I agree with much of what you are saying, that the Christ of the gospels is so much more clearly discerned through Calvinism than Arminianism, as to almost seem to be a different Christ. But I don't think that is the actual case, rather Calvinism, or perhaps more accurate scriptural theology, brings the true Christ, seen fuzzily with Arminian glasses, into sharp focus. But again, that was my personal experience. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>Following the line of logic you are developing would lead one, I think, to come down on the side of those who would say that Arminianism is not merely error, but heresy. I think that could be an extreme position, but the point is arguable.<br><br>If the Arminian congregation you were part of could not accept, for instance, the Nicene Creed, then they were preaching a different Christ and were therefore teaching heresy. Otherwise, with most of the evangelical world, they would simply be heterodox, or teaching error, but not necessarily heresy. I think the Nicene Creed is a good benchmark of the historic, apostolic faith in Jesus Christ.<br><br>Yet "Arminian" baptisms in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are everywhere accepted, so far as I know, in all Calvinist and Reformed congregations, so that I think the clear consensus of opinion and practice of the orthodox church has been that Arminian theology is not heresy per se, but please correct me if I am wrong. <br><br>As far as your concluding statement, I would agree. When we turn from grace to self, it is the beginning of turning from the true gospel, so perhaps in that sense Arminianism could be said to be the root of all false gospels. <br><br>However, having said that, I have a couple of observations from a sermon I heard last week. There are many scriptures regarding election and predestination that are ignored by Arminians, just as there are many scriptures regarding personal responsibility that some in the Calvinist camp don't like to hear. Yet after conversion, we are free to choose rightly, as the scriptures tell us. But at the same time, it is all sovereign grace that we can even do that. There is in scripture it seems to me this tension between these two positions, and living with both of them as we Christians must keeps us humble and needy before the throne of grace.<br><br>You make some very good points. The Reformers were all "Calvinist," and yet today this theology is preserved in the small minority of congregations. It is sad that broadly speaking, on the subject of the will, evangelicals and charismatics by and large have returned to the position of the Roman church, erasing much of the Reformation. The sad result is that together with the Roman church, most evangelicals form an "Arminian" theological ocean, in which Calvinism, almost a hated name in some quarters (a friend prefers the accurate term "Paul's Gospel"), stands as a tiny but important island. <br><br>As the hymn says of the church, "by heresies distressed," <br><br>[color:blue] http://www.opc.org/books/TH/old/Blue270.html </font color=blue><br><br>in other words, individual believers, men and women, boys and girls, harmed by false teaching, and yet the church triumphs. <br><br>And as the scriptures say "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." The mission of Calvinism IMHO has in our time been to the whole church, through Christian thinkers, and writers, and the witness of orthodoxy, to raise the consciousness of the true Christ throughout the true church, and to bring repentance and healing of error, even heresy through the gospel of Jesus Christ. [applauds]
