Historic VS Contemporary Arminianism

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

.certainly, the moron who wrote the articles referenced in this thread cannot distinguish between Arminianism or Pelagianism...so why bother??

[/QUOTE]


Looks like he thinks he can here:

In other words, Arminianism was a form of Pelagianism that was not as extreme as Pelagianism, but more subtly destructive. Pelagianism denied the fall of Adam as affecting men in any way. Arminianism did not go to that extreme, but did say men were not completely dead in sin. In both views, though, men work for their salvation by coming, of their own accord, to Christ, on their own strength, and they “decide” to follow Jesus. Grace is good, and grace is helpful, but it is man that actually makes the difference. The reader may be directed to Arminius’ work published by Baker Book House in a three volume set which will demonstrate and convey the sense of all that this short article represents on his theology and thoughts about “god.”

Then he says this:
Arminius, after serving as minister for some time, was called to the University of Amsterdam to teach as a professor of theology on the condition that he would adhere to the Belgic Confession (a Reformed confession that upheld biblical ideas surrounding salvation, God, His decrees, the nature of Christ, and other important topics). Arminius pledged loyalty to the Confession when entering the professorship. However, though Arminius gave allegiance to the confession, he really did not believe it. He was a scandalous, double-minded, shadowy and insincere individual.


Again he makes a clear statement right here about todays arminians-

What does Arminianism teach? Is the “god” of Arminianism the God of the Bible? No. Arminius did not plagiarize the bible; instead, he fabricated a brand new deity, or idol, for men to worship. The “god” of Arminianism is not the God of the Bible.
1] For Arminius’ “god” loves everyone equally,

2]and sent his “Son” to die for all men equally.

3]This “god” did not decree the salvation of anyone in particular,

4] and “the christ” of Arminianism did not die for anyone in particular.

5]Instead Arminius’ “god” decreed and his “christ” died for making a “way” of salvation.

Hos....are you telling me ,you have not seen these very things posted right here on the BB????

I have seen all these things posted here. You might not agree with MM...but do not say he is not putting it clearly.You cannot expect he is going to put the contents of 3 volumes into what he speaks of as a brief article.

After appealing to the 1644 wcf to briefly outline truth. he says this;

1]The “god” of Arminianism is impotent and unable to save anyone.

2]Instead, the “god” of Arminianism “hopes” that some will come to Him,

3]and “hopes” that some will be saved through His Son.

4]In this way, Arminianism teaches that it is theologically and hypothetically possible that no one would come, and no one would be saved.

5]Here, Arminius’ “god” relies on man to come to Him, and find salvation.

Again...you do not like what he offers, but it is so if followed through.

Here is more of what you say he does not know;

Arminius also taught that his “god” can be frustrated by the will of man because men choose their own destiny and that “god” allows them to do what they want to do without interfering. Not only is this “god” later to be deemed the “god of deism”, but it demonstrates that Arminius’ “god” plans salvation in a way that may not be effectuated. This “god” has offered salvation, but cannot actually bring about the happiness of the creature since man is autonomous and has, as Arminius taught, “a free will.” This means that man’s neutrality (denying total depravity) in “willing anything” is based on a choice that is never inclined toward good or evil. Arminius though is very wrong not only about how salvation works, but the nature of man as well. This “neutrality” is actually a smokescreen. Not only is everyone born under the fall of Adam totally depraved and sinful, but their wills are never neutral. Men only have sinful inclinations (Gen. 6:5). They are not neutral in any choice they ever make. Neutrality would mean they have an aversion to good or evil, but the Bible teaches men are inherently evil as a result of Adam’s fall and disobedience. Romans 5:12 emphatically states, “…just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…” Arminius taught that there was an island of righteousness in every man which was unaffected by the fall and thus able to do “good.” Grace, then, is a help, but as Pelagius also taught, not completely necessary since “god” has given all men “prevenient grace that aids them” in making a good decision to follow this “god” who does not interfere with their choice. The “god” of Arminius “offers salvation” to every sinner, and “he” does everything “he” can to aid them in “finding” salvation, but “he” will never convert them unless they desire to be converted. Thus, Arminius’ “god” is the ever-frustrated “god” that “hopes” men will come to “him” and heed “his” aid. It is easy to see that “his” offer of salvation and all the work “he” does in helping men with prevenient grace are frustrated at every turn since many people, in fact most people, refuse “his help”.

The Bible paints a very different picture of God in His work to save men.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Regarding this that was posted...

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.

What complete, comical, disasterous nonsense. May Almighty God grant true enlightement to these dear ones.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

OK ICON you begged for it: Now, for three seconds...stop "correcting" people and learn something you did not know: You wanna hear where your boy McMahon is wrong? Here goes:

Pelagianism denied the fall of Adam as affecting men in any way. Arminianism did not go to that extreme, but did say men were not completely dead in sin.

That is false...Arminians simply do not believe that...it is a lie. NO Arminian has affirmed this statement. McMahon is wrong, and if you believe it, so are you.

Arminius pledged loyalty to the Confession when entering the professorship. However, though Arminius gave allegiance to the confession, he really did not believe it. He was a scandalous, double-minded, shadowy and insincere individual

.
This is a scandalous accusation of brethren ICON....your boy McMahon will NOT demonstrate this as true...he will merely assert this devilish accusation without warrant. You believe his false accusation with no proof: NONE.
He falsely accusses a brother, and you chuckle in glee as a man is falsely destroyed, with ZERO proof...this makes me sick. McMahon provides NO evidence for such horrendous accusation, and yet you warm yourself to it...

VOMITOUS!!! I SPIT on this GARBAGE!

Here's a gem from you:

Hos....are you telling me ,you have not seen these very things posted right here on the BB????

NO...of course not...but I'm NOT so stupid as to call all such things "Arminianism"......such things have possibly been stated by people who DENY the label "Arminian"....DUH!!! Apparently...both you and McMahon are equally incapable of distinguishing between those terms..That's why I said his article was "stupid"...and I continue to, but let's continue with McMahon's falsehood shall we?

Arminius also taught that his “god” can be frustrated by the will of man because men choose their own destiny and that “god” allows them to do what they want to do without interfering.

This, again, is simply false....McMahon has NO idea what he is talking about...Arminius did NOT believe this, nor do educated confessional Arminians now. This is an example of why I do not take McMahon seriously...similarly, I do not take you seriously...if you actually think this drivel is true. It isn't. It's stupid. You believe ignorance and stupidity if you believe this....you are in no position to "correct" anyone....Neither is your boy McMahon. But here is more stupidity from him:

Arminius taught that there was an island of righteousness in every man which was unaffected by the fall and thus able to do “good.” Grace, then, is a help, but as Pelagius also taught, not completely necessary since “god” has given all men “prevenient grace that aids them” in making a good decision to follow this “god” who does not interfere with their choice.

His first sentence is patently false...Arminius taught ABSOLUTELY no such thing...nor do confessional Arminians believe such..Arminius could NOT be MORE clear about his affirmation that sinful man was incapable of "good" without the supernatural intervention of God's grace...If you think so, then you are as full of falsehoods as McMahon is....then again...neither did Pelagius himself teach such things...All men "sin" of their own wicked will....man may ONLY do anything "good" by God's grace. It may be "Prevenient" or whatever else, but no man does good of his own accord, neither Arminius believed it, nor actually Pelagius. The only arguable difference is perhaps Arminian views about the fall. Arminius believed it was absolutely total...Pelagius...not perhaps as much (he didn't care much about it honestly...he was just sick of people making excuses for sinning if you understood the man). You don't of course, because neither YOU nor McMahon have actually read a word FROM him.....I HAVE. He was a man simply sick of people making excuses for sinning...and the whole idea that they were incurably pre-disposed to it (that's Calvinism) made for a convenient excuse which Augustine was happy to accomodate...but Pelagius (who lived impeccably) HATED that excuse...perhaps he erred some about the totality of the fall, but Augustine wanted excuses for sin, and Pelagius HATED them....That's the REAL difference between the two men: Augustine preached a "feel-good" gospel that it wasn't "your will" when you sinned (and the people took note of it)...Pelagius (whose life was impeccable) gave people NO SUCH EXCUSES!

Thus, Arminius’ “god” is the ever-frustrated “god” that “hopes” men will come to “him” and heed “his” aid. It is easy to see that “his” offer of salvation and all the work “he” does in helping men with prevenient grace are frustrated at every turn since many people, in fact most people, refuse “his help”.

More rank ignorance and stupidity by McMahon, and I must assume, you, Arminians don't believe that God "hopes" men will come to him...he "KNOWS" men will. He is OMNISCIENT in Arminianism remember? Or did you not ever even know.... You probably didn't, obviously, your boy McMahon didn't either...or he is intentionally lying...I am not sure which in his case.

So.........I called the article "stupid"...and it is not "childish" to do so ICON...now... I await your "correction" oh, wise one.
Do explain to us Clearly...how much you and Mcmahon understand about what Arminians believe...Please "correct" us...because, as far as I know, neither you nor he know a whit about Arminianism...he may be merely stupid, or he may be a liar....YOU.......I do not call a liar.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Regarding this that was posted...




What complete, comical, disasterous nonsense. May Almighty God grant true enlightement to these dear ones.

Yes...this article is comically stupid...comically. I doubt any educated Calvinist would take it seriously, Icon would....but, ya know, so it goes

 

[Alive in Christ]

Gosh Iconoclast, this might be a new low for you.

Whew.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Regarding this that was posted...




What complete, comical, disasterous nonsense. May Almighty God grant true enlightement to these dear ones.

I believe he has...of course you cant see the forest for the trees.

 

[Yeshua1]

NO...it wouldn't...in "Arminianism" it is not even POSSIBLE to "keep the law" except for God's grace...you know the "depravity thing???"?" whether it be saving grace or no, it is all of God....But, no-one on this board understands actual Arminian Theology one whit...so why bother...certainly, the moron who wrote the articles referenced in this thread cannot distinguish between Arminianism or Pelagianism...so why bother??

Do many here know that classical Arminianism actually would hold to us being sinners spiritual dead in ourselves, that unless God chose to grant to any of us his grace and enabling us to chose, none of us would be even able to get saved?

 

[Yeshua1]

Gosh Iconoclast, this might be a new low for you.

Whew.

Would you agree that calvinism has death of Jesus a definite payment/atonement for sinners, while Arminianism would have it as provoding a way to save thsoe who chose to accept it, so not Substitution view, more a moral influence one?

 

[Don]

Would you agree that calvinism has death of Jesus a definite payment/atonement for sinners, while Arminianism would have it as provoding a way to save thsoe who chose to accept it, so not Substitution view, more a moral influence one?

Incorrect. Not a "way"; just as calvinists believe, it is substitutionary. To say otherwise is to deny scripture: "all our righteousness are as filthy rags"

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Incorrect. Not a "way"; just as calvinists believe, it is substitutionary. To say otherwise is to deny scripture: "all our righteousness are as filthy rags"

All right then Don (assuming your a spokesman for arminism), then answer me this...." what did God the Father actually intend to do in sending his son to die for us?"

 

[Alive in Christ]

Yesua1, you asked me....

Would you agree that calvinism has death of Jesus a definite payment/atonement for sinners, while Arminianism would have it as provoding a way to save thsoe who chose to accept it, so not Substitution view, more a moral influence one?

Salvation is completly of God. He owes us NOTHING,as He is 100% morally perfect, and we are 100% depraved.

But in His great love he offers salvation to mankind. Every human being who has ever lived has oportunity, as all recieve Light that can be heeded or rejected. Faith, and faith alone is the only condition. And of course, it goes without saying that placing ones faith in Christ is a NON-WORK.

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith, and that not of your self, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

God bless

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You just described the classic 'synergism'.

Fatal to any sound doctrine of salvation because it increases the place of the human being (Totally God's created creature) and thus diminishes the glory of God in salvation)

Very much like Roman Catholicism, which insists that the will of man is the decisive factor for salvation.

 

[Alive in Christ]

EWF..

You didnt adress your post to anyone.

Are you replying to my post or someome elses?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You just described the classic 'synergism'.

Fatal to any sound doctrine of salvation because it increases the place of the human being (Totally God's created creature) and thus diminishes the glory of God in salvation)

Very much like Roman Catholicism, which insists that the will of man is the decisive factor for salvation.

And you just mischaracterized all those who do not hold to Calvinist determinism.

 

[Yeshua1]

And you just mischaracterized all those who do not hold to Calvinist determinism.

No he did not, for its bottom line either the will of God being exercised saves us, or its our own will!

 

[Don]

All right then Don (assuming your a spokesman for arminism), then answer me this...." what did God the Father actually intend to do in sending his son to die for us?"

I don't claim to be a "spokesman" for arminianism; and I certainly don't ascribe to the modern form of arminianism/pelagianism promoted by the Methodists and such. If anything, and I've posted this before, the following conversation between a calvinist and an arminian characterizes my arminian viewpoint:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And you just mischaracterized all those who do not hold to Calvinist determinism.

Explain how so

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EWF..

You didnt adress your post to anyone.

Are you replying to my post or someome elses?

Sorry...yes yours

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Explain how so

I'll respond to you and hope yeshua reads it.

I don't know of any Christian or group of Christians who believe that we are saved by our will.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't claim to be a "spokesman" for arminianism; and I certainly don't ascribe to the modern form of arminianism/pelagianism promoted by the Methodists and such. If anything, and I've posted this before, the following conversation between a calvinist and an arminian characterizes my arminian viewpoint:

OK -- so tell me Don, does every sinner retain the ability to choose for or against God, either by cooperating with God's Spirit unto salvation or resisting God's grace unto damnation?