The Humanism of Arminianism

[gristmill]

Check out this article:

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Oscar%20Mink/humanism_of_arminianism.htm

What do you think?

 

[npetreley]

I still like the way Pink expresses it better. From the Foreward to his work, the Sovereignty of God (emphasis mine, and the second section emphasize might just as well be posted in the Rick Warren threads):

It would be foolish for us to expect that this work will meet with general approval. The trend of modern theology—if theology it can be called—is ever toward the deification of the creature rather than the glorification of the Creator, and the leaven of present-day Rationalism is rapidly permeating the whole of Christendom.

In addition to the widespread effects of unscriptural teaching, we also have to reckon with the deplorable superficiality of the present generation. To announce that a certain book is a treatise on doctrine is quite sufficient to prejudice against it the great bulk of church-members and most of our preachers as well. The craving today is for something light and spicy, and few have patience, still less desire, to examine carefully that which would make a demand both upon their hearts and their mental powers.

From the first chapter:

How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of a maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence.[1] To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellow-men are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity: is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being.

To declare that the Creator’s original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the hounds assigned by his Creator, and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam’s fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain" (Ps. 76:10). In a word, to deny the sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.

For the whole thing, follow this link:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm


​

 

[Dale-c]

I bought the audio version of Pink's book. It is an excellent book.

I would highly recommend it.

 

[Rippon]

A Korean pastor friend borrowed my unabridged Baker version of Pink's book . He translated it and it has been distributed somewhat . The Banner of Truth version translated into Korean has had more sales . The same situation persists with Pink's English editions .

I think if more people read Pink and Robert Haldane on Romans -- checking Scripture throughout , they would be blessed .

 

[J.D.]

Pink has a way with words. He's got a saying I've seen somewhere that I'm going to use for my signature block someday. I alludes to the duty of the preacher to crush man's pride and exalt the God of Heaven.

Good web site by the way, I'm adding it to my favorites. I love the writing of that guy Oliphant also.

 

[Dale-c]

I alludes to the duty of the preacher to crush man's pride and exalt the God of Heaven.

Yes, that it does but at the same time, it can also be quite a blessing knowing that we are in God's hands and that in His sovereignty, nothing can harm us..unless of course you are still holding on to your own goodness...then I suppose a person like that wouldn't feel very blessed.

 

[J.D.]

"Crush" is a harsher word than Pink used - I just can't think of the right one right now.

 

[Pipedude]

Mink gets mixed up in his definitions of humanism. He starts with classical humanism and quickly morphs over to secular humanism, all the better to tar the Arminians.

But he cannot present the Arminian position accurately. What he presents is what he wishes the Arminians believed, since they don't believe what he does.

"Humanism and Arminianism have a singular goal, and that is to dethrone God, and enthrone man."

Oh, do we now?

"Arminianism and Humanism contend that man is an autonomous entity, and that God’s decrees may be negated by the vaunted will of man."

Oh, do we now?

And here's my favorite: "Arminianism is nothing more than Humanism with a religious veneer, the combination of which is the ultimate subterfuge of the devil. Both systems are an eternal offense unto God, and it would be far better to have never been born, than to live and die trusting these God scandalizing errors for salvation from sin."

Ya hear that, ye predestinarians? He says that it would be better to have never been born than to trust Arminianism for salvation from sin. Now, I cannot swear that he was talking about someone who actually exists outside his imagination, but it sure sounds like he's talking about regular old Arminians who think that God loves the reprobate, Christ died for them, and that the Spirit enables all to accept the gospel. He says that it's better that we had never been born. In other words, we're going to Hell. :laugh:

Precious. Simply precious.

 

[J.D.]

Yeh, I agree that Mink overshoots his target, and there might be a lot of heat instead of light there. But I think the basic premise could be correct - that a major component of arminianism is humanism, even though arminians are blind to it.

 

[Dale-c]

that a major component of arminianism is humanism, even though arminians are blind to it.

That Armenians are blind to it is quite evident.

Of course there are many that claim neither to be Armenian or Calvinist but speaking generally, they are helpful categories.

 

[2BHizown]

Of course there are many that claim neither to be Armenian or Calvinist but speaking generally, they are helpful categories

Yes, that's true, as many say they object to labels but still that doesnt keep them from fitting into a category; they just prefer to ignore it. They may feel more 'saintly' saying they are niether 'arminian' or 'calvinist' but most fit on one side or the other of that fence, dont you think?

 

[webdog]

Yes, that's true, as many say they object to labels but still that doesnt keep them from fitting into a category; they just prefer to ignore it. They may feel more 'saintly' saying they are niether 'arminian' or 'calvinist' but most fit on one side or the other of that fence, dont you think?

No. I would consider catholicism to be arminian, and I'm not catholic. Whether you like it or not, there are more than just the "two categories".

 

[Dale-c]

No. I would consider catholicism to be arminian, and I'm not catholic. Whether you like it or not, there are more than just the "two categories"

I see two very general categories.
Call them what you want, but there is the category that sayd God chooses who will be saved and there is the category that says man chooses. Whithin those two, there are MANY differences. BUt that is the general way it is.

 

[webdog]

I see two very general categories.
Call them what you want, but there is the category that sayd God chooses who will be saved and there is the category that says man chooses. Whithin those two, there are MANY differences. BUt that is the general way it is.

You are correct. I believe God chooses man for salvation...once man responds to God's command of faith in Christ, not before. I don't believe man just sits back one day and says "You know what, when I die, I think I'll go to Heaven instead of Hell".

 

[npetreley]

You are correct. I believe God chooses man for salvation...once man responds to God's command of faith in Christ, not before.

And I believe that I choose the students who will be in my piano class. Once they have enrolled for the class. Not before.

Right.