The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "Is Calvinism the Gospel?"

Yes, but if you want to tell me what the Remonstants believed, you should quote them - not the opposition who may or may not understand or recite correctly their doctrine.


They are Reformed, that is, protestants who agree with the 5 solas and all that. They are not Catholics. They followed the Reformation.

I do not see any instance of "proof-texting" from my readings of Arminius, the Remonstrance, or skilled Arminian theologians of today.

You are correct that Arminians and Calvinists use the same terms to mean different things - but who is redefining? Words mean what they are used to mean - that's why there are multiple definitions for each word in the dictionary. The only problem is when people equivocate, to confuse an argument.

Finally, when they plead for "tolerance," during that time in history, it's because they were not being allowed to be pastors, were exiled from their home towns, and one beheaded. It's not the same "tolerance" as we think of today (in politics).

Just to clarify - that kind of "tolerance" is what America has come to call "Freedom of religion" and "Freedom of speech."

That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, has determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the gospel in John iii. 36: ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,’ and according to other passages of Scripture also.


That, agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the gospel of John iii. 16: ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ And in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: ‘And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.’


That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, in as much as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John xv. 5: ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’


That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and co-operative grace, can neither think, will nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, in as much as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost.


That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John x. 28: ‘Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand,’ But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

They were ARMINIANS who opposed the doctrines of the Reformation as inumerated in the OFFICIAL doctrinal statements of the Reformed Church; Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, to which they gave subscription before being ordained. They were anti-Reformed. You cannot rewrite history to make those individuals anything but what they were nor diminish what they did. If you are sympathetic, then the problem is yours and not a problem with the extent written history of what transpired. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the dozens and dozens of books and documents I have read concerning the Quinquarticular Controversy of 1618-19. With little variation, they are all in agreement. Do I hear "Revisionism" being suggested here?

The only thing that is confused is YOU. The definitions of the terms used at the Synod of Dordt were changed by the followers of Arminius because they objected to the doctrines of the church to which they belonged as members and ministers. Now who is equivocating? The nearly 18 months of deliberations sufficed to expose and refute the heresy of the Arminians. They used the same tactics that nearly every heretic uses; claim to be in agreement with the existing standards, only want to make some small revisions to those standards for clarity, redefine terms without making known of the redefinitions so as to confuse, and last but certainly not least is the plea for "tolerance". The goal, of course is to remain within the communion and spread their heresy among as many as possible. Arius used the same modus operandi, as did Barth and his neo-Orthodox followers and even in our day, those who are promoting the damnable heresy of "Federal Vision", "NPP", "Shepherdism" and their morphs. No one bought their sales pitch then and some of us who have learned from history and who know the Scriptures aren't buying it today either.

And why should they have been allowed to be pastors in the Protestant Church? They opposed what the Protestant Reformed Churches believed, preached and lived according to their Confession and Catechism and historically. I doubt they were so naive to think that they were not risking their positions and even their lives given how the government and churches existed in that time.

What is bothering me and I am sure others who are reading your responses, is how it is you think that all of the professors and ministers and other representatives who attended the Synod of Dordt were bereft of biblical understanding, intellectual prowess and/or discernment; that the Holy Spirit had totally abandoned each and every one who sat in judgment over the Arminian antogonists, so that they did not rightly understand what the Arminians really believed... but YOU do, some nearly 400 years after the fact. Further, that all the books that have been written by historians and theological teachers have gotten the facts wrong concerning what went on at Dordt and distorted and/or misconstrued what the Arminians really believed... but YOU have got all right.

The policy of "Freedom of Religion" has no bearing upon "tolerance" in the Church. There is no "tolerance" when it comes to anything which is contrary to the Word of God. This is where the third of the three marks of a true church comes into play... AKA: Church Discipline. Heresy is NOT to be tolerated in the Church but rather dealt with according to the teaching of Scripture. This the Synodical council did and rightly so. What the Arminians brought to the table was damnable heresy and it was determined to be just that after nearly 18 months of study and deliberation among a vast and varied group of ministers and scholars. I, for one, concur with their findings and judgment.

Arminianism teaches a different God, a different Christ, a different Spirit, a different Gospel and much more which is not in accord with the Biblical faith. Why should it be tolerated?

First of all, you ask "how it is" that if I think that the Calvinists who attended the Synod of Dordt were wrong about Arminians, then they lacked: biblical understanding, intellectual prowess, discernment, and the Holy Spirit.

I don't think this follows. I think that a person can easily be wrong about what someone else believes while still having the Spirit of God and intellect, and knowledge of the Bible.

So even if I hold that they were wrong about Arminians, which isn't my point in this discussion, all of those things you mention would not logically follow.

Mainly, I have said, in response to what you write, that *you* are wrong about what Arminians believe. You quoted the short 5 points of the Remonstants above, which is not at ALL totally inclusive of every Arminian doctrine - but you do not show how those 5 points back up any of your false claims about Arminian belief. For example: where in those five points did they write that God is "unable to" or "lacks the ability to" or lacks the power to" save those who do not have faith?

It doesn't. It isn't in there. Your claim that they believe that, then, contracts all of the quotes I mentioned to Tom (including quotes from Arminius himself). Your claims have no backing at all in the writings or claims of the remonstrants or actual arminians. The only backing you have is hear-say from calvinists (ie "I've heard that the Arminians believe X and such.").

Like the childish game of telephone, such a process leads to poor results. If you want to defend a claim about Arminian beliefs, you will have to quote an arminian.

Otherwise - I can defend claims about Calvinism (like that they teach that God is the author of sin) from quoting Arminians. That would be bogus. So also it is bogus for you to try to tell me what Arminians believe by quoting their opponents, and ignoring Arminius' writings to the contrary of your claims.

Freedom of Religion has to do with government tolerance toward various beliefs. In the time we are speaking of, people were executed or run out of town for their beliefs. That is the opposite of the "freedom of religion" that America is founded on.


Non-tolerance, in this case, was taking people out of leadership, exiling them, and death. Taking people out of leadership for disagree is fair. Exiling and death, though, is over-board. If you dislike THAT type of tolerance, then why don't you just promote the murder of everyone who disagrees with you about any doctrine, eh?



You seem to be saying that to be saved from a hell, a person NOT ONLY has to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior, but ALSO has to agree with Calvinism?

And those who reject Calvinism, therefore, are going to hell?

I just don't see that requirement in the Bible. You have yet to show me one thing in those 5 articles which state a lack of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.

You remind me of the type of churches that think that ONLY the members of their congregations (rather than born-again believers in general) are going to heaven.

And,

1. You have avoided answering my direct question(s) and implication that ALL of those who attended the great Synod of Dordt, which was precipitated by the submission of the Arminian (followers of Arminius) "Remonstrance", either misunderstood their position and/or misconstrued their position. I am certainly justified in using the term "ALL" for the decision of the Synod was unanimous. So, I'll ask once again, Is it your contention that ALL of the attendees who represented the Protestant Reformed churches from various countries summarily misunderstood and/or misconstrued what the Arminians held to be true?

2. The "Remonstrance" was submitted as a summary of those five areas of doctrine which the Arminians believed the Belgic Confession was in error and needed correction. The details of what the "Remonstrance" summarized were discussed in detail during the nearly 18 months that the Synod was convened. Those details were recorded and appear under the relevant "points", having stated the positive statements of each doctrine, after each of those statements as the "Rejection of Errors". UNLESS, what you are possibly contending in #1 is true, those "Rejection of Errors" are a true and accurate recitation of what the Arminians held to be true.

Thus, in regard to "my" error of misunderstanding what classic Arminianism holds to believe in regard to the area of theology known as soteriology; the doctrine of salvation, I simply affirm what the Synod of Dordt concluded in this regard to Arminianism, in its doctrine and in the Synod's judgment. This I do NOT without having done my own study of the subject, both from what historical documents which were written during that actual event but also from the writings of those who came after and likewise dealt with these same issues in their day. Worthy of mention are Christopher Ness ((1621-1705), "An Antidote to Arminianism"; John Owen (1616–1683) Collected Works 16 Vol., The Death of Death in the Death of Christ; John Gill (1697-1771) The Cause of Grace and Truth; Jonathan Edwards (1703-1799) Freedom of the Will, Original Sin, Works et al; John Calvin (1509–1564), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Sermons, [i]The Eternal Predestination of God[/i], et al; John Lafayette Girardeau (1865-1898), "Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism"; and a host of other recognized scholars and pastors.

UNLESS, you are going to extend an indictment against ALL of these notable and learned men that they failed to grasp what Arminianism teaches and thus ALL of their treatises, books, articles, sermons etc., which span 400 years, my concurrence with those writings is hardly "hearsay".

Is it not possible that those who were actually present at Dordt and those who came afterward, who likewise engaged Arminians in their own day are more reliable than *your* understanding of Arminianism and those modern professed Arminians from whom you have accepted as true what they purport to be the truth of Arminianism?

Lastly, classic Arminianism as was elucidated at the Synod of Dordt came via the pen(s) of the "followers" of Jacobus Arminius, who had already died. These men are those to whom Arminius had been communicating with, albeit secretly, for several years, up and until 1609. Whether they were consistent with what the man Arminius believed is irrelevant. These men were the official representatives of the doctrines being espoused and stated by them to be the teachings of Arminius himself. IF the views of these men were contrary to what Arminius actually believed and taught, then the only thing one could say is that the label of "Arminianism" attached to what they submitted was a misnomer. But what they held to be true, regardless of the accuracy of the name attached to them, is what the Synod and all that followed rejected and what is rightly labeled as CLASSIC Arminianism.

The power of the state during that period of history is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The power of the "keys of the kingdom", given to the Church, by Christ is what is relevant. As I have stated at least once before, the Arminians were ordained office bearers in the Reformed Church. They were aware of that church's polity in regard to doctrinal disputes and followed the procedure in presenting their "Remonstrance". They were also well aware of the possible consequences should their views be found heretical.

The "sword" belongs to the civil government; not the Church. It is given to the Church to excommunicate (declaration that one's profession of faith is fallacious due to unrepentant sins and/or doctrine), to defrock ordained office bearers, and for the general membership to disfellowship with those judged by the Church to be found guilty of serious and unrepentant sins. Again, you cannot conflate the authority of the State and that of the Church. America is not the paradigm to which everyone in world history must conform.

1. What I am saying is that one has to possess a true faith in the biblical Christ in order to be saved. An alleged faith in false christ serves no purpose other than to justify one's damnation. Idols cannot save. Non-Reformed theologies hold to a different Christ than Calvinism. You do the math.

2. I/we do not hold to "doctrinal salvation", i.e., one is saved on the basis of assenting to right doctrine. However, one is not saved without right doctrine either. As an example, one cannot be saved if one denies the Trinity, as stated in the Athanasian Creed, Article 44: "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved." Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism and all other religions reject the Doctrines of Grace, aka: Calvinism. The God described in Calvinism is rejected, the Christ upheld in Calvinism is rejected, the Holy Spirit espoused in Calvinism is rejected, the Gospel held by Calvinism is rejected. Either the doctrines of Calvinism are true and thus all who reject it are false believers, Or... the reverse is true. Again, you do the math.

3. Membership in any congregation is no evidence nor guarantee of salvation. There are many professed Calvinists who are unregenerate; members and office bearers alike, and who are destined to eternal Hell unless God grants them repentance and faith in Christ.

4. Lastly, I/we hold that there are some who profess Arminian doctrines inconsistently with what they truly believe in their heart, i.e., there is a disconnect between the head and the heart. However, when the Spirit sends one to expose this inconsistency and explain to them the truth of the Scriptures, they will repent of what they once confessed and embrace the one true biblical God and HIS way of salvation. (cf. Ps 135:10-18; Isa 30:8-13; Jer 6:16,17; Hos. 4:6ff; Matt 10:13-15; 11:25-27; Mk 4:10-12, 6:11; Jh 12:37-40; 1Thess 4:1,8; et al)

Then you agree with me that "tolerance" in the cases of exile and death for one's doctrine is a GOOD thing. That what the Arminians of the time requested in that case was completely appropriate.


But of course. However, in cases when America holds policies which are more Godly (such as not killing everyone who disagrees with you about God), I think that other cultures morally should be the same way.


No two christians will agree AT EVERY POINT about what God is like, what He has done, and so on and so forth. There is never complete agreement.

Two people can worship the SAME God, and still disagree about various aspects of His characters, ways, and stuff like that.

For example, me and my sister can both have the same pastor, and we can get different impressions of his opinions and personality. That doesn't mean that we have a different pastor - for we know the same person - but that one or both of us makes mistakes.

Given that all humans make mistakes, it's quite reasonable to assume that true believers will make mistakes about God. That doesn't mean that they worship a different God.

It was certainly permissible and understandable, from their vantage point that they would plead for "tolerance", albeit, "tolerance" doesn't convey the same meaning as "mercy". What the Arminians brought to the floor was intolerable because it was antithetical to the doctrines of their own church/denomination, never mind the Reformed churches everywhere. The punishment(s) which were typically exacted by the government were not unique to that period of time. Thus, IF you are using the word "tolerance" to mean "mercy" in regard to their punishment, then yes I would agree that death would be harsh, to say the least. However, I can sympathize with a punishment of exile in order to try and stem the propagation of their damnable heresy among the people of that region.

Again, what policies America has enacted have no bearing upon any other country, especially one that was in existence 400+ years prior. God has endowed the State (government) to wield the sword to protect its citizens. If a government believes that idolatry, blaspheme and such sins/crimes against God are worth of death or exile, then they are within their God-given rights to enact them.

As I have stated more than once already, the Arminians knew full well the potential sanctions which they could have faced if found guilty of serious heresy in the Church in Holland. I can only assume that they being aware of the seriousness of their venture and the punishment that could be ordered by both Church and State, they felt the matter was worth the risk(s).


I can only conclude that you still haven't yet grasped the profundity of the doctrines of Arminianism or perhaps you simply refuse to do so. Again, I have made it very clear in previous responses to you that Arminianism, as it was set forth and explained in detail at the Synod of Dordt, in large part by Episcopius, Curcellæus, Limborch, and Grotius, was antithetical to the doctrines of the Reformed churches and in particular to those doctrines summarized in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. Classic, historic Arminianism holds to a different God, a different Jesus, a different Spirit and another Gospel. The differences between what the Arminians posited as being antagonistic against the established Reformed Church were not simply a matter of opinion or perspective. This fact is incontrovertible. The two 'systems' (Arminianism and Calvinism), at very least in regard to the "Five Points" are diametrically opposed. The issue was fundamental to the doctrine of Soteriology (salvation)... How is a man made right with God?

And, in case you weren't aware of another factoid... These same men eventually rejected the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide, making "faith", a free-will choice which they wrote was the more than the proximate cause of justification; i.e., it was the ultimate cause of justification, thus reversing what Scripture and all the Protestant Churches affirmed. This grievous error has been maintained by all Arminians since that time and even hailed as one of the 'marks' of distinction among nearly all semi-Pelagian churches. My article, which I have provided a link to twice already, explains this error in graphic and simple detail so that hopefully, even a child could grasp it. A basic side-by-side comparison of the two systems can also be found HERE.

Thank you, Pilgrim, for reviving memories from almost 20 years ago.



This fine point easily reveals whether a professing Reformed believer is ~functionally~ Arminian or Semi-Pelagian. John Owen himself, in The Death of Death, shows how absurd this notion is. I have argued this with a friend who calls this divine mystery... but it's just a plain contradiction.


One of the symptoms of this rejection is that labels and terms mean differently from what they used to. Just like the Romish church uses the same theological words but means differently for different purposes, today's Arminians, semi-Pelagians, and New Calvinists operate on the same level. All this smoke and mirrors makes dialogue very difficult.

Perhaps the most abused term, apart from 'love', is 'grace'. From what I understand of the Westminster Confession, what is usually called 'common grace' is actually positively perceived Providence (I am not aware of a standard term for negatively perceived Providence); 'grace' as used in the Confession refers only to the saving work of Christ, which is divinely directed only to the elect.

First of all, one more point to address to your claim that Arminians are non-believers who are going to hell:

If they are all, in fact, unregenerate, then how is it that they are spiritually alive enough to have faith in Christ as Lord(boss) and as Savior, admitting freely that they are sinners who justly deserve damnation, but believing in the blood of Christ as the atonement for their ins - believing that when they stand before God, they will be counted righteous, because they are clothed in the righteous of Christ.

If they were unregenerate, wouldn't it be impossible for them to have that faith and submission to God???

No, "mercy" implies "reducing or taking away the JUST punishment due." Since there is no just punishment for believing in God with all your heart and mind to the best of your ability, "mercy" is not an appropriate term.

"Tolerance" is an appropriate term: We should each tolerate it when other people believe a doctrine mistakenly, for we ALL are mistaken about many doctrines, being fallible humans and all. Learning about God is a lifelong process. If God tolerates his people sometimes being mistaken about this or that aspect of doctrine, we should also be tolerant when we see mistakes in others (and who knows - we may be the ones who are mistaken).

You and me disagree about the authority that God gives to the government. According to Paul, the government is given authority to hold the sword against EVIL, against WRONG-DOING, not against faith, love, patience, joy, peace, goodness and self-control, against which there are no God-approved laws. Romans kills Christians by throwing them to lions, Islam kills Christians (especially if they converted from Islam), the old Catholic church killed many protestants - they kill these people for their faith - and all of that was not within their God-given rights, but rather were sins. That's why in relevation, the martyrs ask God not IF they will be avenged, but WHEN.

Your claim:

1 - Arminians believe that faith is the ultimate CAUSE of
justification.
2 - All Arminians maintain this

Yet, I see not one quote of Arminius that says this. I have read the Remonstrance 5 points, and it does not say this. I know many Arminians, and I have not heard one say that. I know Arminians who would deny that faith is the cause, and confirm instead that the will of God is the cause.

Arminius agrees with me that God's will is the cause of justification in this system:
The followers of Arminius agree with me that God's purpose is the ultimate cause of justificationin this system:

I have given proof double-fold that God's WILL is named the ultimate cause of justification, and also for the decision to only justify those who meet His condition.

You will find quotes that faith is the condition of justification, and the condition of election, but not the CAUSE.

IMPORTANT: IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN "condition" AND "cause," PLEASE CONSULT A DICTIONARY BEFORE REPLYING.

1. I have never stated that "all" Arminians are going to Hell.

4. Lastly, I/we hold that there are some who profess Arminian doctrines inconsistently with what they truly believe in their heart, i.e., there is a disconnect between the head and the heart. However, when the Spirit sends one to expose this inconsistency and explain to them the truth of the Scriptures, they will repent of what they once confessed and embrace the one true biblical God and HIS way of salvation. (cf. Ps 135:10-18; Isa 30:8-13; Jer 6:16,17; Hos. 4:6ff; Matt 10:13-15; 11:25-27; Mk 4:10-12, 6:11; Jh 12:37-40; 1Thess 4:1,8; et al) ... from HERE.

2. It is impossible that they are "spiritually alive enough to have faith", for they are not regenerate. Faith is a fruit, result of regeneration. Arminianism teaches that regeneration follows faith. Believing that you are saved isn't synonymous with actually being saved. A cursory reading of the NT shows clearly that there were many who professed to believe in Christ who were in fact without true faith (cf. Prov 26:23; Isa 48:1; Ezek: 33:31,32; Jh 2:23-25; 8:30ff; 12:42,43; Matt 7:21-23; 13:18-23; 23:27,28).

Their punishment was just because they denied the one true God and sought to substitute Him for one of their own design and imagination.

1. Arminius himself was orthodox on this point, i.e., faith is a proximate cause of justification.
2. Jakob Hermanszoon (Jacobus Arminius) died on October 19, 1609. The 14 Remonstrants submitted their doctrines to be considered on November 13, 1618. It was those doctrines which are historically known as "Arminianism". Those men who represented the Arminian system of doctrine and those following them taught that the one thing which differed between those who were saved and those who were not saved was their "faith", i.e., their personal free-will decision. They maintained and Arminians still maintain that ALL have God's grace made available to them; God's eternal love, Christ's atoning death, the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is to those who take advantage and use that "grace" that salvation is granted. Thus, "faith" as defined by Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism is the ultimate cause of one's salvation.
3. This point has been recognized, addressed, and refuted for over 400 years. And it is just one of the major reasons that the 102 Representatives of Dordtrecht, from 9 different countries, judged that Arminianism is damnable heresy.

1. You either missed the point, or refuse to acknowledge that Arminianism makes faith a work and the ultimate cause of salvation. Denying that you hold this to be true does not in any way negate the FACT that Arminianism teaches this.

2. Your demeaning and insulting remark is really unnecessary.