Agonizomai: Calvinism and Arminianism - Part 1

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Calvinism and Arminianism - Part 1
The Trojan Horse of Arminianism





Arminianism is a canker on the gospel. Some readers might think this statement divisive, extreme, intolerant or even arrogant. It is none of those things. It is truth. Permit me to quote Ferrel Griswold from his work "The Arminian Controversy":
Whereas older Arminianism was more God-centred, modern day Arminianism is totally man, emotional, experimental entertainment centred, rather than Bible, God-centred.
In other words, Whitefield (a Calvinist) could truthfully say of John Wesley (an Arminian) that he didn't think he would see Wesley in heaven because Wesley would be so close to the throne of God and he so far away that he would not be able to see him. But Whitefield would not make the same statement about many of today's Arminians. He might opine that he doubted he would see them in heaven at all.

It is common for Calvinists today to state quite charitably that to hold Arminian views of the gospel is not damnable heresy. They believe, like Whitefield, that Arminians will be found in heaven – even today's Arminians. So do I – but with qualification. If what Griswold asserted is true (and I believe it is) then there are many modern Arminians who do not believe in the sovereignty of God at all; they don't preach/believe/think of Him as the sovereign God of all things, material and immaterial, and of all events, past present and future. In other words, they deny the Godness of God.

I have already made the point in an earlier post that every natural man is an Arminian and that we are almost all Arminians when we are first saved. We think we did something when we responded to the gospel and received Christ. It is only at some later time that we discover that it was God all along who regenerated us, opened our eyes and moved our wills to receive Christ. We do not remain Arminians forever if we are properly taught, and if we read the Bible with a sound hermeneutic and give proper exegesis. If there are brothers who do that and are still Arminians, then may God give them light! I regard such people as brothers in the Lord and, at opportune moments, I oppose their heretical views with every ounce of strength I have. Nothing different from many of my Calvinist brethren here.

But I am not finished. I have seen the fruit of Arminianism in the modern church and it doesn't get off so lightly as to merely be considered an interesting but obscure question of theological nuance that has no real impact on the gospel. It has enormous impact. The acceptance and propagation of Arminianism by Wesley and one (ultimately dominant) division of the early Methodists is what has contributed to the trickle-down dilution of sound doctrine and, as a result, sound practice in the church. Though Whitefield both knew and respected Wesley as a brother in the Lord he nevertheless saw enough danger in the fledgling Arminian movement within Methodism to severely clip Wesley’s wings in this article in response to Wesley’s scandalously erroneous sermon "Free Grace, which misrepresented the gospel truth and flew in the face of the wisdom of the Westminster divines.

As Whitefield undoubtedly knew, Arminianism, being a heresy, contains the seeds of corruption and the dilution of the pillar of sovereign grace upon which gospel stands. It is and always was like a man setting out to sea in a leaky boat – sure to take its occupants deeper and deeper into trouble until at last they drown. Only 6 or 8 generations after Wesley – and a mere 10 after Arminius – the boat is so leaky and there are so many in it, that it has lost almost all utility as a life preserver. Modern Arminianism is the end of the line that was sealed the moment its seminal error was propagated by leadership in the church so many years ago.

Arminianism has given birth to something worse than itself. It has spawned semi-Pelagianism and is in the process of grandfathering outright a new Pelagianism. Already there are undisguised Pelagian concepts accepted by huge numbers of professors of the faith. To reverse the order of an A. A. Hodge quote:
Augustinians say man is dead; semipelagians say man is sick; Pelagians say man is healthy
The true gospel reinstated by the Reformers is Paulinian/Augustinian; the old Arminians were believers at least in prevenient grace, but the modern Arminianism has, in many places, flowered into semi-Pelagianism - and the new breed of Arminians (like Robert Schuller, for example) is outright Pelagian. It does no good for more "traditional" Arminians to distance themselves from the likes of Schuller. He is child of the same heresy. As is semi-Pelagian Rick Warren and the like. As are the charismatics, by and large. As was (and still is) the Roman church – which explains why all of these are quite comfortable with the idea of getting together in this present age.

Arminianism, condemned as a heresy by the church almost as soon as it appeared, was the thin end of the wedge of humanism, and was rampant by the time of Spurgeon's "Downgrade Controversy". Seemingly harmless at the first, it led by degrees to greater and greater exaltation of the human capacity for choosing the good in spiritual matters, unaided by God. Charles G. Finney gave great impetus to the downgrade in the early 1800's by introducing humanistic concepts into evangelism - believing that any person could (inevitably) be saved if only men would present the gospel in just the right way. Ends began to justify means. Men began to "replace" the Holy Spirit as the primary agent of regeneration. Asa Mahan carried on his teachings and passed them on extensively to others.

So, when the so-called "natural" sciences provided the bullets for humanism to be let loose in full force upon the church in an explosion of rationalism in the mid-1800's the jig was up. Caving in for the most part, much of the church adopted liberal views that denied the Holy Scripture. From the late 1800's until the present day there has been a profusion of progressively less and less theologically sound sects and divisions – most recently resulting in the fragmentation of Christianity into such nihilistic shards as the Emerging Church and postmodern "Christianity" in general. And it can only get worse. Somebody left the gate open and the horse has bolted. More aptly, the Trojan Horse of human ability entered with the innocuous Wesleys and proceeded to kill the guards and open the gates to the invading hordes. And, just like the people in the pictures above and below it is we, the professing church, who have dragged this menace into the citadel and been hoisted on our own petard.

I'm not saying that all Arminians are outright Pelagians - nor that they are the devil incarnate. Some are Arminian in the relatively noble Wesleyan sense. Many today are in the Finneyesque mold, and are teetering on the brink. Others are Schullerian and are utterly lost. I am just pointing out that, once you open the dyke to the exaltation of the human will above and beyond what the scripture allows, there is no way to plug it again, absent a gracious intervention of God. The hole just keeps on getting bigger and bigger until the whole ocean comes in. And it has.

To weakly refer to the Arminian/Calvinist conflict as merely two sides of the same coin, or as two different emphases on the same truth is itself an error spawned in the Hegelian dialectic. There is only one truth. Is God sovereign or is He not? If sovereign, is He sovereign over the human will and over human salvation? To reply with anything short of a resounding "Yes!" creates a God who is less than the God of the gospels – less than the God of the entire Bible; a God who is not able to save those whom He wills; a God Who cannot make decrees because He cannot bring them to pass.

But almost equally wrongly, it removes man from the dust of death where he has delivered himself - to which he has consciously consigned himself - and exalts him into a partnership with the most holy and sovereign God in the matter of salvation. It glorifies and empowers the human will and human worth. It raise man up into a cooperator with the divine instead of keeping man as a dependent upon Him. It undermines the pure objective of the gospel as the means of God alone saving some men from a spiritual death in which they lay powerless to help themselves; and it provides the means of undermining the whole intent of the demonstration of the glories of God’s righteousness in Christ, imparted freely to His utterly undeserving creatures.

The one and only true gospel of grace once for all convinces those saved by it that they are now, and ever shall be, creatures living at the pleasure of God, utterly dependent upon Him – by His grace and favour, and in His everlasting and trustworthy love. As Spurgeon stated years ago in this essay, "Calvinism is the gospel." And if Calvinism is the gospel then, by definition, whatever does not conform to its tenets is not the gospel; it must be, to some degree, "another gospel". “By their fruits shall you know them,” Christ said of the false teachers. Look at the fruit of the Arminian heresy and ask why evangelism must start in most churches today, before it can begin in the pagan community that surrounds them. Arminian thought, and its children, have brought the pagan world into the community of believers by making salvation at least partly a human endeavour. The Bible, however clearly states that salvation is of the Lord, even though He uses people to testify to what God has done. May God raise up preachers who are not afraid to rightly give God all the glory.

11 Comments:

Blogger Godismyjudge said...

Dear Agonizomai,

How are you defining Arminian?

God be with you,
Dan

7:56 pm  
Blogger agonizomai said...

Dan,

Thanks for taking the time to read and to comment.

I tried in my post to convey the idea I believed Arminianism not to be a static belief system. What constituted Arminianism at the time of the Remonstrants was not the identical form taken on by the Wesleys. And the Arminianism of subsequent ages held by (some) prominent people and by many anonymous believers throughout the succeeding years was even further devolved from its early forms. Less "noble", if you like.

But since Arminianism in its nascent form questioned 5 areas of belief that the original reformers understood to be explicit in scripture, the church re-affirmed in response its original beliefs in a way tailored to address the specific questions. Since then, Armians have not, to my knowledge, rejected Arminianism's primary assertions. I contended that these assertions have had their influence on suceeding forms of belief that have come to be generally known as "modern Arminianism".

Strictly speaking, by "Arminianism" I mean a belief system that agrees with the Remonstrance on the 5 points at issue. But I don't contend that many of those who exhibit Arminian beliefs today necessarily recognize or identify themselves with the Remonstrance.

Thanks again for your gracious response. My other reader has yet to feel the need to comment :-)


Blessings

11:23 pm  
Blogger Godismyjudge said...

Dear Agonizomai,

I tried in my post to convey the idea I believed Arminianism not to be a static belief system.

I wonder if you’re allowing an opponent of Arminianism to define Arminianism? I am reminded of Muslims who say Christians view Mary as part of the godhead because of their mistaken interpretation of Catholic views.

The essentials of Arminianism (the 5 points of the remonstrants) include strong statements regarding the depravity of man, which is preserved in the Society of Evangelical Arminians statement of Faith: We believe that humanity was created in the image of God but fell from its original sinless state through willful disobedience and Satan's deception, resulting in eternal condemnation and separation from God. In and of themselves and apart from the grace of God human beings can neither think, will, nor do anything good, including believe.

Those who deny it, cease to be Arminians.

God be with you,
Dan

1:16 pm  
Blogger A.M. Mallett said...

Having read through your article, I have to state that you have done nothing to accurately reflect the beliefs of most of the body of Christ. I can only wonder how you came about such a distorted view of the church of Christ. Have you considered researching the actual beliefs of those who constitute the Arminian body of Christ rather than continue an on-going assertion that lacks substance or support? When I encounter these types of postings I can only marvel at how thoroughly men substitute sectarian polemics for evangelical fervor. Perhaps you need only be made aware of resources to help you come to a better understanding of those you are slandering. The following might be of benefit.

http://arminians.org/index
http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminius/index.htm

Blessings in Christ
A.M. Mallett
http://travelah.blogspot.com/

7:45 pm  
Blogger agonizomai said...

I wonder if you’re allowing an opponent of Arminianism to define Arminianism? I am reminded of Muslims who say Christians view Mary as part of the godhead because of their mistaken interpretation of Catholic views.

I don't think so. I tend to think of Prince Philip and Prince William in this situation. William is not Philip, but without Philip there could be no William. And they both have the surname "Windsor".

Though the essentials of Classical Arminianism "contain strong elements regarding the depravity of man" historically it is incontrovertible that they took a position that was contrary to the reformed church. And it is equally on the record that the Remonstrant view, including their view on the depravity of man, was sufficiently off base to be labeled heresy, and for the original teacher of its tenets to be posthumously anathematized.

Having "strong elements regarding the depravity of man", including all the things listed, ("We believe that humanity was created in the image of God but fell from its original sinless state through willful disobedience and Satan's deception, resulting in eternal condemnation and separation from God. In and of themselves and apart from the grace of God human beings can neither think, will, nor do anything good, including believe.") is commendable only insofar as those views are entirely congruent with the whole orthodoxy of the church on the matter of the depravity of man. If the Arminian position had done this, then the condemnation of its tenets would not have been so explicit. Then the Dutch would not need to have invented their saying of Arminius, "He may have been a heretic, but he was OUR heretic." :-)

So it falls to a proper systematic understanding of grace and salvation. The orthodox view of human depravity is that man lies in a state of spiritual death from which he can only be raised in Jesus Christ by the grace of God through faith in His finished work. It is in the operation of grace that the difficulty comes. Orthodoxy states that man is regenerated by an irresistible grace given to those for whom Christ died. But the Arminian view includes the element that saving grace is universally made available to all men by making the spiritually dead awake enough to make a right moral decision towards God. In the one case grace actually saves the elect and in the other case grace makes it possible for all to be saved, but does not necessarily save any one. So the actual meaning of the word "grace" is what is at issue. The church defined it one way and Arminianism, though it uses the same word, actually defines it another way.

The seemingly minor departure of the Classical Arminian view regarding the operation of grace upon human depravity, while so much closer to the truth than what is believed today by many who are called "Arminian" is, in my view, the grandfather of the very lowness of the present view of human depravity. I think of a ship setting out on a journey of 1,000 miles with a heading that is off by a single degree. It will end up hundreds of miles from its destination. Of course there are still some who hold to the very high Arminian tenets - you among them. But in my experience they are few and far between compared the countless millions who bumble around in the legacy of that seminal error, seen in everything from Finneyism, through the holiness movement and on into the sad mish-mash of modern day Christianity. Is Arminianism responsible for all of the ills? Of course not. But is it responsible for some of them? I think so.

In conclusion, I think it is fair to say that, in the strictest sense, those who deny the precise tenets of Arminianism cease to be Arminians. But its also (no offense) a bit naive. In practical terms there are millions of people out there who hold to the Arminian view of grace - a grace that is not irresistible but which raises man to a place where he can then decide whether to accept God's provision or not. I tend to believe that this sort of thinking had to have come from somewhere. And I believe it can be traced back through evangelical history to the time of the Remonstrance.

I'll let you have the last word between us on this exchange, brother.



Blessings

9:00 pm  
Blogger agonizomai said...

Trav (A.M. Mallett),

I considered removing your post. Read the conditions in the side bar. One of them is a requirement for politeness. It is possible to disagree with me politely, especially if you actually choose to engage in refutation or the provision of an argument. But blowing in, blowing off and blowing out, just calling me a distorter or a slanderer, and leaving behind references to stuff I should read crosses a line. And your indirect implication that I substitute sectarian polemics for evangelical fervor in a diatribe against MY purportedly uninformed slander frankly betrays a hypocrisy that you are presently blind to. Take a breath. Take a leaf out of Dan's book.


Blessings

9:08 pm  
Blogger agonizomai said...

Please note that comments on this topic are now being moderated. Posts that ignore the etiquette listed in the side bar will be deleted. Repeated violations will result in an outright ban.

5:33 pm  
Blogger Godismyjudge said...

Dear Agonizomai,


Take a leaf out of Dan's book.

While I can’t accept a compliment at Trav’s expense, I didn’t read your “Calvinism is the gospel” comment in a rigid sense, given you hadn’t also said: “we are almost all Arminians when we are first saved”. I also suppose that even though you think Arminianism is heresy, you must not think it to be damnable heresy, else you wouldn’t have called me brother.

it is fair to say that, in the strictest sense, those who deny the precise tenets of Arminianism cease to be Arminians. But its also (no offense) a bit naive.

Thank you. I am not so naive as to think the devil is above using anything to his advantage, either Arminianism or as you point in your next post, Calvinism.


It is in the operation of grace that the difficulty comes.


I agree.

Orthodoxy states that man is regenerated by an irresistible grace given to those for whom Christ died. But the Arminian view includes the element that saving grace is universally made available to all men by making the spiritually dead awake enough to make a right moral decision towards God. In the one case grace actually saves the elect and in the other case grace makes it possible for all to be saved, but does not necessarily save any one.

It’s true prevenient grace doesn’t save, subsequent grace does. Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved, how precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed.

I'll let you have the last word between us on this exchange, brother.

Thanks, but on the question of is grace resistible or not, of course the last word is scriptures’.

Ezekiel 6:9 Then those of you who escape will remember Me among the nations where they are carried captive, because I was crushed by their adulterous heart which has departed from Me, and by their eyes which play the harlot after their idols; they will loathe themselves for the evils which they committed in all their abominations.

Isaiah 5:4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?


Psalms 81:11 “But My people would not heed My voice, And Israel would have none of Me. 12 So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart, To walk in their own counsels. 13 “Oh, that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways!


Mathew 11:21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Mathew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

2 Corinthians 6:1 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.

Hebrews 12:15 looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

8:41 pm  
Blogger agonizomai said...

As promised, I will leave your post as the last word.

On the way out, you might consider stopping here for another check on how I regard Arminians as brothers.

Blessings

10:23 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm no scholar or theologian, but I've been in both types of churches and i can state this is what I've seen from my experience:

Arminianism says you are saved, maybe, depends on how good you are, how much you study, how little you sin, and if you're not sinning the moment the Lord returns. It fosters a works mentality sets people up for failure, as law brings death, and the ensuing fear of death.

Calvinism says you are chosen and saved, due to Jesus' finished work nothing by what we can do to ever earn it. This is utterly freeing and creates joy and thanksgiving, which grows as we keep realizing that it is nothing to do with our performance. The bondage of sin and the fear of death is utterly destroyed as we believe in the true gospel of grace. It breaks the yoke, as the gospel is meant to do. Well, you say it so much better, but this is my way of saying Amen, brother!!

6:00 pm  
Blogger agonizomai said...

Roxylee,

You are one of those whose path modern Arminianism has made more difficult. It does teach what you say it does. Classical Arminianism is a little less off the tracks. But as I stated in the article, much to the annoyance of some, modern Arminianism is the child of its antecedent.

Blessings,


Tony

6:58 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home