What is wrong with Arminianism?

[bjonson]

craig,

I already apologized for posting from this site. I wish I could delete it, but I can't.

I'm sorry for offending and I hope you'll forgive me.

I think Arminianism is heresy and I can defend my position from God's word. However, I don't think Arminians are damned for this error. Perhaps some individuals define heresy differently, I don't know.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I think Arminianism is heresy and I can defend my position from God's word.

What do you mean by Arminianism?

If you are of the opinion that belief in free will is heresy then you worship a systematic theology book.

The Bible is clear that God is sovereign - and a strong case can be made to support "Calvinism".

But the Bible is also clear that humans can choose. 2 different views on the same thing.

Anyone who has such a devotion to a theological position, to the point that he/she would call another believer a "heretic" for not holding that position, has failed to comprehend anything Jesus said.

 

[bjonson]

Dr. Meadows,

Yes, I think the belief that we can be saved by excersing "free will" apart from the electing call of God is heresy because the Bible teaches that our will is in bondage to sin.

Have you read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther? It is a fascinating book and is possibly the best biblical argument against "free will", so called, that I have read. No, Martin Luther isn't inspired, but the book is in the form of a debate he had with a Roman Catholic and they discuss the scriptures...

More later.

 

[bjonson]

Here are a couple of articles that articulate clearly and accurately what Arminianism is and why you can't combine Calvinistic and Arminian systems of belief:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/arminianism.html

http://www.gracefellowshipmh.org/library/CAL_ARM_OPPOSED.pdf

 

[JohnB]

I would ditto what Charles Meadows said.

In addition, I would like to posit that Calvinism, if true, is true only in a hypothetical sense.

Though there are some consistent Calvinists (usually branded hyper-Calvinists) who put their doctrine into action, most professed "Calvinists" live inconsistently with the logical implications of the system.

Inconsistent Calvinists believe that the gospel is truly and genuinely offered to all despite the total inability of the non-elect to act on the offer.

They call for men to believe and repent by a volitional exercise of their will, despite the fact that faith follows regeneration.

They call for men to have assurance of salvation, though no one can know until they stand before the judgment seat whether they are of the elect or not. Even John Calvin believed that God intentionally deludes many of the non-elect to believe that they are elect.

They claim "sola fide" when, in fact, salvation is by election, not by faith. Faith is a result of regeneration, not it's cause.

Some even preach that the gospel is "hard to believe." But again, salvation is neither hard nor easy, it's by election.

Many Calvinists have thriving apologetics ministries, though this seems pointless in the light of total inability. For the unregenerate, apologetics are fruitless,for the regenerate, apologetics are unnecessary.

They believe in the power of prayer, despite the fact that all has been foreordained, that we cannot change the will of God, that we can only change ourselves.

In light of all these contradictions, I rejoice that most "Calvinists" live and preach like non-Calvinists despite their systematic theology.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by bjonson:
craig,

I already apologized for posting from this site. I wish I could delete it, but I can't.

I'm sorry for offending and I hope you'll forgive me.

I think Arminianism is heresy and I can defend my position from God's word. However, I don't think Arminians are damned for this error. Perhaps some individuals define heresy differently, I don't know.

Thank you for your gracious apology. One of the very finest men that I have ever known, a friend for 35 years, is a five point Calvinist to the core. He knows very well that I believe without any reservations that Calvin was a blind-sighted theologian who took Scriptures out of context and made up doctrines to fit his fancy, but my friend has always treated me in a most respectful and kind manner, and has always upheld Christian moral values to the highest level.

Am I Arminian in my theology? No, I am not, but since the theology of James Arminius was based solidly upon the Bible and has the support of the very large majority of the early church fathers whereas the theology of John Calvin has virtually none, and since I highly esteem the Bible above all else, and I find the teachings of the large majority of the Church fathers to be the teaching of the Bible, my theological leaning is in the direction of Arminianism and strongly away from the direction of Calvinism.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by bjonson:
Dr. Meadows,

Yes, I think the belief that we can be saved by excersing "free will" apart from the electing call of God is heresy because the Bible teaches that our will is in bondage to sin.

Have you read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther? It is a fascinating book and is possibly the best biblical argument against "free will", so called, that I have read. No, Martin Luther isn't inspired, but the book is in the form of a debate he had with a Roman Catholic and they discuss the scriptures...

More later.

I believe that a teaching which claims that we can be saved by ‘[exercising] "free will" apart from the electing call of God’ is seriously in error, but not because of the false supposition that “the Bible teaches that our will is in bondage to sin,” a supposition with absolutely no Biblical or historical support. And, of course, James Arminius did NOT believe that anyone could be saved by ‘[exercising] "free will" apart from the electing call of God.’ James Arminius believed that we are saved by grace through faith, and of course the grace of God incorporates and makes efficacious the electing call of God.

 

[bjonson]

Craig,

yes, the Bible does teach that we are enslaved to sin and our will is part of that:

Rom. 8:7; John 15:5; Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13; 1 Cor. 2:14; Phil. 2:13; Gal. 5:17.

Notice also that the Bible specifically says we are saved NOT BECAUSE OF MAN'S WILL, BUT GOD'S WILL in John 1:13.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by bjonson:
Craig,

yes, the Bible does teach that we are enslaved to sin and our will is part of that:

Rom. 8:7; John 15:5; Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13; 1 Cor. 2:14; Phil. 2:13; Gal. 5:17.

Notice also that the Bible specifically says we are saved NOT BECAUSE OF MAN'S WILL, BUT GOD'S WILL in John 1:13.

All of the verses listed here, with the exception of John 15:5 which is irrelevant to this subject, are from the writings of Paul, and it appears to me from this list that you do not at all understand Paul. But, of course, neither did Calvin. If you like, we can take each of these verses one at a time in the Greek text, examine them closely in their context, and see that they do not support the notion that “the Bible teaches that our will is in bondage to sin.” And, of course, we can find a number of passages in the New Testament that absolutely refute that notion.

 

[Rippon]

Craig , why do you regard the opinions of the church fathers so highly on this issue ? Their biblical framework wasn't nearly as strong as the Reformers or the Puritans .

To call Calvin " a blind-sighted theologian who took Scriptures out of context and made up doctrines to fit his fancy " tells me you have not read his works . Even James Arminius regarded Calvin more highly than any other theologian .

Much more importantly , the Scriptures plainly reveal our spiritual impotence . Our will-power has been very much overrated . Look at Eph. 2: 4,5 : " But because of his great love for us , God , who is rich in mercy , made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions -- it is by grace you have been saved . " The Lord has moved us over to his kingdom , not we ourselves . Unless you own-up to the natural state of everyone before Christ awakens who He has chosen to give spiritual life to -- you are contending against God .

 

[bjonson]

Craig,

What is wrong with quoting Paul's inspired writings? He wrote most of the NT, after all...

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Tom Butler:
Question: Under the Arminian view, can anyone be saved independently of any prior action by God?

Such as, Holy Spirit conviction, drawing, illumination, etc.

In the Arminian view, man's will trumps God's will. And this human will is God-given from birth. And God saves in response to man's choice. So, again,are any of those actions by God necessary?

Tom B.

Didn't Adam and Eve "trump God's will?" What happened in the interchange between Jesus and the rich ruler?

 

[EdSutton]

The exact same thing is wrong with so-called 'Arminianism' that is wrong with so-called 'Calvinism'. Both 'systems', when carried to the logical end are the same, for both in the final analysis teach that 'those who are "really and truly' saved" (another phrase you will not find in the Bible, BTW, any more than you will find "Perseverance of the Saints", for the Bible doesn't talk like that!) will undoubtedly PERSEVERE! (meaning, but unsaid, one who lives up to THEIR undefined standard of conduct, often expresed in words similar to "Well, we're not to judge; but we can SURE be 'Fruit Inspectors'!", while at the same time, pulling out the magnifying glass and putting on a 'Sherlock Holmes' cap) I submit that the job of 'Fruit INSPECTOR' is better left in the hands of God, the Father; God, the Son; God, the Holy Spirit, and the USDA! Observe, if you like, but keep the verse "By their friuts, you shall know them." in it's context, which is twice (vs. 16,20) talking about false prophets, if my memory is not totally gone, in Matt. 7:15-20, and in the parallel passage in Luke 6: 37-45 speaks of not judging because the wanna-be JUDGE is the 'REAL' hypocrite.
I am fairly confident that 99 44/100% of Christians, including me as No.1, would never have seen Paul as the 'chief of sinners', and the greedy, drunken, and incestuous Mayor of Sodom as one of a handful specifically identified as righteous or 'just', or the murdering, adulterous, King David as the 'man after God's own heart', or thought that the greatest preacher and greatest sermon aside from the Lord Jesus Christ, would have been preached by one of the most obnoxious bigots in Biblical history from a street corner and consist of eight words, and when the response came, because the preacher didn't even like his audience to begin, with asked God to kill him, rather than see that crowd converted. If you could have discerned all that, then I suppose you are qualified to judge whether one is really saved or not. I couldn't have done it! But that is exactly what both Calvinism and Arminianism, as systems, proport to do! And I ain't buyin' it! I suspect God isn't either! I suggest that we get involved with a little more of the perseverance in the one way and only time THAT word occurs in the Bible- praying for the saints. I'd almost bet
God would go along with that one!
In His grace,
Ed

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Rippon:
Craig , why do you regard the opinions of the church fathers so highly on this issue ? Their biblical framework wasn't nearly as strong as the Reformers or the Puritans .

I regard the opinions of the church fathers very highly on every issue because they were immensely closer to the language and the customs of Christ and the Apostles than were the reformers. I also very highly regard the opinions of modern day exegetes who avail themselves of highly sophisticated computer programs to analyze the data given to us in the New Testament and other writing of the New Testament period. And, of course, both of these groups of scholars interpret the New Testament in a vastly different manner than did the Calvin and his followers.

One must not forget that the very few resources that Calvin used to study the Bible were so extremely poor and inadequate that shortly after the death of Calvin those resources were laid to rest with him because the reformation spurned a great interest in Biblical and cultural studies and the older works were very quickly superseded. The oldest exegetical commentary that I have on a book of the Bible is Edward Pococke’s A Commentary on the Prophecy of Joel printed at the University of Oxford in 1691 where Edward Pococke’s served as Canon of Christ-Church and Regius Professor of the Hebrew language.

In Pococke’s day, his commentary was the most scholarly commentary available on the prophecy on Joel, and it was not printed until 127 years after Calvin died. Today, Pococke’s Commentary on Joel is little more than a historical curiosity, having been superseded by more current studies more than two centuries ago. People who live outside of the academic world typically have no comprehension whatsoever of the millions of hours of Biblical studies performed every year with the help of the latest developments in computer technology to analyze the mountains of data that have been collected through archaeological discoveries and other sources. Most certainly, if Calvin had lived in our day and used the resources presently available to New Testament scholars, he would not have made the horrendous theological errors that he made as a consequence of living when he did.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Rippon:
To call Calvin " a blind-sighted theologian who took Scriptures out of context and made up doctrines to fit his fancy " tells me you have not read his works . Even James Arminius regarded Calvin more highly than any other theologian .

Nonsense! See below:

Much more importantly , the Scriptures plainly reveal our spiritual impotence . Our will-power has been very much overrated . Look at Eph. 2: 4,5 : " But because of his great love for us , God , who is rich in mercy , made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions -- it is by grace you have been saved . " The Lord has moved us over to his kingdom , not we ourselves . Unless you own-up to the natural state of everyone before Christ awakens who He has chosen to give spiritual life to -- you are contending against God . [/QB]

Calvin became obsessed with and fixated upon the sovereignty of God and the sinfulness of men and failed to see the multitude of scriptures that so very clearly teach that God, according to his sovereign design, gave man a free will to love Him or hate Him, to accept and serve Him or reject and denounce him.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by bjonson:
Craig,

What is wrong with quoting Paul's inspired writings?

Absolutely nothing; I frequently quote him myself. There is, however, a huge difference between quoting Paul out of context and understanding the man and his theology. When we stop to consider that Calvin “understood” Paul in a vastly different way than anyone had before him, I don’t believe it is much of a stretch of the imagination to say that Calvin did not understand Paul, and that Calvinists today do not understand Paul. And, of course, this belief is very much substantiated by the fact that VERY few exegetes of the New Testament today, especially those holding professorships in large universities, understand Paul in the manner than Calvin did.

Originally posted by bjonson:
He wrote most of the NT, after all...

No, he most certainly did not. In the KJV, we find 49,869 words written by Luke in his gospel and Acts compared to the 43,293 words written by Paul. We also find 33,719 words written by John, plus the words written by Matthew, Mark, James, Peter, Jude, and the author of Hebrews. Taking all of this data into consideration, we find that Paul wrote only 13.7259% of the New Testament—a VERY long way from “most” of it!

Note: These figures vary a little from one edition of the KJV to another.

 

[Rippon]

You say that almost 50,000 words in the KJ version were written by Luke . And you state that just a little over 43,000 were written by Paul . Paul wrote 13 letters , not counting Hebrews . Are you sure your numbers are accurate ?

Regarding Calvin -- I pray that the Lord will one day give me as much as one tenth of the spiritual good of that great , short-sighted Frenchman . Of course no one is really great -- God alone deserves that adjective .

Calvin may have had meager resources compared with all the advances of today . But are there really that many people that can be compared with him ? Don't be so vaunted in your estimation of modern technology . Your personal library could be bigger than John Calvin's -- but what are you doing to advance the Kingdom of God ? Even though you have so much it may be considered quite small when put in perspective . God gave him 55 or so short years and yet look what the Lord did through him .

How about John Bunyan ? He only had a couple of books in that jail cell including his Geneva Bible . But even John Owen said he would gladly forego all his learning to be able to preach like that tinker .

God's mark was obviously upon Calvin . The Lord gave him those remarkable gifts afterall . That does not mean that Calvin was without flaws and sins as the rest of us mortals -- but really , step back and give the man some credit . How different this world would be without the gifts of Calvin ! It would be much the poorer .

 

[Tom Butler]

Hello Straight and Narrow,

I asked originally

Question: Under the Arminian view, can anyone be saved independently of any prior action by God? Such Holy Spirit conviction, drawing, illumination, etc. In the Arminian view, man's will trumps God's will. And this human will is God-given from birth. And God saves in response to man's choice. So, again,are any of those actions by God necessary?

You answered by asking:

Didn't Adam and Eve "trump God's will?" What happened in the interchange between Jesus and the rich ruler?

No, Adam and Eve did not trump God's will. God could have stopped them from disobeying, just as He could stop us. They certainly did not trump His will when he kicked them out of the Garden of Eden.

Re the rich ruler, same answer.

Now, did I accurately state the Arminian view? Can, indeed, anyone be saved independently of any prior action by God, simply by exercising his will and choosing to do so? The Calvinist answer is no. What is the non-Calvinist answer? That's all I'm asking.

Tom B

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

The question is not whether God can force us to do anything. Of course He can. He is all-powerful and all-knowing. The question is whether He allows us to do things that are against His will. The answer to that is YES.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

This was right before the flood. All men except Jonah and his family had rebelled against God and He wiped them out in the deluge.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Rippon:
You say that almost 50,000 words in the KJ version were written by Luke . And you state that just a little over 43,000 were written by Paul . Paul wrote 13 letters , not counting Hebrews . Are you sure your numbers are accurate ?

Yes, of course! I posted these figures to illustrate the fact that many Calvinists have a greatly distorted view of the New Testament and who wrote it. A very obvious consequence of this is their greatly distorted view of soteriology.

Originally posted by Rippon:
Regarding Calvin -- I pray that the Lord will one day give me as much as one tenth of the spiritual good of that great , short-sighted Frenchman . Of course no one is really great -- God alone deserves that adjective .

The truth is that history has proven that John Calvin single-handedly did more damage to the Christian faith than any other man who has ever lived.

Originally posted by Rippon:
Calvin may have had meager resources compared with all the advances of today . But are there really that many people that can be compared with him ? Don't be so vaunted in your estimation of modern technology . Your personal library could be bigger than John Calvin's -- but what are you doing to advance the Kingdom of God ? Even though you have so much it may be considered quite small when put in perspective . God gave him 55 or so short years and yet look what the Lord did through him .

The more correct statement would be, “Look at what the devil did through him.”

Originally posted by Rippon:
How about John Bunyan ? He only had a couple of books in that jail cell including his Geneva Bible . But even John Owen said he would gladly forego all his learning to be able to preach like that tinker .

There is a vast difference between being able to preach and being able to rightly divide the word of God.

Originally posted by Rippon:
God's mark was obviously upon Calvin . The Lord gave him those remarkable gifts afterall . That does not mean that Calvin was without flaws and sins as the rest of us mortals -- but really , step back and give the man some credit . How different this world would be without the gifts of Calvin ! It would be much the poorer .

Incontrovertibly absolute nonsense!