Historic VS Contemporary Arminianism

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I pulled this out of a more detailed commentary by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @ Puratan's Mind. He states:

"Today’s Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological “soup”. Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians"

What do you think...is this true?

 

[Winman]

I pulled this out of a more detailed commentary by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @ Puratan's Mind. He states:

"Today’s Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological “soup”. Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians"

What do you think...is this true?

I believe this is true, this is why I have always personally said I was not an Arminian, because I differ in several points.

That said, I am much closer to Arminianism than Calvinism, except in one point, I believe in eternal security. But I believe in Preservation of the Saints, not Perseverance. There is a big difference between the two. But most Arminians believe you can lose your salvation, I do not agree with that.

Most Arminians believe in Original Sin, I do not.

 

[Winman]

You sure you did not get that quote from this article?

http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/

Your quote is shown word for word here;

The system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heresy. It is an offshoot from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It has been adversely affecting the church and its doctrine for over 250 years. Men like Finney and Wesley, being the charismatic personalities they were, propagated the doctrine and resurrected the Pelagian error from the pit of hell once again to persecute the church of Christ. Today’s Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological “soup”. Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians. If we were to live in the days of old, when the caliber of theology for Arminianism reached its zenith in its contentions with the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, we would find men very much deceived and propagating doctrines of a different nature than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Nice article, this fellow pretty much condemns Arminian leaning believers. :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

This is a very good article,and it would be better if those today would make a biblical attempt to strain out the good parts of the soup!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You sure you did not get that quote from this article?

http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/

Your quote is shown word for word here;



Nice article, this fellow pretty much condemns Arminian leaning believers. :laugh:

Thats it....tried not to be inflammatory. Those are not my comments however I know so little about this subject matter.

And yes McMahon certainly has his viewpoints....what your seeing is one view from a point. I'm interested in hearing other prospectives.

 

[Bronconagurski]

I pulled this out of a more detailed commentary by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @ Puratan's Mind. He states:

"Today’s Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological “soup”. Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians"

What do you think...is this true?

I would love to know if he got more specific and identified some of the differences.

 

[Winman]

Thats it....tried not to be inflammatory. Those are not my comments however I know so little about this subject matter.

And yes McMahon certainly has his viewpoints....what your seeing is one view from a point. I'm interested in hearing other prospectives.

Doesn't bother me at all. If someone questions your salvation and it gets you upset, you better re-check what you believe. :thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

I pulled this out of a more detailed commentary by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @ Puratan's Mind. He states:

"Today’s Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological “soup”. Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians"

What do you think...is this true?

Actually, "Historical Arminianism" much closer to being bilical truth than much of current arm theology!

Historically, held to man being born sinners, spiritual dead, unable to come to Jesus unless God provided grace to enable them to do such...

My big problems with their viewpoints is that it tends to exault man free will as being equal to Will of God, that we co assist Him to save us, that God provided atonement for all sinners in the Cross, and that many seem todeny penal substitution atonement view, as that lends to a definite/limited view of atonement!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would love to know if he got more specific and identified some of the differences.

Did you read the full article.... Winman put up the hyperlink several posts ago.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Did you read the full article.... Winman put up the hyperlink several posts ago.

No, missed that, thanks. I should add that link only gets you to an article that contains another link on the article by McMahon.

 

[drfuss]

I pulled this out of a more detailed commentary by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @ Puratan's Mind. He states:

"Today’s Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological “soup”. Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians"

What do you think...is this true?

It sounds like McMahon knows little about Arminian beliefs. There are many around who pick a person that they classify as an Arminian, and then broad brush most others with whom they disagree as being an Arminian type belief. There are many beliefs out there that the real Classic and Wesleyan Arminians disagree with, but are considered as Arminian by people like McMahon.

For instance, Classic Arminians believe a Christian can forfeit (but not lose) their salvation. It wasn't until John Wesley came along that the Wesleyan Arminian belief that a Christian could lose their salvation became established; and that is based on a Christian's long time resistance to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and refusing to repent of known sins; it has nothing to do with works or committing sins.

 

[preachinjesus]

I pulled this out of a more detailed commentary by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @ Puratan's Mind. He states:

"Today’s Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical. However, contemporary Arminianism is often confusing; it melds together a number of different theological ideas to come up with a theological “soup”. Some things contemporary Arminians believe are radically different than historic Arminians"

What do you think...is this true?

Oh wow...gee wiz I'm surprised...someone with a doctorate from an unaccredited near diploma mill has a poor understanding of a historically tenable belief system.

Color me surprised.

Historic Arminianism isn't heretical. Just like with hyper-Calvinism, some aspects of Arminianism, when taken to extreme places, can be highly problematic. But it isn't heretical. It doesn't differ that much from contemporary Arminianism that much, but contemporary Reformed thought varies from its original explications in several aspects too.

 

[Yeshua1]

It sounds like McMahon knows little about Arminian beliefs. There are many around who pick a person that they classify as an Arminian, and then broad brush most others with whom they disagree as being an Arminian type belief. There are many beliefs out there that the real Classic and Wesleyan Arminians disagree with, but are considered as Arminian by people like McMahon.

For instance, Classic Arminians believe a Christian can forfeit (but not lose) their salvation. It wasn't until John Wesley came along that the Wesleyan Arminian belief that a Christian could lose their salvation became established; and that is based on a Christian's long time resistance to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and refusing to repent of known sins; it has nothing to do with works or committing sins.

Think the big problem is NOT with "historical" Arm theology, but with what passes today for such...

This concept of Man being only hurt by the fall of Adam, not killed by it, and that somehow we still ahave enough "free will" abiding to make the decision for jesus apart from the workings and grace of God!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh wow...gee wiz I'm surprised...someone with a doctorate from an unaccredited near diploma mill has a poor understanding of a historically tenable belief system.

Color me surprised.

Historic Arminianism isn't heretical. Just like with hyper-Calvinism, some aspects of Arminianism, when taken to extreme places, can be highly problematic. But it isn't heretical. It doesn't differ that much from contemporary Arminianism that much, but contemporary Reformed thought varies from its original explications in several aspects too.

I understand that under the cannons of Dort it was labeled as heretical---of course, thats what McMahon would use as his reference. Is this Whitefield Theological Seminary Lakeland, FL truly unaccredited & are you saying he has no leg to stand on?

 

[12strings]

Think the big problem is NOT with "historical" Arm theology, but with what passes today for such...

So you are saying the exact opposite of the author quoted in the OP? He says historical was heretical, but modern versions are a mixed bag.

Anyway, he doesn't specify the differences.

 

[webdog]

Think the big problem is NOT with "historical" Arm theology, but with what passes today for such...

This concept of Man being only hurt by the fall of Adam, not killed by it, and that somehow we still ahave enough "free will" abiding to make the decision for jesus apart from the workings and grace of God!

You hav erected this same strawman / caricature from day one. Nobody believes your silliness. Please stop already.

 

[drfuss]

Think the big problem is NOT with "historical" Arm theology, but with what passes today for such...

And just what passes today as such and assumed by whom?
Are you suggesting that all Non-Calvinists are Modern Arminians?

IF so, it is no wonder that so many Christians have such wrong ideas as to what Arminians believe. If you mean Non-Calvinists, then say so rather that spreading such false information about what Arminians believe.

This is like Arminians classifying all Non-Arminians as Modern Calvinists, which would then include the RCC, cults, works salvation, committing sin causing loss of salvation, etc.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You hav erected this same strawman / caricature from day one. Nobody believes your silliness. Please stop already.

Web...than give the board the differences so we might know w/o making a caracture. Just so you know ...what you consider Calvinists are a mixed bag...so when you are admonishing Calvinists as a whole, your always going to appear uninformed since not everyone believes or thinks the same way.

 

[Yeshua1]

And just what passes today as such and assumed by whom?
Are you suggesting that all Non-Calvinists are Modern Arminians?

IF so, it is no wonder that so many Christians have such wrong ideas as to what Arminians believe. If you mean Non-Calvinists, then say so rather that spreading such false information about what Arminians believe.

This is like Arminians classifying all Non-Arminians as Modern Calvinists, which would then include the RCC, cults, works salvation, committing sin causing loss of salvation, etc.

What i am saying is that classical Arminianism has at least biblical theolgy in it to a much greater extant than modern non cals and others, for Arms agree with us that we are dead from the fall, God has to enable us to be able to 'freely respond" to jesus in order to get saved by god, while much of modern theology sems to hold to us being merely hurt by the fall, still ahve absolute free will abiding to make that choice apart from God!

 

[Yeshua1]

You hav erected this same strawman / caricature from day one. Nobody believes your silliness. Please stop already.

Do you deny some here deny progonal sin, deny that we were killed spiritually bythe fall, and hold to us still ahving SAME free will as Adam once had, that we are basically innocent at birth, thabn get condemned after knowing/realising we have sinned?