then heresy arises and the Church is forced to put statements on paper that assert the Church's position vis-a-vis the heretics. Thus, an explicit orthodoxy is always stated in terms of heresy.
Bob points out that in our discussions of the "essentials of the faith," God's nature was not stated among them. That's because, prior to the present day, it wasn't an issue. Because of the heresy of Open Theism, it's time for us to define orthodoxy in terms of God's nature. We must assert, along with the orthodox of all ages, that God transcends this universe as its Creator. He is not of this world and is not subject to time. He is infinite.
I would urge my good Arminian brothers and sisters not to fall into the heresy of Open Theism, also called Free Will Theism.

David Ekstrom · Jul 9, 2005

I didn't care for Pink's quote. He says that the regenerate submit to God's word. This of course is true. They submit to God's word as best as they understand it. Good Arminians are convinced that God's word teaches Arminianism. I think they're mistaken but we've got to remember that we're all in process. When I get to heaven and Paul sits me down and straightens me out on my many errors in theology, I will realize just how great grace is. I am saved, not because I get it all right. It's not the final judgment is a final exam. And wouldn't it be a hoot if Paul says to me, "David, you blockhead! The Arminians were right but you were too stubborn to learn from them!"

rc · Jul 9, 2005

I would urge my good Arminian brothers and sisters not to fall into the heresy of Open Theism
Click to expand...

Why not? Open theism is the only proper and intellectually honest end result of a philosophical debate between Arminianism and the Soverignty of God.

OldRegular · Jul 9, 2005

I would not urge anyone to fall into error much less heresy, even if it did make the debate more intellectually honest.

However, it is worth noting that error unchecked will inevitably lead to heresy. I believe Brown's book shows this . If my memory is correct Brown's book also shows that much of the early debate in the early church over supposed heresy was the result of misunderstanding the differences in language.

Furthermore, it is also worth noting that in his early days Pink was captive to the error of dispensationalism. Please note I said error, not heresy.

Wes Outwest · Jul 9, 2005

Better to have 'Open Theism' than captivity to misunderstanding and closed doors that Calvinism spawns.

It is better to be open to all that God offers to man, than to close off God's wonderful words of life to those who "are not elect" according to Calvinism!

It is better that God's word be preached to every creature, in every tongue and nations for all to hear, than to keep it isolated to "the elect".

It is better that Man not limit God by man's interpretation of God's word, than to so limit God to the constraints of Calvinist doctrine.

It is better to take the thoughts formed by the literal words in the bible than for man to take each word in the bible literally the way Calvinism teaches.

Any debate that opens man's eyes to the truth of the Christian religion is worthy debate. Calvinism most often loses in such debate.

Bob Krajcik · Jul 9, 2005

Originally posted by rc:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I would urge my good Arminian brothers and sisters not to fall into the heresy of Open Theism
Click to expand...

Why not? Open theism is the only proper and intellectually honest end result of a philosophical debate between Arminianism and the Soverignty of God. [/QUOTE]Agreed

Bob Krajcik · Jul 9, 2005

Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
Thank you for this thread. While we debate passionately, we sometimes get caught up in our emotions and we fall into bitterness. Let me say here and now, for my own benefit, that I honor all my Arminian brothers and sisters who hold the faith. They do not deny Calvinism because they hate God. They fear that Calvinism makes God the author of man's sin and that Calvinism asserts that God takes pleasure in destroying people whom He created for the purpose. In order to stop such blasphemy, they renounce Calvinism. I affirm their love for God and their desire that God be honored.
Thanks for the Spurgeon quotes. They were excellent, except that in the last one he uses the word "heresy" to describe Arminianism. Note, however, that he begins by conceding that many "good men" preach Arminianism.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the comments. I do not agree with you, because I do not value their rejecting an error of their own creation as sufficient reason for rejecting what is taught in Scripture regarding election, regeneration, faith, atonement, etc. Embracing one error does not excuse holding another. These are doctrines that divide. It almost seems you are giving the Arminian credit for having been saved and being sincere. Let the Scriptures be shown as the basis for doctrine. As for Spurgeon’s remark, while it is divisive, as far as any teaching deviates from the teaching of the Bible, and so the doctrine the church is to teach, it is heresy. The Bible is the standard, and not popular opinion. Certainly an Arminian can be saved, for ignorance is no hindrance to salvation, but the sincerity that holds error is not to be commended. Man is not to be lifted up and God put to the rear with preaching. Jesus is not rightly preached when His own essential attributes are not being presented. Let the Scriptures show these things.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
July 9, 2005

rc · Jul 9, 2005

ignorance is no hindrance to salvation, but the sincerity that holds error is not to be commended.
Click to expand...

Preach it brother !

dianetavegia · Jul 9, 2005

Certainly a Calvinist can be saved, for ignorance is no hindrance to salvation...

[ July 09, 2005, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

whatever · Jul 9, 2005

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Certainly a Calvinist can be saved, for ignorance is no hindrance to salvation...
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]Who are you quoting?

dianetavegia · Jul 9, 2005

Should have been bolded not quoted. Wrong button.

Turnabout is fair play.
How NICE of the Calvinists to allow us to possibly be saved, even tho they consider us to be ignorant.

whatever · Jul 9, 2005

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Should have been bolded not quoted. Wrong button.

Turnabout is fair play.
How NICE of the Calvinists to allow us to possibly be saved, even tho they consider us to be ignorant.
Click to expand...

Oh - no wonder I couldn't find it.

By the way, "the Calvinists" did not post that. One Calvinist did. I disagree with the way he said it, but I thought maybe he was responding to something else that I could not find. If that is not the case then he should have said it differently. But we are all ignorant in a sense, so I wouldn't worry that much about it.

"For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God."

Bob Krajcik · Jul 9, 2005

That word ignorant is a Bible word. Ignorance - ignorant is used various ways many times in my Bible.

Be careful how you sooth the ones offended at the word ignorant. You might want to check, the Arminians might also be offended at the use of a verse that refers to the chosen. The Bible is an offensive Book for some.

1 Corinthians 1:27 (KJV) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio

Heresy?: Calvinism or Arminianism

Bob Krajcik New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

David Ekstrom New Member

David Ekstrom New Member

David Ekstrom New Member

rc New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Wes Outwest New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

rc New Member

dianetavegia Guest

whatever New Member

dianetavegia Guest

whatever New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Useful Searches

Heresy?: Calvinism or Arminianism

Bob Krajcik New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

David Ekstrom New Member

David Ekstrom New Member

David Ekstrom New Member

rc New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Wes Outwest New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member

rc New Member

dianetavegia Guest

whatever New Member

dianetavegia Guest

whatever New Member

Bob Krajcik New Member