The life of the arch-heretic of the Christian church responsible for reviving the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism.
Introduction to Arminius
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
After much thought, I have decided to add this section of the website into A Puritan�s Mind specifically for the benefit of the Calvinist. The Calvinist needs to have a thorough understanding of the Arminian tradition and their arguments. Deviant and mixed up forms of Arminianism are seen across the evangelical board of the contemporary church. If the Calvinist desires to deal faithfully with the Bible in opposition to the teachings of Arminianism, he must know what Arminianism teaches, even in it�s watered down and deviant forms today. Arminianism is not something hidden under a stone, but lives in full view, and in direct opposition, to the Gospel. It is a deceiving doctrine of demons wrought up from the pit of hell, where, in the consummation of the age, it will be cast for all eternity with the devil that spawned it and the false teachers who propagated it. My position on this doctrine is clear. I am opposed to the system of doctrine known as Arminianism. It is important to note at the outset that I have a very rigid opinion of Arminius and his writings. It is my opinion that James Arminius (James Harmensen) was an arch-heretic (a heresiarc) of the Christian faith. He was a deceived man who deceived others; those ultimately known as the Remonstrants, and today he still has some followers. Good intentions do not count for truth. He was a false teacher of the faith even if he believed he had the smallest amount of �good intention.� Now, this portion of the website is not to be taken as �Arminian bashing.� That is not my intent at all, and I will not tolerate the accusation that I am bashing Arminians on this portion of my site. Nor am I calling Arminius �names�. My intent, as I said, was for the benefit of the Calvinist, first and foremost. Though I have made myself known as to my opinion of Arminius in this first paragraph, and as to my outlook on the teachings of the system he produced and that the Remonstrants taught, I am still intending this portion of the site to edify the Calvinist by systematically refuting each of the major anti-biblical tenants of the Arminian system of thought and placing the Bible in the forefront. In the end, we should have a clear understanding of what classical Arminianism taught, and what the Bible says.
Whenever the Calvinist sets forth the ideas contained in the doctrines of grace, and fervently sets his pen (or keyboard) against the writings and thoughts of the Arminians, he is usually arguing against secondary ideas based upon his knowledge of the subject. What do I mean by this? I mean to say that instead of hearing the doctrine of repentance from Arminius himself, or from the Remonstrants (his followers), the Calvinist will refute the Arminian doctrine of repentance based on preconceived notions, assumptions, other books written about other authors who say they are Arminian, and the like. They are arguing against secondary ideas - on second hand information. Now it may be that the learned Calvinist �gets lucky� and, at times, hits the proverbial nail on the head. (We will not even mention the ignorant Calvinist who cannot even get the historical facts correct much less Arminius� doctrines.) He may certainly set forth, say, the doctrines of grace, in a manner which is consistent with orthodoxy, and at the same time he may adequately refute false ideas which rise against those doctrines even unknowingly. By doing all this that does not mean that he has a handle on the manner in which Arminius himself stated the doctrine or perceived the idea. In his ignorance of Arminius� ideas that does not make the Calvinist wrong in his approach to correctly handling the Word of Truth, but it does make him wrong in the manner of understanding the position of others before he critiques it. Ignorance in this manner is not to be tolerated. I am saddened by the lack of Calvinist prowess here in today�s Reformed Church. Books are being written, arguments stated, money is being made, and the �truth� is being proclaimed. Revision of these abound � do they not? In all honesty, I am not interested in them. Let us all stop arguing about these secondary issues and first have a real handle on what the Arminian actually believes and teaches. But we are only able to do this if we understand the intricate root system of classical �Arminianism.� Those who claim to be Arminian today and write books against their preconceived ideas of Calvinism (Geisler, Hunt, et al.) would be scolded and rebuked by Arminius himself for misunderstanding even what Arminius taught. The Remonstrants would have nothing to do with them. Today�s �Arminians� are as much classical Arminians as a 2003 Lamborghini Diablo is a replica of the first Ford motorcar. We are dealing with apples and oranges. (Note: Do not assume that I accuse James White of being wrong in refuting those men (Geisler, Hunt, et al); but do understand that those men know little, or nothing, about what James Arminius actually taught. Their own mixed up brand of �theology� is aberrant to say the least.)
There are certain kinds of Calvinists I am trying to help. On the one hand, there is the sympathetic Calvinist. He believes Arminians are as much a true Christian as any other Christians. Yes, they may be in serious error, but still, in all they hold to in error, they still preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and so, they are saved. He is wrong. Then there is the other side of the spectrum, the hardened Calvinist, who asserts that all Arminians are doomed and damned, and the only Gospel is to be found in the doctrines of TULIP. Only those who adhere to TULIP are saved. He is wrong as well. In knowing that both extremes exist in today�s culture, the Calvinist needs to develop a pastoral heart, while at the same time he must stand unswervingly to the truth of the Bible in a manner in which does not comprise the faith, once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3).
Lastly, on a personal note, I want to position myself fairly here. Though I believe that the system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heretical, that does not mean I am one of the hardened Calvinists who has little or no compassion on the �Arminians� of today. I am not in the first camp, nor am I in the second camp. To say �Arminians� are deceived brethren is an oxy-moron. It�s simply a matter of really understanding the Gospel. Yet, to throw a theological blanket over the entirety of Arminianism today and to say they are all lost is to act irresponsibly. Saying that is unfair, and Calvinists are not showing forth a prudent biblical mind when they say it. I would suggest that the Calvinist first read Dr. Nicole�s very good article �How to deal with those who differ from us.� After that, after meditating on that, then come and read through the posts here as they arrive.
I do hope that this portion of the site becomes a help to those who need it.
The quotations taken from Arminius� writings will be from the following source:
Arminius, James. The Works of Arminius, Translated by William Nichols, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI: 1991. Volumes 1-3.
This edition is a copy from what was known as the �London Edition� written in Latin.
The format for citations will be as follows (3:125).
This would mean volume 3, page 125 of Arminius' writings.
C. Matthew McMahon
October 31, 2002
Sourced from www.apuritansmind.com *** More of man�s Spew for the Pew�
Its no wonder why Calvinists & Arminians Battle�
I�m so very Glad that Ima �Judeao~Christian��Lord have Mercy ***�xo
...From the Scriptures as you found them there...xo
James shared ~ Since Jude likes to look things up, here are the things the Reformed struggle with, and debate amongst themselves:
*** Yup !!! I love to Read & Reseach in Books and the Net...Just like you James...its All Good...But why are stating that the Reformed Struggle with & Debate amongst themselves ???...Seems like you Only want to Argue & Debate with the Body of Christ Jesus here...xo
James wrote - "I have said on this group before that I don't consider Arminians to be heretics, at least not the ones on this group."
Maybe not, but your gross misinterpretation of what we believe would be defined as such.
James wrote - "Well, so what if you don't claim to be? You take all the positions of an Arminian, so if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
So what? Don't label me as something I am not. I don't care if it's similar to that label, I am not an Arminian. As I said, if it disagrees with Calvinism, you automatically conclude it must be Arminiasm.
James wrote - "Do you think that fallen man has free will and is able to believe in Jesus? Yes, you do."
Yep. If we cannot choose God, why does God tell us to choose Him?
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. And Joshua said unto the people, Ye [are] witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, [We are] witnesses. -Joshua 24:15,22
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. -Deuteronomy 30:19,20
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD [be] God, follow him: but if Baal, [then] follow him. And the people answered him not a word. -1 Kings 18:21
You want to say that the unsaved have a will to choose, but it is so depraved [or whatever] that it can't choose God, but only those things that are evil. Jesus preached "repent". Why? Because those who heard Him had a choice laid out before them, just as those did in the verses above. Jesus preached repentance to sinners. If sinners have no will to make the choice to repent, why bother with preaching it? Jesus never said anything about being born-again and then repent. Nor did anyone ever approach Him and tell Him they can't repent because their will is so controlled by satan that it's impossible in their current state for them to repent. And if, as you say, the sinners will is so jacked up that it cannot accept God, doesn't that relate to man's depravity being bigger than God? Or the Holy Spirit is not strong enough to breech man's depravity of mind?
James wrote - "Do you think that God only 'elects' people because He looked into the future and saw they would have faith? Yes, you do."
God knows beginning to end regardless of what your view is. He knows every detail about every person born and whether they will accept Christ' sacrifice or not. And those who are saved are elect, regardless your view.
James wrote - "Do you think Jesus died for everyone who ever lived? Yes you do."
Yep. And I've given you Scripture stating such. You continue to ignore those. Sometimes you redefine simple words to force Scripture to wrap your doctrine around. You even redefined Saviour to fit your doctrine.
James wrote - "Do you think God's grace can be resisted? YES YOU DO!"
Yep. Given you Scripture for that, too. Of course I'm sure you'll figure a way to stretch, mutilate, and redefine it to fit your doctrine.
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye. -Acts 7:51
James wrote - "Verdict: Arminian"
According to Calvin, and therefor you, I would be. According to Scripture I'm a blood-bought -forgiven of sin -child of God, who believes God's Word. I don't claim anything else. You, on the other hand, lay claim to your label.
LSU shared ~ What do you mean? They have been shared. Maybe you are being sarcastic.
*** Ima asking you to share [ The Doctrine of Grace ] as you Found them in the Scripture [ Bible ] Not someone elses Spin on it...I did not ask for Anything other than this...and No Ima not being sarcastic...xo
that's been done over and over. it just fits your side to say that i used my belief to find the doctrines of grace in scripture. Too bad for you, I grew up all my life believing that people choose, until I started to study. You don't know me. I suggest you don't speak about things you don't know about.
Well Ryan do you know that is what many say that confess reformed doctrine, but to believe in what you call doctrines you had to have spiritual help other than the holy spirit
"Furthermore, I came to the doctrines of grace from scripture. I did not come to scripture with the doctrines of grace. SO, your theory is wrong."
------------------
:ROFL:
Yeah right...lol! You were reading your Bible and formulated the Doctrines of Grace then later realized you agreed with Reformed Doctrine.
The only thing funnier than you saying that, is expecting someone to believe it! The Doctrines of Grace are the end result of a evolutionary process of many educated men over many years.
And you read the the Bible at saw it right off!......:ROFL:
