Arminianism: Self-reliant; Man-Centered; Works Salvation

[AVBunyan]

Below are note and quotes taken from, “Introductory Essay – An Introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by J. I. Packer.

“Calvinism is what the Christian church has always held and taught when its mind has not been distracted by controversy and false traditions from attending to what the Scriptures actually says. Christ died to save a certain company of helpless sinners upon whom God had set his free saving love. Christ’s death ensured the calling and keeping the present and final salvationâ€â€of all whose sins he bore. That is what Calvary meant, and means. Its central confession, that God saves sinners, that Christ redeemed us by his blood, is the witness both of the Bible and of the believing heart.

The “five points of Calvin were nothing more than a response to the below 5-point manifesto put out by certain “Belgic semi-Pelagians†in the early 17th century.

Arminianism:
(1) Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor
(2) Is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it.
(3) God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by him foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe.
(4) Christ’s death did not ensure salvation for anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.
(5) It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost. Thus, Arminianism made man’s salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man’s own work and, because his now, not God’s in him.

Arminianism declares that God’s redeeming love extends to every man, and that Christ has died to save every man, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts. And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save ourselves unless we add something to it. [Our faith, choice]

Christ’s death created an opportunity for the exercise of saving faith, but that is all it did.

The Arminian says: “I decided for Christ,†“I made up my mind to be a Christian.â€Â

Arminianism wants (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Savior; yet ends up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviors.

Also, so far from magnifying the merit and worth of Christ’s death, it cheapens it, for it makes Christ die in vain.

…it destroys the Scriptural ground of assurance all together.

…that we save ourselves with Christ’s help.

Arminianism teaches that salvation, on this view, depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself. Instead, Arminianism involves in a bewildering kind of double-think about salvation, telling ourselves one moment that it all depends on God and next moment that it all depends on us."

Most of you folks here to be of the above persuasion - A Man-centered salvation. You bellieve Christ didn't die for sins - this only takes place if you choose Christ and then Calvary becomes effectual thus makingn youu the author of your own salvation and leaves Calvary a joke.

No wonder you folks think you can lose it - You chose so you can unchoose it.

God bless

 

[MrVersatile48]

MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I'M HALF IRISH..

..but, when I was President of the Christian Union at what is now Liverpool Polytechnic, I had to seek God's wisdom @ how to 'maintain the spirit of unity in the bond of peace' - when passionate Calvinism v Arminian debate threatened to hamper our 'unity in the precious work of the gospel'

God gave me 1 short, simple sentence - like a bright, neon vision... :o

"God's sovereign will is that man has free will" 8-)

The message I had to give - with no preparation time whatsoever in the crisis that had occured - was very much 'flying by the seat of my pants, on a wing & a prayer' - just like most of my posts here, & thru'out my 4.5 years @ Christian 'net discussion forums, on public PCs

I have a vision of several readers falling about laughing, as they read all my posts every day & have followed me round 4/5 sites like this: some translating my stuff into Spanish, Mandarin, Hindi, French, German, Russian, Italian, Greek..... :roll:

But I digress... :

(who said, "as usual!!???) :wink:

OK..

OK...

Who DIDN'T say that??????????? :


Lemme tell ya the story of my 1st Bible College interview... :bday:

Dunno if any readers recall the late Lionel Hawker, of the Hawker-Siddley family?

Every inch the austere-but-kindly English gent, he was then Principal of Emmanuel BC, when it weas in Palm Grove, Claughton, Birkenhead, near B'head Park

I said into those clear blue eyes of his, "I won't waste your valuable time, sir

"My intense Bible study - (5/6 hours a day for 2 years, on top of a Civil Service Exec job in the demanding Regional HQ of ECGD in Manchester's St Peter's Square) - has led me to very firm beliefs that I've never heard anyone preach, but that I believe, with all my heart, God's Spirit has told me that the world needs to hear

"Sir, to put it very briefly, I challenge you, as Martin Luther challenged the Inquisitors, that if I am wrong in what I will now say, you show me from Scripture

"Sir, there are 2 many warnings, in Hebrews 2, Hebrews 4 & Hebrews 6 alone to preach 'once saved, always saved' - I challenge you, as a brilliant man, who obviously knows the Bible very well indeed, to show me any error from the Bible"

I nearly fell off my seat when he told me that such was the burden he & his staff had, to bring revival of hunger & thirst for God's kingdom & His righteousness back into what had then - & has even more now - become an apostate UK/EU & USA church

In God's timing, maybe some readers heard almost the same words on Christian TV in the past 1/2 days?

I'm sure it was the late, great Derek Prince, whose amazingly insightful teaching series still play on Christian radio & TV worldwide - I used to hear himeach morning on UCB @ 549m MW/AM

The 11 Christian freeview TV channels are on Sky 760-771 - (except the RC propaganda on EWTN, of course - the only show I accidentally put on there hasd the same blasphemous, idolatrous message that stopped my happy 2 years of fellowship with charismatic RC group, 'Emmaus Family of Prayer')

Both 'priests' spoke @ "Our Proper Relationship To Mary" - but lied that she was a co-redeemer goddess to be prayed to & sung hymns of worship to, etc

I told my friends there, privately, in the lunch interval of that "Reconciliation Conference" that the proper relationship of any truly Bible-believing, Spirit-led, born-again Christian to Mary was brother & sister in Christ: she is NOT my mother, nor is she theirs

Jeremiah 44 forbids the use of the pagan occult fertility cult title, "Queen of Heaven" that you see in the blasphemous, idolatrous RC catechism

Any RC readers are most strongly urged to exercise the free will that no pope, cardinal or priest can rob from them , & obey Revelation 18 clear warning to come out from among them, so you will not share their punishment (as Great Whore/Harlot/Prostitute of Revelation 17

So no, the last few paragraphs are not off topic

Must go

God bless!

Ian

 

[Drew]

I have never really understood the Calvinist claim that a free will act of acceptance suddenly makes us our own saviours. This notion seems to be at variance with common sense. God dies on the cross and bears the sin of all humanity and all we do is humbly accept this gift. Stated very imprecisely, God does 99.9999 % of the work and we do the other .0001% (if we count accepting a gift as a "work").

Suppose there is a building on fire and the firemen rush to the scene. A timid humble janitor unlocks the door and lets the firemen in as he recoils in fear. The firemen rush in and rescue the occupants - the firemen risk life and limb, the firemen do > 99.9 % of the work. Would a reasonable person assert that the janitor is responsible for the salvation of the residents? Only in a very limited sense in that the firemen needed to get him to open the door. But the real work, risk, and pain was borne by the firemen, not the janitor.

In the same way, to assert that a free will act of acceptance makes us our own saviours does injustice to the real work of the cross.

 

[DivineNames]

I came across-

THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND PREDESTINATION
by Jacques More

http://www.jarom.net/greekdad.htm


It includes quotes from the Church Fathers such as-

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM 347-407
On Hebrews, Homily 12

"All is in God's power, but so that our free-will is not lost . . . It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help . . . It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God's to perfect and bring to the end."

JEROME c.347-420
Against the Pelagians Book III, 10

"But when we are concerned with grace and mercy, free-will is in part void; in part, I say, for so much depends upon it, that we wish and desire, and give assent to the course we choose. But it depends on God whether we have the power in His strength and with His help to perform what we desire, and to bring to effect our toil and effort."

 

[JM]

Three words to sum up the historical arguement FOR the freewiller's: Council of Orange. :wink:

It seems the church sided with Augustine.

 

[Drew]

Three words to sum up the historical arguement FOR the freewiller's: Council of Orange. :wink:

It seems the church sided with Augustine.

This is not without some relevance. However, it would be helpful to hear the actual content of Augustine's argument - why, exactly, does a mere act of acceptance make man the author of his own salvation?

 

[DivineNames]

Three words to sum up the historical arguement FOR the freewiller's: Council of Orange. :wink:

It seems the church sided with Augustine.

I think the Roman Catholics have some strange form of predestination-

"He who would place the reason of predestination either in man alone or in God alone would inevitably be led into heretical conclusions about eternal election."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Can anyone provide an explanation?



But anyway, if free will playing a part in salvation is heretical from the standpoint of the Roman Catholic Church, if tradition went against it at some point, why would a Protestant necessarily care?

Especially if there is good evidence that Augustine's position is contrary to early Christianity. Now I don't know whether that is the case, I have never looked into it.

Can any Calvinist provide evidence that their doctrine was part of early Christianity?

 

[DivineNames]

For nine years Saint Augustine adhered to Manichaeism, a Persian dualistic philosophy proclaimed by Mani (216-276? AD) in southern Babylonia (Iraq) that taught a doctrine of "total depravity" and the claim that they were the "elect." Augustine then turned to skepticism and was attracted to the philosophy of Neoplatonism. He blended these beliefs with his later Gnostic and Christian teachings. Augustine's prolific writings were more strongly biased by his previously obtained theology than on his detailed study of the Christian Scriptures. He used Christian Scripture out of context when words or phrases could be adapted to match his theology. Augustine's teachings were in turn passed on to John Calvin through his extensive study of Augustine's writings. It is very easy to follow the trail of John Calvin's theology from the pagan religion of Mani in Babylonia to Saint Augustine and into his own writings in France and Geneva that distort the Word of God. Calvin's false doctrine came directly from Augustine.

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

This is merely an assertion of course. Is there evidence for/against this claim? Was Augustine influenced by Manichaeism?

 

[DivineNames]

Three words to sum up the historical arguement FOR the freewiller's: Council of Orange. :wink:

It seems the church sided with Augustine.

You need to back this up. Merely appealing to Roman Catholic tradition, that developed at a certain time, (contrary to early Christianity?) will not help you much.

 

[JM]

Three words to sum up the historical arguement FOR the freewiller's: Council of Orange. :wink:

It seems the church sided with Augustine.

You need to back this up. Merely appealing to Roman Catholic tradition, that developed at a certain time, (contrary to early Christianity?) will not help you much.

Catholic tradition? :

see The Cause of God and Truth [ http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/ ... rchive.htm scroll half way down the page ]. See Part 4 for historical info.

Enjoy!

 

[mutzrein]

Does this mean anything to you guys one way or the other?

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Drew]

Does this mean anything to you guys one way or the other?

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This is an interesting text - I think it can be used to see how "interpreting" the Bible is sometimes tricky.

I submit that a Calvinist will read the phrase "...nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" and understandably conclude that our one's salvation is not act of the human will, but that it depends wholly on the will of God - man's free will plays no part at all. In other words he commits to the notion that this phrase has no other interpretation except that the human will has no role in effecting salvation. Based on such a commitment, the Calvinist then interprets the phrase "....to them that believe on his name" in a sense that is involves a somewhat different interpretation of the nature of belief than is involved in common usage (see below) - the Calvinist accepts that this belief does not involve any component of free will. Can the Calvinist legitimately take this somewhat unusual stance about the connotation of the word "believe"? Of course he can, words are often ambiguous - for example, sometimes "all the world" does not really mean all the world.

The Aminian reads the phrase "....to them that believe on his name" and understandably conclude that "believing" entails a component of free will commitment. After all, this is what the word "believe" means in common speech. When someone claims to believe x, we generally assume that he had at least some free choice in coming to believe x. Accordingly, when this Arminian reads the phrase ".....nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God", he reads it as follows: salvation is of God in the sense that it is a gift accepted freely by men. Is this a legitimate reading?

Yes, it is.

While the phrase does indeed say that our salvation is not the result of the will of man, this statement is still somewhat "open" in that the Arminian view (as I understand it, anyway) is that the salvation of men is indeed the work of God, in the sense that it is (to speak somewhat loosely) 99.999 % the work of God and the human contributes the weak act of simple grateful acceptance. The text does allow for this interpretation, precisely because common usage of expressions like "X was the work of Y" in no way requires, or even strongly suggests, that Y's work cannot be contingent on someone else in some way.

So we say things like "The Mona Lisa is the work of DaVinci" and do not withdraw the statement if we find out that the young lady who posed for the painting had to invite the painter into her house - it is still the work of DaVinci. While it is true that the young lady exercized "will" in letting the painter in, this does not give the case to the "Calvinist" as we recall the phrase "...nor of the will of man". Why?

Simply because it is not correct to say the painting was the result of the will of the young lady as I think the Calvinist would like to claim - it is an act that arises from the will of DaVinci - the fact that the young woman did not turn him away simply does not change the fact that the painting, once done, was the the working out of the will of DaVinci. The woman could have turned away. If this had indeed happened, there simply would have been no painting.

The Arminian will say, if we indeed accept the gift of salvation, then the resultant salvation remains the work of God for all intents and purposes.

 

[DivineNames]

Catholic tradition? :

see The Cause of God and Truth [ http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/ ... rchive.htm scroll half way down the page ]. See Part 4 for historical info.

Enjoy!

I looked at the section on Athanasius. What I noticed, is that the author is going on about stuff that doesn't necessarily look relevant, (or prove the point) and then concedes that there is a part of his writing that suggests free will, but trys to explain it away. I will try to find out if the "explaining away" is legit.

 

[DivineNames]

THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND PREDESTINATION
by Jacques More


I have not read all the early church fathers' writings but I am here relying upon compilers of the history of their thinking who have read them and quote liberally from them. Due to the size of this present document I will just submit their conclusions:

In harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek Fathers.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE page 165 by George Park Fisher DD LLD. T&T Clark(1). (italics mine)

Inculcated means it was the teaching urged or impressed persistently by the early Church Fathers. Conditional means in God's desire for you, if you work with Him it will happen; if you don't want Him, it cannot happen. Which, of course, is true due to His Self control (Galatians 5:23). Immediately preceding this statement, but after his various quotes from the Early Church Fathers, Dr. Fisher states:

...the renewal of the soul is made to be the result of the factors, divine grace and the exertion of man's free-will. As a rule, the exertion of free-will, human efforts in a right direction, precede the divine aid, and render men worthy of it. It is a doctrine of synergism. God and man cooperate.

(also page 165)(1)

Indeed reading Henry Chadwick's THE EARLY CHURCH (page 38) the index points the first idea of unconditional predestination as appearing from the gnostic sect, not an orthodox body of believers:

...the Gnostics [placed]...the natural order at so vast a distance in moral value from the supreme God. The influence of fatalistic ideas drawn from popular astrology and magic became fused with notions derived from Pauline language about predestination to produce a rigidly deterministic scheme. Redemption was from destiny, not from the consequences of responsible action, and was granted to a pre-determined elect in whom alone was the divine spark.(2)

In fact, when the teaching of Augustine on these things came into the hands of one of his contemporaries, Vincent of Lérins, he expressed it as:

...a most disturbing innovation, quite out of line with 'orthodoxy' which Vincent defined as that body of belief which is held undeviatingly by the universal church.

Chadwick Page 233(2)

Another contemporary, Julian bishop of Eclanum, expressed that Augustine was causing trouble because he 'brought his Manichee ways of thinking into the church... and was denying St Paul's clear teaching that God wills all men to be saved'(2) (Chadwick page 232-3 & 1 Timothy 2:4). The Manichees were a cult Augustine originally belonged to which advocated that:

...the nature of man can be corrupt to the point that his will is powerless to obey God's commands.

Chadwick page 228(2)

This continuing tenet of Augustine theology is an indispensible part of his unconditional predestination thinking, but it is in open defiance to prior teaching in the church concerning man's free-will. Roger T Forster and Paul V Marston in GOD'S STRATEGY IN HUMAN HISTORY quote directly from the following Early Church Fathers(3):

(As of 26th September 2002 a link has been placed with each of the 17 early Church Fathers below to their respective quotes)




JUSTIN MARTYR (c.100-165 A.D.)

IRENAEUS of Gaul (c.130-200)

ATHENAGORAS of Athens (2nd century)

THEOPHILUS of Antioch (2nd century)

TATIAN of Syria (flourished late 2nd century)

BARDAISAN of Syria (c.154-222)

CLEMENT of Alexandria (c.150-215)

TERTULLIAN of Carthage (c.155-225)

NOVATIAN of Rome (c.200-258)

ORIGEN (c.185-254)

METHODIUS of Olympus (c.260-martyred 311)

ARCHELAUS

ARNOBIUS of Sicca (c.253-327)

CYRIL of Jerusalem (c. 312-386)

GREGORY of Nyssa (c.335-395)

JEROME (c.347-420)

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (347-407)



They conclude (page 244(3)) that as concerns 'free-will' three recurrent themes are found in the early fathers teachings:

1. The rejection of free-will is the view of heretics.

2. Free-will is a gift given to man by God - for nothing can ultimately be independent of God.

3. Man possesses free-will because he is made in God's image, and God has free-will.

It is implied throughout that this free-will is always able to act, even if sometimes to a limited degree, irrespective of individual sin inherited or carried out. They also state that 'the only ones to reject it were heretics like the Gnostics, Marcion, Valentinus, Manes (and the Manichees), etc.' Two of these heretical cults we have seen above agree with Augustine. Finally I give place to Forster and Marston for the concluding words:

[Augustine's] difference from the early church was not a simple one of faith versus works. The early Christian teachers were no less clear than Augustine that salvation was a free gift. His point of departure from them is that faith itself was an irresistible gift.

We must decide for ourselves whether we believe that Augustine, or the Christians of the first centuries, had the true Pauline doctrine.

GOD'S STRATEGY IN HUMAN HISTORY(4)


http://www.jarom.net/greekdad.htm

 

[DivineNames]

JM, It seems that some have reached a very different conclusion to your own source.

Another contemporary, Julian bishop of Eclanum, expressed that Augustine was causing trouble because he brought his Manichee ways of thinking into the church...

 

[TruthMiner]

///

 

[TruthMiner]

No wonder you folks think you can lose it - You chose so you can unchoose it.

God bless

Lose it? Wha? It isn't something you lose OR keep.

No wonder Calvinists are so confused.

 

[AVBunyan]

Lose it? Wha? It isn't something you lose OR keep.
No wonder Calvinists are so confused.

I guess the greatest writers, missionaries, evangelists, and pastors of the past (most of them were Calvinists) were confused also, huh? :roll:

 

[TruthMiner]

Lose it? Wha? It isn't something you lose OR keep.
No wonder Calvinists are so confused.

I guess the greatest writers, missionaries, evangelists, and pastors of the past (most of them were Calvinists) were confused also, huh? :roll:

If they are talking about LOSING or KEEPING salvation, they most certainly are. Salvation is not something you own. It is something you experience.

I guess the "greatest" ones are the ones that appeal to you right?

 

[John the Baptist]

I guess the greatest writers, missionaries, evangelists, and pastors of the past (most of them were Calvinists) were confused also, huh?
_________________

John here:
Yes, in more doctrines than just this one, huh? :wink: Revelation 17:5

PS: You say.. "Independent Baptist - so Independent the Independents don't even like us!" :fadein: Here I was sure that most folks would call you very liberal.