The Confusion of Arminianism

Frogman · May 8, 2003

A friend and brother in our Lord forwarded the following messages to me and I thought here would be a good place to air them out to dry as there is to be found from the proof shown, no water in Arminianism, but that it only brings for thistles and briers.

http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius29.htm

http://www.ccel.org/a/arminius/works1/htm/iv.xxiv.htm

The above urls can furnish additional information if you desire.

The message:

Here's a fascinating quote that supports total depravity and the total loss of free will. vs. I believe this to show the error of the hypothesis of hardening and the hypothesis that we are not totally fallen.

Please read it, note the very important fact that the author supports Augustine's view that we can do NOTHING without Christ, which means that depravity is total and not partial. And then note the author at the end. (emphasis and some [notes] mine)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this foul deed, he [Adam] precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is Under The Dominion of Sin. For "to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey," (Rom. vi, 16,) and "of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage," and is his regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet. ii, 19.)

In this state [of total depravity, not hardening], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it [free will] is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.

For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.

The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. For "the animal man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God;" (1 Cor. ii, 14

in which passage man is called "animal," not from the animal body, but from anima, the soul itself, which is the most noble part of man, but which is so encompassed about with the clouds of ignorance, as to be distinguished by the epithets of "vain" and "foolish;" and men themselves, thus darkened in their minds, are denominated "mad" or foolish, "fools," and even "darkness" itself. (Rom. i, 21, 22; Ephes. iv, 17, 18; Tit. iii, 3; Ephes. v, 8.) This is true, not only when, from the truth of the law which has in some measure been inscribed on the mind, it is preparing to form conclusions by the understanding; but likewise when, by simple apprehension, it would receive the truth of the gospel externally offered to it. For the human mind judges that to be "foolishness" which is the most excellent "wisdom" of God. (1 Cor. i, 18, 24.)

[...]

To these let the consideration of the whole of the life of man who is placed under sin, be added, of which the Scriptures exhibit to us the most luminous descriptions; and it will be evident, that nothing can be spoken more truly concerning man in this state, than that he is altogether dead in sin. (Rom. iii, 10-19.) To these let the testimonies of Scripture be joined, in which are described the benefits of Christ, which are conferred by his Spirit on the human mind and will, and thus on the whole man. (1 Cor. vi, 9-11; Gal. v, 19-25; Ephes. ii, 2-7; iv, 17-20; Tit. iii, 3-7.)

-- Jacobus Arminius, ON THE FREE WILL OF MAN AND ITS POWERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since all of the above sounds like it's straight from Calvinism, one may wonder where the difference truly lies. To sum up: Arminius states that there are two calls -- internal and external. The internal call is God's quickening of man (regeneration) which enables him to be saved, but some men resist even this internal call. In short, the Arminian view of free will has more to do with resisting than choosing, since even Arminius admits nobody can "choose" Christ of his own free will without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit.

Here's one of the more fascinating passages, where Arminius says that grace is a necessary prerequisite (he uses the word "preventing" which was understood differently then to mean "prevenient"). Then he goes on to say that free will saves. Now there's a miraculous leap of logic!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Subsequent or following grace does indeed assist the good purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence unless through preceding or preventing [the necessary prerequisite of] grace. And though the desire of man, which is called good, be assisted by grace when it begins to be; yet it does not begin without grace, but is inspired by Him, concerning whom the Apostle writes thus, thanks be to God, who put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. If God incites any one to have 'an earnest care' for others, He will 'put it into the heart' of some other person to have 'an earnest care' for him." Augustinus, Contra. 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 2. c. 9.

"What then, you ask, does free will do? I reply with brevity, it saves. Take away FREE WILL, and nothing will be left to be saved. Take away GRACE, and nothing will be left as the source of salvation. This work [of salvation] cannot be effected without two parties -- one, from whom it may come: the other, to whom or in whom it may be wrought. God is the author of salvation. Free will is only capable of being saved. No one, except God, is able to bestow salvation; and nothing, except free will, is capable of receiving it." Bernardus, De Libero Arbit. et Gratia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Further we can note the following:

Someone objected to the works of Arminius with the following statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith is not the pure gift of God, but depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of Free Will; that, if a man will, he may believe or not believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like what we think of as Arminianism, right? It's not - Arminius denies that this is his doctrine.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said this, I never thought of saying it, and, relying on God’s grace, I never will enunciate my sentiments on matters of this description in a manner thus desperate and confused. I simply affirm, that this enunciation is false, "faith is not the pure gift of God;" that this is likewise false, if taken according to the rigor of the words, "faith depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of free will" and that this is also false when thus enunciated, "If a man will, he can believe or not believe." If they suppose, that I hold some opinions from which these assertions may by good consequence be deduced, why do they not quote my words? It is a species of injustice to attach to any person those consequences, which one may frame out of his words as if they were his sentiments. But the injustice is still more flagrant, if these conclusions cannot by good consequence be deduced from what he has said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naturally, Arminius can't reconcile his views by using scripture, so he drops into simile.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To explain the matter I will employ a simile, which yet, I confess, is very dissimilar; but its dissimilitude is greatly in favour of my sentiments. A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though Arminius has added free will to the equation, he still essentially affirms the interpretation of Ephesians 2:8 that faith is a gift, and not of ourselves.

I have to confess that whoever-Bill said was right about one thing: It's amazing what one can find when one starts reading what Arminius really said. Given that so many "Arminians" claim Ephesians 2:8 does NOT mean Faith is a gift, that total depravity is NOT true, etc., one has to wonder why they call themselves Arminians.
Click to expand...

So, then, we have the author and finisher of confusion, Jacobus Arminius.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

KenH · May 8, 2003

Brother Dallas,

Now you've done it! You are going to upset Brother Bill by quoting outside sources.

Ray Berrian · May 8, 2003

Let me tell you, even though it will not set you on the path to truth, that there is no confusion in Arminianism. The confusion comes when you accept the tenants of absolute philosophical determinism, thanks to Plato, Aristotle and Augustine. At least through time the Roman Catholic church has evolved into a more Biblical/Arminian perspective.

We with Augustine agree with what Jesus said, when He offered these words to us. 'Without Me you can do nothing.' This is what the general call of the Holy Spirit is when it calls to all who are priviledged to hear the Gospel unto salvation. In Revelation 22:17 there is no two layered call to sinners. There is no conditional call or exclusive call as cited by Calvinism's "Effectual Call." This would come to most of us as an unsuspected partiality and bias toward specific people. God cannot violate His own, eternal predisposition toward His own justice toward all people. Is He partial to white people and unresponsive toward orientals or blacks people, or is the Gospel open to every person? [John 3:16]

Ray Berrian · May 8, 2003

Forgive me I did not mean to refer to the Holy Spirit as it. He is Divine and the third Person of the Godhead. My unintentional slip. Sorry.

KenH · May 8, 2003

Oh, and Yelsew also will upset by your quoting of outside sources, Brother Dallas. He thinks that makes you an animal - a parrot.

Frogman · May 8, 2003

Let me tell you, even though it will not set you on the path to truth, that there is no confusion in Arminianism. The confusion comes when you accept the tenants of absolute philosophical determinism, thanks to Plato, Aristotle and Augustine. At least through time the Roman Catholic church has evolved into a more Biblical/Arminian perspective.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but do not believe it has occurred over time, I believe this group started out works based; beginning with Paedobaptism, then conscriptual baptism, then teaching of the necessity to pray to the saints, to mary, to add our works to the already partial account of Christ and his apostles, to pay indulgences, yea, I agree The Roman Catholic Church is definitely Arminian in nature, structure and belief----confusion, confusion, confusion. Oh what confusion---sounds almost like confucionism, but its not, its just plain old confusion, confusion.

Bro. Dallas

Frogman · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by KenH:
Oh, and Yelsew also will upset by your quoting of outside sources, Brother Dallas. He thinks that makes you an animal - a parrot.
Click to expand...

Some body tell him that I am not a parrot...I am a Frog. There is a distinct difference ya know.

Bro. Dallas

romanbear · May 8, 2003

Hi frogman;
I feel so left out because I'm not here to defend Arminianism. Actually I'm here to test the doctrine of Calvinism. Which so Far I have found to be a false doctrine and boring
Romanbear

Frogman · May 8, 2003

Is He partial to white people and unresponsive toward orientals or blacks people, or is the Gospel open to every person? [John 3:16]
Click to expand...

This is underhanded my friend; the Gospel is open to all men, no Calvinist denies this, it is effectual only to the elect, this is God's Sovereign Grace, and the best you can do when Arminius himself displays confusion with the topic is to attempt to draw an imaginary race card. How do you know I am not oriental and black? In fact you show me a pure race and I would wonder why you are searching for such?? Answer to the question to Arminius' confusion and don't try to shift the focus from this to added confusion.

Is this the best you can do?

Bro. Dallas

Frogman · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by romanbear:
Hi frogman;
I feel so left out because I'm not here to defend Arminianism. Actually I'm here to test the doctrine of Calvinism. Which so Far I have found to be a false doctrine and boring
Romanbear
Click to expand...

You only find it false because you do not understand Grace; you only find it boring because it destroys your fallacy of a 'free-will' in man prior to regeneration.

Bro. Dallas

romanbear · May 8, 2003

Hi Frogman;
Since Calvinism and Arminianism came from the Catholics and Armininus studdied in a Calvinist College and Calvin and Augustine were both Catholics doesn't this say something about both Doctrines in that they just weren't happy with what they had and set out to discover God on there own.
Romanbear

romanbear · May 8, 2003

Frogman;
I have respect for you in that you can show respect for others. I didn't mean to be disrespectful, I was only trying to make light of the argument. Read your P.M.'s it'll cheer you up.
Romanbear

William C · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by Frogman:
So, then, we have the author and finisher of confusion, Jacobus Arminius.

Click to expand...

Dallas,

How would you like it if someone did that to your writings on this board? Pick out a passage here and there drawing their own conclusions while leaving out the parts of your writings that explains how you come up with your conclusions.

Its not Arminius who is confusing, its your post that is confusing. I don't agree with everything Arminus ever wrote, after all he was once a Calvinists, but I just read his article and it is much clearer than trying to wade through your cutting a pasting of certain parts while drawing various false conclusions.

I suggest that if anyone wants a clearer picture of Arminius' actual arguments that they read the article in its entirity. (BTW, thanks for at least giving the link to the whole article, most wouldn't have done that)

Frogman · May 8, 2003

"Stupid is as Stupid does Sir"

(Forrest Gump, 1995)

Bro. Bill, I have been called ignorant, unlearned and about what ever else anyone could get away with on this board and others, yet by the Sovereign Grace of God I am able to return here and continue to witness to the truth of that Sovereignty that men love to hate. BTW, I would have posted the link if I thought many here would have read it, yet that would have just taken up space whereby those if favor of Arminian confusion's being promulgated could whine because the post was too long.

I hope all who pass this way do read the link, if you want more I can furnish that as well, but since many are well grounded in the works based religion, there is no need of reading what a 'theologian' such as Arminius wrote, he spoke of common human nature and tried to reconcile that nature to the Divine nature of God. What is inconsistent is the method he employed was to adhere to the doctrine of total depravity, yet winding up making man's will free. Obviously a man who was confused.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

Frogman · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by romanbear:
Frogman;
I have respect for you in that you can show respect for others. I didn't mean to be disrespectful, I was only trying to make light of the argument. Read your P.M.'s it'll cheer you up.
Romanbear
Click to expand...

I understand, forgive me for 'jumpin' on your case. (But that is what Frogs do ) You are right, that PM did cheer me.

I also understand if you guys do not want to 'associate' yourselves with Joseph Arminius (yes, I even understand Bro. Bill ), I can understand this because I have learned that Calvin is not my choice defender of the faith once delivered to the saints either, yet because of my belief in the Sovereignty of God and this is the most widely disputed doctrine, I am made an associate. I can assure you, I am not in line with Calvin and he would have gathered the branches and burned me with Servetus as well. So since neither side claims either of these theologians as its founder, then maybe we should rename this forum the me/you debate?

God Bless you.

Bro. Dallas

Yelsew · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by KenH:
Oh, and Yelsew also will upset by your quoting of outside sources, Brother Dallas. He thinks that makes you an animal - a parrot.
Click to expand...

only when you give that outside source as your personal belief.

Yelsew · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KenH:
Oh, and Yelsew also will upset by your quoting of outside sources, Brother Dallas. He thinks that makes you an animal - a parrot.
Click to expand...

Some body tell him that I am not a parrot...I am a Frog. There is a distinct difference ya know.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]Yes there is a difference, when frogs come down, they bump their butts! Parrots land on their feet.

KenH · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by Yelsew:
only when you give that outside source as your personal belief.
Click to expand...

Well, Yelsew, since it is my style to quote well-written Calvinist advocates you will have to either 1)stop reading my posts, or 2)be continuously aggravated at me.

Frogman · May 8, 2003

ribbit

ScottEmerson · May 8, 2003

Hey, I'll add a serious reply...

As someone who has read Arminius extensively, I would agree with this point completely. I will add thta in your first big quote, the words total depravity are written in - they are not Arminius' words. He would call it more of a "total inability," and with this, I agree. I have maintained on this board since I have been here that unless the Holy Spirit comes and enlightens man as to his condition, he cannot be saved.

The next two quotes that you provided, that are ascribed to Arminius, do not appear to be his works. They seem to be the works of Augustinus and Bernardus. I don't think I've seen Arminius write such things.

And for the record, involving faith as a gift, I think he does a great job at explaining it. It makes sense to me, but then again, it should, as he and I tend to have a similar theological bent and worldview.

I would finish by adding that "true" Arminians would agree with total inability - that all men are unable to choose Christ because of their sin nature, and that the HOly Spirit must provide enlightenment and conviction before a choice can be made. Those who would concur with Arminius would agree with this...

But again, as there is a spectrum of Calvinist beliefs, so there can be found in Arminianism.

The Confusion of Arminianism

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

KenH Well-Known Member

Ray Berrian New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

romanbear New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

romanbear New Member

romanbear New Member

William C New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Yelsew Guest

Yelsew Guest

KenH Well-Known Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

ScottEmerson Active Member

Useful Searches

The Confusion of Arminianism

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

KenH Well-Known Member

Ray Berrian New Member

Ray Berrian New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

romanbear New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

romanbear New Member

romanbear New Member

William C New Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

Yelsew Guest

Yelsew Guest

KenH Well-Known Member

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

ScottEmerson Active Member