Heresy?: Calvinism or Arminianism

That was not the offense. It was the implication that only Arminians are ignorant that was offensive.

Well, yes, the Bible is offensive. That does not mean that we should be offensive.

 

whatever:

Arminians were the ones being addressed. It would seem strange to refer to any other group, when I was specifically referring to Arminians. As regards others being ignorant, I readily admit there are many things I am ignorant of.

You not liking what I say and you being offended and insulted seems a problem you are trying to fuel. You are offended and insulted perhaps, but ignorance is a problem that is common to all men. Do you think such a thing will go away if it is not mentioned? My words were not intended to be offensive or insulting, but instead, factual. It is not clear to me why you see mention of such a thing to be insulting. Have you any idea at all of how the word ignorance – ignorant is used in the Bible? This is my last word on this problem some have with the word ignorance.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio

 

What fun would that be?

In my opinion, semi-Pelagians (Arminians) are really, really wrong but not heretics. I think most Arminians and Calvinists do not consider the others to be heretics. Maybe that's why we are arguing about other things.

 

Certainly Arminianism is heresy. To explain that, consider the Bible word heresy.

In our day words are often thought of as being without clear meaning. Neutrality and obscurity is the order of things. If words are clear, don’t use them for they might offend. To be correct and inline with much contemporary thought, say things in such a way that all divergent understanding might appear approved.

For example, in place of the word ignorance or heresy, the words “really, really wrong” might be suggested for use. Perhaps “really, really wrong” might be more palatable for those pricked by the truth of words, or ignorant of the meaning of words such as ignorance or heresy. With all the obscurity being hoisted about, the Bible is very clear regarding some things, not obscure at all.

The Bible is not a neutral book. Arminianism either represents divergent opinion from that of the Bible, or it agrees with the Bible. In some cases, the Bible is the basis of proving faith and practice, but in other cases that Book is pushed to the background or explained away so that the popularly accepted faith and practice of some becomes neutral. Having made these introductory remarks, I’ll now deal specifically with the Bible word, heresy.

Heresy may represent a divergent opinion but still be part of a whole. However, when he tears himself away then he is schismatic. Heresy may lead to schism which is when actual tearing off and separation occur. (See The Complete Word Study Dictionary: NT)

NT:139 hairesis; from NT:138; properly, a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion:
KJV - heresy [which is the Greek word itself], sect.
(Strong’s)

139. haíresis; gen.
Hairéseœs, fem. noun from hairéœ (138), to choose, select. Heresy, a form of religious worship, discipline, or opinion (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5,14; 26:5; 28:22; 1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1).
In contrast to schísma (4978), schism which is an actual tearing apart, haíresis
may represent a divergent opinion but still be part of a whole. One can hold different views than the majority and remain in the same body, but he is a heretic (hairetikós
[141]). However, when he tears himself away (schízœ [4977]), then he is schismatic. Heresy may lead to schism which is when actual tearing off and separation occur.
(The Complete Word Study Dictionary: NT)

NT:139 hairesis, haireseoos, hee;
1. (from haireoo), act of taking, capture: tees poleoos, the storming of a city; in secular authors.
2. (from haireomai), choosing, choice, very often in secular writings: Sept., Lev 22:18; 1 Macc. 8:30.
3. that which is chosen, a chosen course of thought and action; hence, one's chosen opinion, tenet; according to the context, an opinion varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith (heresy): 2 Peter 2:1 (compare DeWette at the passage), and in ecclesiastical writings (compare Soph., under the word).
4. a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets (a sect or party): as the Sadducees, Acts 5:17; the Pharisees, Acts 15:5; 26:5; the Christians, Acts 24:5,14 (in both instances with a suggestion of reproach); Acts 28:22 (in Diogenes Laërtius 1 (13) 18 f, others, used of the schools of philosophy).
5. dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims: Gal 5:20; 1 Cor 11:19.
(Compare Meyer, at the passages cited; William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 3 volumes) American edition under the word Sects; Burton, Bampton Lectures for 1829; Campbell, Diss. on the Gospels, diss. iv., part iv.)
(Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

To further defend the notion there is actual difference between the message of Arminianism and the Bible, a study of words such as chosen, election, regeneration, faith, atonement, predestined, etc could be made. Passages dealing with these matters have been presented in many posts made to this forum.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
July 10, 2005

 

You have done here what you are refuting in your post. You have NOT correctly stated the truth.

The bible is not the basis of proving faith and practice, your works and words are the proof of your faith.

The bible is the SOURCE of your faith in God! It is from the contents of the bible that you have formed faith in God. There is nothing in the bible that provides any proof what ever of your own faith in God, you must do that through your own actions and words.

 

Thank you Wes, but I will continue on with the Bible.

Romans 15:4 (KJV) For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

As for the way you wrested a few words of mine from their intended context, you need to stop that. If you would argue against what I say, at least be honest about what I say.

 

If you are not open for criticism you will fall for anything...apparently you already have!

I simply pointed out an obvious error in your thinking! And I repeat, YOU ARE WRONG!

 

If the Bible is not the standard for testing faith and practice, then every man does that which is right in his own eyes.

Proverbs 12:15 (KJV) The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

Proverbs 19:20 (KJV) Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end.

Psalm 119:24 (KJV) Thy testimonies also are my delight and my counsellors.

 

You refer to David's writings for proof?

You would be wise to do as David does, Hear counsel, Receive instruction so you can become wise in the end.

 

I would not call you a heretitic just grossly blind and not skilled in the scriptures. The conclusion that you say we draw is actually a redefining of terms or words to make john calvin'st theology fit.
See you want to tell God how to be sovereign, and you then want to redefine a gift as a a work. Or someone recieving a gift as a work...again that is nothing short of absurd and foolish. Another pt is we give all credit to God, He supplied the son, gave His word to us, His HS and nature itself cries out the glory of God. He has done ALL the work. We did not will Him to or could we, it was of His own will and pleasure. If I could get an honest debate from a calvinist I could see taking the time to help him see why most do not agree with the teachings of John Calvin.

 

Well said Tim!

 

You raise some valid issues. I am looking for honest debate. Let's start with this - we do not tell God how to do anything. He reveals Himself to us. What I would like to know is, how do you define "sovereign"?

 

If God says I want man to choose A or B that is His choice. How dare I come along and say, Whoa God I don't think that makes you look sovereign. Neither side argue that God is in control. HOw God controls thing seems to be a major disagreement in the camps. But I would say God is sovereign peroid. It is his will that will be done regardless of man or anything.

 

So, Tim, it sounds like you are saying that if a man dies lost and goes to hell then that was God's will for him - is that correct?

 

Yep in the sense that He made a way for him to escape (though He did not have too) and that person rejected that salvation.

NOw it was not me that set it up that way God said believe and live or don't and be condemned.

 

Since you posted the same thoughts about ignorance that I had posted, and since you used the same passage of scripture in support of your thoughts that I had used, then you must be as ignorant about ignorance as I am. The only difference that I can see is that you are apparently ignorant of your ignorance about ignorance.

Since we all speak English and we all live in the 21st century then we should probably consider what is meant by 'heresy' today.

If you want to argue that 'heresy' should not mean what it means today then go right ahead, but in fact it does mean what it means, and by this definition Arminians are not heretics.

 

Hmmm - I agree. Interesting.

 

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

-----

But those who will not repent will be punished, even though God would prefer repentance.

God has sovereignly chosen this. Is it God's active will for people not to repent? No. Is it God's active will for people to be punished? No. God clearly desires true repentance (in line with his nature) and life rather than depravity and death. Arminians merely believe that God has sovereignly chosen to allow humanity to either accept or reject his salvation.
---
Personally, I consider both full Calvinists and full Arminians to be in error, but I don't consider these errors to be all that grievous.

Come on . . . heresy? Grave error? How seriously are we taking our theological systems??

People deny the Trinity, advocate adoptionism, and sponsor all kinds of "left-field" belief systems. Do we really want to lump either Calvinists or Arminians in those boats?