----------------------
This clocks in at over 4000 words. We have redacted a good part of the article omitted since it is a long, pedantic explanations of why the author is not a hyper-Calvinist, as well as discussions about people he's got differences with.
The author concludes, after that extensive and tangential explanation, that Armenianism is not heresy, but it is wrong. It is wrong because it contradicts Calvinism.
We should mention that we are not defending Armenianism, we are intent on discussing the author's assertions.
We should mention that we are not defending Armenianism, we are intent on discussing the author's assertions.
Lastly, the author doesn't quote or reference the Bible. Not once. This is clearly Bad Bible Teaching.)
(...)
God's desire is to bless, and it seems He does so without regard to merit, whether unrighteous or righteous:
More to the point of the author's contention that "Arminianism is not orthodoxy by its plainest definition, because it is not right thinking, and stands opposed to the very concept of grace itself as unmerited favor," we will find the author never provides any explanation of this.)
However, in the second component of “orthodoxy” – that which has been historically acceptable by the “Church Historic” there is no doubt that non-Calvinists and a “regeneration preceeds (sic) faith” Ordo Salutis has been widely accepted by the Church Historic. (The "Ordo Salutis" is the Order of Salvation, a step by step process that describes how God saves a man. Arminians even have their own "Ordo Salutis," the existence of which demonstrates the arcane and irrelevant details on which people like the author focus to no one's profit.)
That answer, of course, is insufficient because even though we view history as a valuable tool to determine orthodoxy and heresy, it is not the infallible rule of faith and practice. So then, we will put the orthodoxy category (under the secondary, broader term) as “moot” for the sake of argument made in this particular article.
Regarding heterodoxy, we’ve no problem putting Arminianism squarely in that camp. Please note that this article is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation as to why, (But, but... That's the title of your article, sir.)
This leaves us with the primary (and original) question of “Is Arminianism heresy?” That Arminianism is heterodoxical does not by necessity imply it is heretical. (End here. Question answered.)
Here is the answer, as best I can provide it.
Misunderstanding the Ordo Salutis – the chief error of Arminianism – (This is the second time the author has brought this up. Will he actually explain how Arminians misunderstand the Ordo?)
FINALLY, FINALLY
I will repeat myself again. The fact is, as I have already laid out, much of historic Calvinism has claimed that Arminianism is heresy. (After repeatedly claiming that Arminianism is heterodox, now he brings in what Calvinism claims. But because it's all a matter of doctrinal perspective, our only response will be that Calvinism is heterodox from our perspective, and borders on heresy itself. Thus we have sufficiently refuted the author, since summary claims can be summarily dismissed.)
Is Arminianism heresy, damnable heresy, heterodoxy or orthodoxy?
Well, off the bat we can discount Arminianism as “damnable heresy” because we reject the notion that “damnable heresy” is a good term to use because it is a redundant and unnecessary term, as explained above. Secondly, we can certainly say that Arminianism is not orthodoxy by its plainest definition, because it is not right thinking, and stands opposed to the very concept of grace itself as unmerited favor. (It's news to us that Armininism opposes grace. The author cites no examples of this.
We further would contest the idea that grace is unmerited favor. The word "unmerited" is not found in the Bible. The word does not mean "without merit," it means "without regard for, or consideration of, merit." In fact, merit doesn't enter the equation. Let's look at Jn. 1:16:
Favor, disposed to, inclined, favorable towards, leaning towards to share benefit – properly, grace. 5485 (xáris) is preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").
5485 /xáris ("grace") answers directly to the Hebrew (OT) term 2580 /Kaná ("grace, extension-toward"). Both refer to God freely extending Himself (His favor, grace), reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (be near) them.
Well, off the bat we can discount Arminianism as “damnable heresy” because we reject the notion that “damnable heresy” is a good term to use because it is a redundant and unnecessary term, as explained above. Secondly, we can certainly say that Arminianism is not orthodoxy by its plainest definition, because it is not right thinking, and stands opposed to the very concept of grace itself as unmerited favor. (It's news to us that Armininism opposes grace. The author cites no examples of this.
We further would contest the idea that grace is unmerited favor. The word "unmerited" is not found in the Bible. The word does not mean "without merit," it means "without regard for, or consideration of, merit." In fact, merit doesn't enter the equation. Let's look at Jn. 1:16:
From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another."Grace" is charis in Greek, which means grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ, (b) favor, (c) gratitude, thanks, (d) a favor, kindness.
Favor, disposed to, inclined, favorable towards, leaning towards to share benefit – properly, grace. 5485 (xáris) is preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").
5485 /xáris ("grace") answers directly to the Hebrew (OT) term 2580 /Kaná ("grace, extension-toward"). Both refer to God freely extending Himself (His favor, grace), reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (be near) them.
God's desire is to bless, and it seems He does so without regard to merit, whether unrighteous or righteous:
Mt. 5:45 He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.There is an added dimension for the children of God, which is even greater, because He has elevated us into heirs. Therefore, we are blessed by right:
Jn. 1:12-13 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Ro. 8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Ga. 4:4-5 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.This is why our inheritance is sealed by the Holy Spirit as a guarantee:
Ep. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession — to the praise of his glory.A guarantee creates a legal obligation, of which we are beneficiaries, without regard for our merit:
Tit. 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.We conclude, therefore, that grace is not "unmerited favor," because God pours out His benefits without regard for merit. And for us who are being saved, God has created a situation where we are children of God and heirs by right.
More to the point of the author's contention that "Arminianism is not orthodoxy by its plainest definition, because it is not right thinking, and stands opposed to the very concept of grace itself as unmerited favor," we will find the author never provides any explanation of this.)
However, in the second component of “orthodoxy” – that which has been historically acceptable by the “Church Historic” there is no doubt that non-Calvinists and a “regeneration preceeds (sic) faith” Ordo Salutis has been widely accepted by the Church Historic. (The "Ordo Salutis" is the Order of Salvation, a step by step process that describes how God saves a man. Arminians even have their own "Ordo Salutis," the existence of which demonstrates the arcane and irrelevant details on which people like the author focus to no one's profit.)
On this account and by this broader application of the term, it would be difficult to say that non-Calvinists (like John Wesley, as the locus classicus example) are not orthodox, as viewed by Christians throughout the ages. This is no change of opinion on my part; I have been clear, for example, that while some greatly disagree with infant baptism, I do not call it heresy because it has been widely accepted by the orthodox Christian church. It is wrong – and it is very wrong, in my estimation – but I have never called it heresy because my definitions of heresy, heterodoxy and orthodoxy have not changed one iota. (Somehow the author's doctrinal persistence is relevant.)
That answer, of course, is insufficient because even though we view history as a valuable tool to determine orthodoxy and heresy, it is not the infallible rule of faith and practice. So then, we will put the orthodoxy category (under the secondary, broader term) as “moot” for the sake of argument made in this particular article.
Regarding heterodoxy, we’ve no problem putting Arminianism squarely in that camp. Please note that this article is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation as to why, (But, but... That's the title of your article, sir.)
but merely to convey the official position of Pulpit & Pen and more particularly, me personally.
This leaves us with the primary (and original) question of “Is Arminianism heresy?” That Arminianism is heterodoxical does not by necessity imply it is heretical. (End here. Question answered.)
Here is the answer, as best I can provide it.
Misunderstanding the Ordo Salutis – the chief error of Arminianism – (This is the second time the author has brought this up. Will he actually explain how Arminians misunderstand the Ordo?)
does not eternally damn one by necessity, in the same way that (for example) misunderstanding the ontology of God regarding the Trinity or misunderstanding Christology regarding the deity or Christ or misunderstanding soteriology on the same level as that of the Galatian Heresy does automatically damn one. For a full list of heresies we have and haven’t written about at Pulpit & Pen, click here. If you have read the link previously aforementioned, you might have noticed that Arminianism is not on the (very extensive) list of heresies we have cataloged and explained at this polemics site. Few have picked up on that caveat or detail, which might have given you insight into our actual position.
As plainly as possible, Arminianism only becomes a heresy when it is held to in such a way as to teleport the adherent to the heresies of Pelagianism (which is very common among self-professed Arminians, clearly). (What does this entail? Please explain. Oh. He won't.)
As plainly as possible, Arminianism only becomes a heresy when it is held to in such a way as to teleport the adherent to the heresies of Pelagianism (which is very common among self-professed Arminians, clearly). (What does this entail? Please explain. Oh. He won't.)
(...) (A brief discussion containing the names of various irrelevant people.)
I agree wholeheartedly with George Whitefield who said, “We are all born Arminians. It is by the grace of God that we become Calvinists” (this is attributed to Spurgeon as well). I would go so far as to argue that most of us are born-again as Arminians, utterly convinced that faith was our contribution to our own salvation, blissfully unaware that faith is actually God’s contribution to our salvation and all we contributed was a steaming pile of our own sin. (Arminians believe that faith is a contribution to salvation? This seems to be an important point, yet another thing the author will not discuss.)
However, if someone would go so far as to say that faith is a work by which they have earned, merited, or deserved salvation then they are not only practicing the heresy of Pelagianism, they are – at least in spirit – practicing the heresy of the Galatian Judaizers. (So based on the author's previous statement that many Arminians are Pelagian, this apparently means that many Arminians believe they have earned or deserved salvation. We are frankly unaware of any Christian who believes such a thing.)
I agree wholeheartedly with George Whitefield who said, “We are all born Arminians. It is by the grace of God that we become Calvinists” (this is attributed to Spurgeon as well). I would go so far as to argue that most of us are born-again as Arminians, utterly convinced that faith was our contribution to our own salvation, blissfully unaware that faith is actually God’s contribution to our salvation and all we contributed was a steaming pile of our own sin. (Arminians believe that faith is a contribution to salvation? This seems to be an important point, yet another thing the author will not discuss.)
However, if someone would go so far as to say that faith is a work by which they have earned, merited, or deserved salvation then they are not only practicing the heresy of Pelagianism, they are – at least in spirit – practicing the heresy of the Galatian Judaizers. (So based on the author's previous statement that many Arminians are Pelagian, this apparently means that many Arminians believe they have earned or deserved salvation. We are frankly unaware of any Christian who believes such a thing.)
That is, in no uncertain terms, a false gospel. And yet, it is my conviction, that few who believe the source of faith is their own heart who would actually attribute it as a meritious (sic, "meritorious") “work.” And, therein lies the rub. For those who consider their faith a meritorious work, then anathema to them. Many Arminians believe such a thing, and so with no hesitation, anathema to them (may God save them from the curse of the law). However, there are a great deal of Arminians (or non-Calvinists, to speak more broadly) who hold to a cognitively dissonant position that faith is a gift of God, and yet God has given faith to all men (who must utilize it somehow by their own decision-making process), and yet not all men are saved. (This is a convoluted and pejorative explanation of what the author's theological adversaries believe. No Christian believes that works saves a man.
It seems to us that the author's belief is that faith unto salvation is either given by God or a work. But because he offers no biblical documentation, we are unable to ascertain the accuracy of this claim.)
Yes, we recognize that’s terrible scholarship. But no, it’s not the same as the Galatian Heresy and it’s not the same as Pelagianism, which denies the necessity of grace at all. (But the author claimed that Arminianism leans toward Pelagianism, and below quotes Spurgeon who directly asserted it. So is Arminianism actually heretical now?)
(...) (Another detour where the author refers to various people for no reason.)
(...) (Another detour where the author refers to various people for no reason.)
It’s one thing to be a poor theologian who has not fully thought out the implications of the suppositions under which you were discipled, but it’s another thing altogether to position yourself as an enemy of God’s righteous attributes and to kick against the goads of God’s sovereignty. (What does God's sovereignty have to do with Arminianism?)
I will remind you that in the works of our Beloved Spurgeon, he regularly refers to Arminians as Pelagians, for he had no patience for those advocating most strongly their heterodoxical views. I don’t believe Spurgeon failed to ascertain the nuanced difference between Arminianism and Pelagianism – for certain quotations from the Prince of Preachers makes it impossible for him not to have seen such a distinction – but he apparently felt Arminianism to be worth so little respect that calling it the pejorative “Pelagianism” seemed inconsequential to him.
I also believe that when Spurgeon said things like, “The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works,” he is clearly indicating that Arminianism – if taken to its logical conclusion – can be outright heresy. (Situation shared by the author's Calvinism, which he even recognizes as he repeatedly recoils against the "hyper-Calvinist" moniker. This is contained in our many redactions, so the reader might not be aware the author has done this.)
I also believe that when Spurgeon said things like, “The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works,” he is clearly indicating that Arminianism – if taken to its logical conclusion – can be outright heresy. (Situation shared by the author's Calvinism, which he even recognizes as he repeatedly recoils against the "hyper-Calvinist" moniker. This is contained in our many redactions, so the reader might not be aware the author has done this.)
That does not imply that Arminianism is by necessity taken to its logical conclusion. In a world of reality, the reality is that those who espouse Arminianism often do not take it to their logical conclusion, and unless they do, they are not heretics by my (or I believe, Spurgeon’s) estimation.
(...) (Another detour where the author refers to various people for no reason.)
(...) (Another detour where the author refers to various people for no reason.)
I also affirm their assessment that no one is saved by an Arminian Gospel; if someone is saved by the preaching of someone like a John or Charles Wesley, they are saved by the Holy Spirit (Everyone is saved this way, sir.)
using the Scripture to make someone born again and then converted through a process best articulated by Calvinism. That being said, it can also be said that people can be genuinely saved by the preaching of Joel Osteen but it would not be because of Osteen, but in spite of him. (People are certainly saved in spite of Calvinism. Since Calvinism teaches predestination, no one is saved because of anything other than God's election. Thus there is no difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.)
(...)
FINALLY, FINALLY
I will repeat myself again. The fact is, as I have already laid out, much of historic Calvinism has claimed that Arminianism is heresy. (After repeatedly claiming that Arminianism is heterodox, now he brings in what Calvinism claims. But because it's all a matter of doctrinal perspective, our only response will be that Calvinism is heterodox from our perspective, and borders on heresy itself. Thus we have sufficiently refuted the author, since summary claims can be summarily dismissed.)
(...) (Another detour where the author refers to various people for no reason.)
IN SUMMARY (More irrelevant stuff about various people and "hyper-Calvinism.")
(...)
No comments:
Post a Comment