Archive through August 31, 2000 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 1 » Who will be more likely to sign the Sabbath death decree? » Archive through August 31, 2000 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Patti
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 6:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear GA,
I think that we have graphic evidence right here about the "L" being a divisive instead of inclusive doctrine. While we are not saved by theology one way or another, do you think it is productive to argue about things that we cannot be absolutely certain of? Somehow, for reasons yet uncomprehended by me, God chose to save mankind. I don't know why, and I don't know exactly how. All I know is that the work of salvation was finished completely, totally, and perfectly by Jesus Christ, the Word of God. I still do not see how defending the idea that God died for me but not for my neighbor who does not believe is a positive force for spreading the Gospel. On the flip side, nor do I believe the idea that we CAN reject God's salvation is relevant or productive to our duty to spread the Gospel.

The Gospel is NOT that Christ DID NOT die for some people (even if it were true). That is not GOOD NEWS. It is BAD NEWS. The Gospel is that Christ DID DIE for all who will believe in Him.

LIKEWISE--

The Gospel is NOT that one can reject the grace of God if one chooses. That, also, is BAD NEWS. What a ludicrous sermon to preach to someone that Jesus Christ died for their sins, but they can reject it if they choose (again, even if it were true)! It also dwells on the negative, and not on the fullness of our salvation in Jesus Christ. The Gospel is that God offers grace, full pardon, to those who believe in Him--with no fine print. I cannot imagine that it is pleasing to God for us pathetic humans to sit down here and bicker over things that we have no possibility of understanding in the first place. And I am totally convinced that we can get so involved with details that do not have anything to do with our salvation, so enamored with our own intellectual understanding, that we lose sight of the only Truth: Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Again, please take this in the spirit in which it was written. Not to score points against one side or another, but to try to refocus my own priorities.

Grace and peace always,
Patti
Lydell
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 7:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, thanks ever so for the assurance that I am who I say I am. Let me just say that I personally am greatly relieved! ha I'm sure my hubby will be glad to hear it too. Can we report your sentence to your English class? Maybe you can give it to them and have them right a good condensed version of it. It would be a challenge I think! We live in Alabama. Guess down here that would come down to: she are who she say she are.
Since GA wants a heavy metal discussion, I can't help you out there. But my hubby tells me that a Moody Blues song began with "I think therefore I am, I think."
Graceambassador
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 7:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Patti:
Thank you for your wisdom!
You said it sister, loud and clear!
Me??? I heard it!

I preach Christ and Him crucified as you said!

I submit the disclaimer that TULIP is not to be preached! Is to be taught to mature Christians so they would understand the role of certain "freaks" in history and why God sovereignly allowed them to live among us. I can name many, but you know them all... I'm sure ALL of us had difficulty in answering to kids and adults why God allowed Hitler to kill so many of Abraham's descendants, (according to prophecy God actually SENT HIM) and then allowed him to kill himself before any punishment of justice in this life? And other not so easy questions.

It is also for us to understand, for example, why Samuel cut the king of the Amalekites in pieces, literally, in front of the people and that was approved by God AND PLACED IN THE BIBLE as a lesson in Spiritual obedience... AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THE FLESH! That's all!

I will not insist!

A phrase that I used before and I will use about you because it is fitting:

"The word from a balanced Christian is wiser than all the theology we can get!"

Paraphrased from Proverbs: A word spoken in due time is as golden apples in silver platters.

You do not have to be apologetic for your words.
The Spirit that abides in me bears witness that HE is the same Spirit that abides in you and who inspires you to saying it!

I wish Churches would have conciliatory people as you! And here is a minister speaking!

Boy, where were you with this gift of wisdom when I pastored a church that was not demon possessed, it was worse: IT WAS DEACON POSSESSED?

Thanks!

Grace Ambassador
Billtwisse
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 2:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Brethren,

For the first time I had opportunity to read this ongoing discussion. Let me inject my 'three seconds of opportunity.'

Irresistable Grace:

This does not refer to grace as a change in the soul to merit justification (ala Roman Catholic theology). It refers to the fact that God bestows his unmerited favor in Christ on those whom he pleases and 'they can't say no.' The Holy Spirit works irresistably in the souls of those called to grace and creates saving faith in them.

Paul on the road to Damascus is the chief example of irresistable grace.

Limited Atonement:

The issue here is whether Christ suffered and made atonement for those in hell and bore away their sins. Did Christ make atonement for Judas and bear away his sins forever, a few hours after he hanged himself and was eternally in hell--without any hope of future redemption?

I will agree with Spurgeon: the notion that Jesus made atonement for men and women now in hell is too horrible a thought for me to entertain.

There are two antitypical days of atonement. One was the death of Jesus (for believers). The other is the last judgment (for unbelievers). Unbelievers who are too proud and foolish to accept Christ must atone for their own sins. God does not punish their sins twice: once in Jesus and then again on judgment day. Everything in the justice of God is perfectly balanced.

Unelect Race

Your comments are very intriguing, GA! I won't agree or disagree now. I will say, though, that the issue of the sons of God vs. the daughters of men has to do with the real 'war in heaven' (as opposed to Milton's fable--plagiarized by Ellen White in 'Patriarchs & Prophets' and 'The Great Controversy.')

The 'war in heaven' (Rev. 12) continued throughout all of the Old Testament. It is referred to in the Genesis example cited above, the books of Job & Daniel (especially chapter 10), and Zechariah 3. It was not pre-mankind.

--Twisse
Graceambassador
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 4:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Many Thanks Bill!

It is refreshing to have someone being able to explain and deliver painlessly so clarly what I could only complicate with great pain!

I stand corrected int the "war in heaven". I had completely forgotten that In Daniel, his prayers were witheld for 21 days!

I hope no one confuses Milton's Fables with Milton the Fabulous. Tha latter would be...well, you know...:))

Grace Ambassador
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patti, thank you for your share above. And Lydell, I'm right with you.

GA, you've posted often and I've enjoyed your posts. But I have to say this, the fact that you questioned Lydell about whether that was really her name is suspect and I'll tell you why. That's one of the oldest tactics in the book...it goes like this :you disagree with my beliefs (that I know are right), and I question your integrity in some way. I found that totally insulting that you would've done that. It wasn't as though you had been dialoging for a while with her. It was posed to her as soon as her first post to this subject, in which she objected to your beliefs. Just a thought, ok? I think I'm far more aware of those tactics since leaving the SDA denomination, and I say for myself, that I've been guilty of such ugliness as well. And it is ugliness even if it's subtle and put it "polite" ways.
Graceambassador
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 10:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry2
Thank you for your admonition! I take it as done in love!

I have a reason for questioning. There were words and tone in her response to me that I had seen in a recent bout with a "deceptive" person (in quotation marks because this person was deceptive in the forum and I do not want to generalize anyone's character; it would be against Mat 7).

Plus, I hope you read Colleen's post that someone with the same name, but different spelling, was using this deceptive tactic in THIS FORUM.

Once it was determined that she was not such person, I hope you noticed that my tone changed!
I cannot see people here. I can only verify!
I hope everyone veryfies me as well!
This is a vestige of my ministerial career, where, along with the ability to discern, God requires that we "try and prove every spirit", (small "s").

I hope this matter is settled.

I hope to be able to interact with Lydell and learn from her. The same applies to you!

Now, another issue

Consider this: both Lidell and you compared my "techinic" with that of EGW. Perhaps you're both right whether I did it intentionally or not. I could find this offensive, but, no, I think it is something that needs healing on your part. This fear reveals a DREADFULL UNJUSTIFIED FEAR of any similarity to EGW's writings and it somehow impairs your ability to understand other peoples' position and PRE-JUDGE THEM. Just as the fear that Peter had of the waves! Fear has a PARALISING effect on us! I know because of my own fears when I hear Charismatics twisting the Bible for profit. (p-r-o-f-i-t and not p-r-o-p-h-e-t...). Then if anyone would be fund raising for legitimate reasons, I would cringe and accuse the fund raiser of using Charismatic tactics. I lost many opportunities of contributing to worthy causes because of wrongfully relating unrelated things.
You see, you said that I questioned Lydell the first time I interacted with her. Fine. Now, you SAID YOU READ MY POSTS, NONETHELESS YOU'RE JUDGING ME FOR ONE POST ONLY! See, that's what fear does. It is not UNNATURAL to question people's position the FIRST TIME THEY SAY IT. But it is NOT NATURAL be suspicious others' ideas when you have a history of their overall position!

I hope that your fear of "EGW's and SDA's" tactics do not impair your Spiritual growth. This has nothing to do with OUR ISSUE in discussion. It is just an understandable concern of mine by your comparison of my tactics as those of EGW.

That's why I am so hooked on "deep high brow" theology. I am sure when someone attempted to show EGW where she was teaching false doctrines she would respond: "I don't have time for high brow theology". When I became hooked on it, without calling myself a theologian, EGW, SDA, JW and others could not stand a chance with me! Perhaps if everyone would study the Bible to be as good as a theologian, WITH THE AID OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, we would bankurupt the cults.

Mainly, please, "God has not given to us the spirit of fear; But of love, power and a sound mind" which means MODERATION! And my concern is with the fear revealed of EGW's and SDA's tactics.

By the way, for the millionth time: I've never been an SDA and was never trained in theirs and EGW's tactics. But I don't fear those who do and those who appear to be doing so! I believe that perhaps everyone should do the same.

Again, sincerely in my heart, your admonition is noted!

(ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT HAS A TAKE IN THIS ISSUE, OR WANT TO REBUKE ME, PLEASE WOULD YOU POST NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE SO I (AND WE) CAN MOVE ON.... pleaaaase!)

In Love
Grace Ambassador
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 11:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GA,It's not fear, it's wisdom. Once you recognize the snake in the grass, you take wise counsel when you see something that moves similarly - not that it necessarily is, but you use wise caution. I do not fear. I have gained insight that lets me test things. That is one thing that you, because you didn't come out of SDAism, do not understand. One who leaves the church and remains a Christian does not fear like they used to at all. It was fear that enslaved us to the denomination. When we leave that and find the joy and peace in Christ that many of us have found, we lose that fear. Your remarks are well taken but I know that it is not fear, but proper caution that I take. Maybe someday I will see TULIP as true. That is why I am going to seminary...to study the Bible from the original sources. And then maybe I won't. One day at a time for me and keep it simple. I don't want to be hooked on anything but Jesus Christ.

I have looked up many other texts that talk of Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. I have in the past, and am presently, looking at this thing from different directions. You do not like my comparison to EGW, but she would have us believe that not all will be raised at the end of time...that in fact the text "every knee shall bow" does not mean that. And those who "never heard" the message will simply not be resurrected. Period. So when I find text after text that supports "all" and "world" that Christ died to reconcile to himself, and you tell me that it doesn't mean "all" and "world" it sounds very similar to me to EGW. I know that may offend you. But I refuse to close my eyes to things that do not look right or sound right. Is that over cautious? I think not. Is that fear? Not hardly.

I consider Lydell a friend, and we've been talking together since I believe April when I came across her and her husband's story on another support system for ex-Adventists. It was she who pointed me here. Thank you Lydell.

Yes, we defintely stand disagreed on this issue with the "L" and how to approach people. So be it. Shake hands to disagree agreeably? May the Lord bless you and keep you.

On to other subjects that I would like information on: what is hyper-calvanism, and what is the armenian stuff? I heard Armenian from JW, and former Worldwide Church of God, and somehow supposedly SDA roots go into this, but how, where from? That is an area I do not understand for I thought we came out of the Millerite movement which was composed of Baptists, and other denominations? Anyone know these things?
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 1:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry I stirred up the trouble pot, Colleen. It was I that first asked about TULIP....and then I said I disagreed with it... Should've just accepted the information I asked for and left it at that. Sorry.

As you see, I asked for more info. above. That's all I'll do this time is take the info. and be more cautious to disagree outloud. There's got to be balance in my asking info and then disagreeing with it right off...not the wisest thing in the world to do.
Patti
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 1:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The TULIP came about in answer to the teachings of a man named Jacob Arminius, a Dutch theologian living in the late sixteenth century. In a nutshell, the fundamental issue on which Calvinists and Arminists differ is man's initiative in salvation. Calvinists say that God is sovereign, that man is so depraved that he cannot even choose to want salvation; Arminists argue that man has "freewill" and is capable of accepting or rejecting God's grace. Most Arminists necessarily reject the total depravity of mankind. After all, if he is capable of exercising his "freewill" and CHOOSING to accept the Gospel, then there has to be SOMETHING good inherent in him.

When taken to its ultimate end, Arminism ends up as legalism: We are saved, not by God's act, but, at least in part, by our own (whether you call it "faith" or "obedience," etc.) Reformed theologians are very careful to qualify that we are saved BY GRACE through faith, and not BY our faith, as even the act of believing is not good enough to "merit" us eternal life. Every Arminist that I have spoken to always ends up with a "Big But" Syndrome. "Yes, Christ paid for our sin, but...."
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Calvinism

in Protestant Christianity the theology advanced by John Calvin and its development by his followers. The term also refers to doctrines and practices derived from the works of Calvin and his followers that became the distinguishing characteristics of the Reformed churches.

While Lutheranism was largely confined to parts of Germany and to Scandinavia, Calvinism spread into England, Scotland, the English-speaking colonies in North America, France, the Netherlands, much of Germany, and parts of central Europe. This expansion began during Calvin's lifetime and was encouraged by him. Religious refugees had poured into Geneva, especially from France during the 1550s as the French government became increasingly intolerant but also from England, Scotland, Italy, and other parts of Europe into which Calvinism had spread. Calvin welcomed them, trained many of them as ministers, sent them back to their countries of origin to spread the Gospel, and then supported them with letters of encouragement and advice. Geneva thus became the centre of an international movement and a model for churches elsewhere. John Knox, the Calvinist leader of Scotland, described Geneva as "the most perfect school of Christ that ever was on the earth since the days of the Apostles."

Efforts to explain the appeal of Calvinism in social terms have had only limited success. In France it may have been primarily attractive to the nobility and the urban upper classes, in Germany it found adherents among both townsmen and princes, but in England and the Netherlands it made converts in every social group. It seems likely, therefore, that its appeal was based on its ability to explain disorders of the age afflicting all classes as well as on the remedies and comfort provided both by its activism and by its doctrine.

Having said this much, however, it is important to observe that the later history of Calvinism has often been obscured by a failure to distinguish between (1) Calvinism as the beliefs of Calvin himself, (2) the beliefs of his followers, who, though striving to be faithful to Calvin, modified his teachings to meet their own needs, and (3) more loosely, the beliefs of the Reformed tradition of Protestant Christianity, in which Calvinism proper was only one, if historically the most prominent, strand. The Reformed churches--in the 16th century referred to in the plural to indicate, along with what they had in common, their individual autonomy and variety--consisted originally of a group of non-Lutheran Protestant churches based in towns in Switzerland and southern Germany. These churches have always been jealous of their autonomy, and Geneva was not alone among them in having distinguished theological leadership. Huldrych Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger in Z¸rich and Martin Bucer in Strasbourg also had a European influence, which combined with that of Calvin, especially in England, to shape what came to be called Calvinism.

The church in Geneva continued to venerate Calvin and aimed to be faithful to his teaching under his successors, first among them Theodore Beza, Calvin's chief lieutenant during the latter part of his life. But in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, in the atmosphere of what can be appropriately described as a Protestant "Counter-Reformation," Calvinism in Geneva underwent a change. Abandoning Calvin's more humanistic tendencies and drawing more on other aspects of his thought, Calvinism was increasingly intellectualized and came more and more to resemble the Scholasticism that Calvin had abhorred.

Under the influence of Aristotle the theology of Geneva became increasingly systematic. Faith, in this new atmosphere, was less a lively trust in God's promises than assent to a body of theological propositions. Especially the doctrine of predestination began to assume an importance such as had not been attributed to it before. Whereas Calvin had been led by personal faith to an awed belief in predestination, it now, considered an "eternal decree" of God and a metaphysical necessity, became the basis of faith.

Developments in Geneva illustrate what happened to Calvinism elsewhere. In 1619 they reached a climax at the Synod of Dort in the Netherlands, which spelled out various corollaries of predestination, as Calvin had never done, and made the doctrine central to Calvinism. Although the controversy that provoked this formulation was local, the synod was attended by representatives of Reformed churches elsewhere and assumed somewhat the same importance for them as the Council of Trent did for Roman Catholics.

In keeping with these developments Calvinist theologians, apparently finding Calvin's loose rhetorical style of expression unsatisfactory, began deliberately to write like Scholastic theologians, in Latin, and even appealed to medieval Scholastic authorities. The major Calvinist theological statement of the 17th century was the Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (1688) of FranÁois Turretin, chief pastor of Geneva. Although the title of his work recalled Calvin's masterpiece, the work itself bore little resemblance to the Institutes; it was not published in the vernacular, its dialectical structure followed the model of the great Summae of Thomas Aquinas, and it suggested Thomas' confidence in the value of human reason. The lasting significance of this shift is suggested by the fact that Turretin, in Latin, was the basic textbook in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey, the most distinguished intellectual centre of American Calvinism, until the middle of the 19th century.

Historians of Calvinism have continued to debate whether these developments were essentially faithful to the beliefs of Calvin or deviations from them. In some sense they were both. Later Calvinism, though abandoning Calvin's more humanistic tendencies, found precedents for these changes in the contrary aspects of his thought. They were untrue to Calvin, however, in rejecting his typically Renaissance concern to balance contrary impulses. These changes, moreover, suggest the stage in the development of a movement that Max Weber called "routinization." It is the stage that comes after a movement's creative beginnings and, as a kind of reaction against the disorderly freedom of individual creativity, represents the quite different values of order and regularity. It is also relevant to explaining these changes in Calvinism that they occurred during a period of singular disorder, caused among other things by a century of religious warfare, which generally produced a longing for certainty, security, and peace.
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Arminius, Jacobus
b. Oct. 10, 1560, Oudewater, Neth.
d. Oct. 19, 1609, Leiden
Dutch JACOB HARMENSEN OR HERMANSZ, theologian and minister of the Dutch Reformed Church who opposed the strict Calvinist teaching on predestination and who developed his own system of belief known later as Arminianism.
His father died when Arminius was an infant, and one Theodore Aemilius adopted the child and provided for his schooling in Utrecht. On the death of Aemilius in 1575, Rudolf Snellius (Snel van Roijen, 1546-1613), a professor at Marburg and a native of Oudewater, became the patron for his further education at the universities of Leiden (1576-82), Basel, and Geneva (1582-86).

After brief stays at the University of Padua, in Rome, and in Geneva, Arminius returned to Amsterdam. He was ordained there in 1588. In 1603 Arminius was called to a theological professorship at Leiden, which he held until his death. These last six years of his life were dominated by theological controversy, in particular by his disputes with Franciscus Gomarus, his colleague at Leiden.

Considered a man of mild temperament, Arminius was forced into controversy against his own choice. He had earlier affirmed the Calvinist view of predestination, which held that those elected for salvation were chosen prior to Adam's fall, but he gradually came to have doubts. To him predestination seemed too harsh a position because it did not allow human decision a role in the achieving of salvation. Hence Arminius came to assert a conditional election, according to which God elects to life those who will respond in faith to the divine offer of salvation. In so doing, he meant to place greater emphasis on God's mercy.

After his death some of his followers gave support to his views by signing the Remonstrance, a theological dictum written by Johannes Uyttenbogaert, a minister from Utrecht, in 1610. Remonstrant Arminianism was debated in 1618-19 at the Synod of Dort (Dordrecht), an assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church at which all the delegates were supporters of Gomarus. Arminianism was discredited and condemned by the synod, the Arminians present were expelled, and many others suffered persecution.

In 1629, however, the works of Arminius (Opera theologica) were published for the first time in Leiden, and by 1630 the Remonstrant Brotherhood had achieved legal toleration. It was finally recognized officially in the Netherlands in 1795. In its emphasis on the grace of God, Arminianism influenced the development of Methodism in England and the United States.
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 3:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A BIBLICAL ALTERNATIVE TO
BOTH CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM
By
Gary Ray Branscome


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For over four hundred years a controversy has raged between the followers of John Calvin and the followers of Jacob Arminius. This controversy centers around the doctrine of election and it continues to exist because both parties explain away any Bible passages which contradict their own viewpoint. In this essay I intend to show why Calvinism and Arminianism are both wrong while presenting a Biblical alternative.
WHY CALVIN WAS WRONG
Calvin began with those statements of Scripture which tell us that, "God has chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world." (Ephesians 1:4) He then deduced certain conclusions from those statements of Scripture. The problem with his theology stems from the fact that his conclusions sometimes contradict what the Bible says elsewhere. He should have rejected all conclusions which contradict God's Word (Isaiah 8:20). Instead he chose to explain away any statements of Scripture which did not agree with his own reasoning.
FOR EXAMPLE:

1- Calvin reasoned that if God had chosen some to be saved, then He must not want to save those who were not chosen. This conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that God wants all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4)

2- Calvin then reasoned that if God had predetermined who should be saved, then Christ's death was only intended to atone for the sins of those whom God wanted to save. This conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that Christ atoned for the sins of the entire world. (1 John 2:2, John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:19)

WHY ARMINIUS WAS WRONG
Jacob Arminius tried to correct the errors of Calvin without understanding what the real root of those errors was. As a result he simply replaced one set of errors with another.
Arminius took those statements of Scripture which tell us that, " God has chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world." (Ephesians 1:4) He then conditioned those statements with certain assumptions as to why God chose some but did not choose others. The problem with his theology stems from the fact that his assumptions contradict what the Bible says. He should have rejected those assumptions because they contradict God's Word (Isaiah 8:20). Instead he chose to explain away those statements of Scripture which did not agree with his own reasoning.

FOR EXAMPLE:

1- Arminius assumed that God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to his call. He, therefore, concluded that God selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. His conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that faith is a gift of God and that without God's help no one could or would believe (1 Corinthians 12:3, Ephesians 2:8).

2- Arminius then reasoned, that if God had chosen to save those whom He knew would believe, then it follows that every sinful, lost, human being has within himself the ability to choose to believe or reject the gospel. This conclusion is also wrong because the Bible tells us that, "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Corinthians 12:3)

The view of Arminius makes salvation depend upon what man does. According to this view Christ did not save us, but instead only made it possible for us to save ourselves by freely choosing to believe. For that reason his doctrine is a perversion of the gospel which every Christian should condemn. (See Galatians 1:6-9)

A BIBLICAL VIEW OF ELECTION
Calvin's basic premise was the belief that God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). This premise is Biblical. However, some of the conclusions which Calvin drew from this premise contradict God's Word. That fact indicates that Calvin was reasoning from a false understanding of his basic premise, a false understanding of what the Bible says about election. Therefore, in order to have the correct doctrine we must start with a correct understanding of what the Bible says about election. The way we determine which understanding is correct is by finding one that does not lead to conclusions which contradict what the Bible says.
For Example: If we assume that God first decided to save certain people and then decided to send Christ to die for the sins of those whom He wanted to save, we would draw the same unbiblical conclusions that Calvin did. However, if we hold that God first decided to send Christ to die for the sins of all men and then, because no human could or would believe without His help, chose to bring certain people to faith through the preaching of the gospel, we would not draw those unbiblical conclusions.

Therefore, a Biblical view of election starts with the fact that God did not want man to sin in the first place. However, because God knew that man would sin, He decided from eternity to send Christ to die for the sins of all mankind. Then, because He also knew that no man left to himself could or would believe, He decided to cause the Bible to be written, cause the gospel to be preached, and through the preaching of the Word to bring a great multitude of people to faith and salvation. This view of election does not lead to false conclusions, but instead agrees with all that the Bible says.

1- It agrees with those passages of Scripture which tell us that Christ died for the sins of all men. (1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:19, John 1:29)

2- It also agrees with those passages of Scripture that tell us that God wants all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 18:23,32, Ezekiel 33:11)

3- It also agrees with those passages of Scripture which tell us that faith is a gift of God and that no one would or could believe without God's help. (Ephesians 2:8-9, 1 Corinthians 12:3)

4- Furthermore it agrees with those passages of Scripture which tell us that no man is saved unless God chooses to save him. (John 6:44, John 6:65, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 11:7)

5- At the same time it agrees with all of those passages which tell us that all who are lost are lost because of their own fault, not because God wanted them to be lost. (Matthew 23:37, Romans 10:21, 1 Timothy 2:4)

6- It even agrees with those passages of Scripture which indicate that man has a free will or must choose to believe. It is just that without God's help no man would ever make the right choice. (Revelation 3:20, Joshua 24:15, Hebrews 3:7-8, 2 Corinthians 3:5)

7- And finally it also agrees with what the Bible says about time and chance playing a role in salvation. For if you think about it a man born in seventeenth century England would have a far better chance of being saved than would a man born in seventeenth century Algeria, or first century England. (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

CONCLUSION
Calvin erred because he put God's choice of who should be saved (election) prior to His decision to provide an atonement for the sins of mankind. Arminius erred because he placed God's choice of who should be saved (election) after faith (that is after He knew that a person would believe). The Biblical doctrine which I have presented avoids those errors by placing God's election between God's decision to provide an atonement and His bestowal of the gift of faith.
The five theological principles that go hand in hand with this view of election are the five principles of Lutheran theology:

SCRIPTURE ALONE
CHRIST ALONE
GRACE ALONE
FAITH ALONE
GLORY TO GOD ALONE
Susan
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 5:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have been reading this thread for a few days and just haven't had time to comment. I would like to refer anyone interested in Calvinist/Reformed theology to check out the following two websites. www.gospeloutreach.net (Rolaant Mckenzie's, click on "Doctrines of Grace") and www.aomin.org (James R. White's) Both of these sites have been very helpful to me and they also have links to other good sites.

I have to say that I'm a Calvanist. I don't make apologies for my theology, however I understand why it's not the "popular" persuasion. But my experience has been that the more I study scripture, the more reformed I become. I also strongly believe that my beliefs are substantialy supported by scripture. I recently received my copy of James R. White's latest book "The Potter's Freedom". It is a rebutal to Norman Geisler's, "Chosen but Free". I have to say that I'm finding this book to be a superb biblical defense of Calvanism/reformed theology. I also ordered the tape set of his debate with an Arminian pastor. It too is a wonderful resource. (I think Mr. White just blows the other guy away with his biblical support and scholarly knowledge)In my opinion the bigger issue when debating predestination, limited atonement, etc., is more importantly the sovereinty of almighty God.

I will try to comment more at another time on some of the dissagreements presented. I'm just short of time now!

It's great to debate, but we should not divide. The cross binds us all.

In Christ,
Susan
Billtwisse
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To Milton the Fabulous:

I completely forgot that John Milton who wrote 'Paradise Lost' had the same first name as yourself! I trust that readers were aware of the difference. One of my strongest personal convictions is that 'Paradise Lost' is a complete fable and has misled thousands of souls. Not one word of it is based on the Bible in context. John Milton was a Christian, though. There is a whole story from that era that has not been told. The real history has yet to be written! The victors in a conflict always write the history and it becomes distorted. Who is Bill Twisse anyway? Many from that era would say 'the devil incarnate'--possibly even Milton himself!

On the issue of the motives of those posting: we don't need to be worried or concerned. Leave it to the webmasters to figure out whether someone is posting dishonestly, under more than one screen name, with a plagiarized screen name, etc. If we stick to the gospel truth, sooner or later the motives of false professors will be exposed. God is more honored if we stick to the issues alone (in my opinion) and not worry about the character of opponents.

Response to Sherry:

<<On to other subjects that I would like information on: what is hyper-calvanism, and what is the armenian stuff? I heard Armenian from JW, and former Worldwide Church of God, and somehow supposedly SDA roots go into this, but how, where from? That is an area I do not understand for I thought we came out of the Millerite movement which was composed of Baptists, and other denominations? Anyone know these things?>>

The Millerite movement was composed of many former denominational persuasions. However, the system of prophetic interpretation that Miller made popular was a plagiarized reinterpretation-- stolen from the 'Morning Watch' publication of the British Irvingites (1829-1833). All of it: the year-day principle, the seven churches, the latter rain, the remnant, the 2300 days ending in the mid 1840's, the fallen human nature of Christ, the 'loud cry,' & whatever else you can think of in early Adventism came from that publication. He was not an original thinker: period.

All of the Arminian groups that you mentioned believe in the free-will theory of Justin Martyr. No one after Justin has advanced any new argument in the 'free will vs. predestination' controversy--except Origen.

The Baptists were originally split between the free-will & predestination theories (General & Paricular Baptists). Over time, however, most drifted out of sovereign grace and into free-will. Other interesting Baptist facts: immersion baptism was viewed as 'lunacy' by John Smythe, the founder of the Baptist movement. Even in 1633 the 'immersion Baptists' were viewed as total extremists by many others. But a few years later it became the majority view--excluding all other Christians from Baptist fellowship and communion. In the same way, the prophetic theories of Darby and Scofield were originally viewed as lunacy by Baptist theologians. However, like submersionism had ascended to power two centuries earlier, these views became the test of orthodoxy half a century later.

Hyper-Calvinism denies the free proclamation of the gospel and the accountability of all persons to it. Those with faith may or may not be saved; those without faith may or may not be saved. No one seems to know for sure. At least that has been my experience in interacting with them.

Your quotes about the atonement and election seem to come from modern-day Lutheran theologians. The modern-day Lutherans follow Melancthon (the humanist) and not Luther in this regard. I have spent years trying to harmonize what Luther said in the 'Bondage of the Will' with these modern Lutheran theologians. The two don't mix.

The Calvinists and Arminians in Holland burned each other's places of worship, outlawed the worship services of the other convicion (when each had the power), arrested those who disagreed with them, & had the spirit of bloodshed. Luther and Calvin did the same thing. Let's stick with the apostles' doctrine (whatever it is) and not assume other post-apostolic labels.

--Twisse
Graceambassador
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One last word on a couple of points and then I'll give up:

1 -Calvin erred because he put God's choice of who should be saved -election- prior to His decision to provide an atonement for the sins of mankind.

How can this be correct if Calvin uses the same scripture of Ephesians: GOD CHOSE US IN CHRIST. Christ was THERE! Is John 1 correct or not? How can we ignore simple HERMENEUTICS? How can we separate CHRIST FROM GOD ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME? Neither Paul, nor Calvin taught that. Those who say that God elected us before an atonement plan are intentionally misreading the Bible. Perhaps a vestige of Roman Catholicism left in Lutheranism. (Note the "ism".)

...He decided to cause the Bible to be written, cause the gospel to be preached, and through the preaching of the Word to bring a great multitude of people to faith and salvation. This view of election does not lead to false conclusions, but instead agrees with all that the Bible says.

This implies that God needed aids and people to "convert" some. It is in contrast with many scriptures that state that God would raise up a people for himself, that He would send the Holy Spirit to reveal Jesus to people, and to some people He simply wrote His law in their hearts (Romans 11) To Abraham lived before Jesus was born and he received the Gospel! Galatians 3.
Even more dangerously, it implies that people with mental retardation, old people with Alzheimers, people who have no access to the Bible or can't hear a preacher WILL NEVER BE SAVED! TO ME THIS IS WORSE THAN THE "L" of Calvin.
Talk about a "second class citizen" doctrine!}
I have an aunt who is deaf and dumb! She can't read the Bible, she can't hear a preacher, and she cannot understand the most simple spiritual principle! According to this theory, she has been excluded. This is worse than the "L".
Some will say, "Well God has a special plan for this people..." I'd say, NO! Election in Christ!
Nothing special.
Furthermore, if one believes that God has a special plan for people and He did not reveal it in the Bible one then is opening the door for all kinds of doctrines!

God will save the chinese farmer behind the bamboo curtain independent of a preacher or else. The Holy Ghost was sent! The comforter has come!
OH SPREAD THE JOYFUL SOUND
WHEREVER MAN IS FOUND
THE COMFORTER HAS COME!

He will save mentally ill people, he will save the Indians, He will save the Hindus, He will SAVE ALL THROUGH CHRIST AND HIS BLOOD!

John 14:6 says:
I am the way the truth and the life. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME! Authors such as the author of the treatise above and some TV preacher read this text as follows:
I am the way, the truth and the life. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME. AND TO ME VIA A PREACHER, READING THE BIBLE, GREAT CRUSADES, AND A FEW OTHER AIDS!!

And there goes one more "fund raising" campain!

Well, OF COURSE the Bible teaches that God will send preachers, etc.. this is correct and taught in the Bible. But show me in the same N.T.where God was EVER LIMITED by: a preacher not preaching, by people not reading the Bible, by the lack of missionaries, by one's mental condition? Do not give me Jonah, please, GOD MADE JONAH GO DID HE NOT? One may not agree with Limited Atonement, but why limit God in His power!

I do not see that in there!

Well... as I said, don't mind me. I did not start yesterday. I read all of these! We need to UNDERSTAND God and His Love. Now is my turn to stress God's Love!

Now, I can agree with this:

SCRIPTURE ALONE
CHRIST ALONE
GRACE ALONE
FAITH ALONE
GLORY TO GOD ALONE


In that Love!


I'll stop here. I prefer "election in Christ"

I am going back to teaching these things and discussing these books PERSONALLY. Then people know me, I know them, they can throw me rotten eggs if they disagree but I have plenty of time to discuss these issues and have no need to be correct because of the personal interaction. If and when I'm not correct then I'M CORRECTED personally in a "body" environment! Here I'm hurting people and giving a false impression of myself. Perception is very important to me! Lost people have no other way to see Jesus if it is not through my life! I want to be like Paul: imitate me because I imitate Christ, I refuse to say: DONT BASE YOUR LIFE IN MINE, LOOK AT JESUS! This is a cop out on the responsibility of being "letting our light shine... . Lydell was right, I appear to be neglecting the Grace that it is me. "The lost is my concern. You all are already well on your way to heaven!

checking out and moving on... (I hear an echo...good riddance...dance...ance...nce....ce.ee)

Grace Ambassador
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just sharing more information I've gathered...extremely inciteful and helpful. I read you Twisse. According to a quote from a Lutheran professor in this article though (and the quote dates back aways)...it would appear that they did defer toward Arminians...anyhow. Just researching and sharing...

SECTION I

Calvinism and Arminianism
Calvinism
When John Calvin wrote the first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1535 (at the ripe old age of 27), his intention was to serve the Protestant interests at large, but its influence must have far exceeded his anticipation. It proved to be the most influential work of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants in different countries saw Calvin as a pillar of strength to their cause, a theologian of the highest rank, while Romanists feared his pen as one of their most formidable foes. A Catholic writer had this to say of the Institutes:

"It is the Koran, the Talmud of heresy, the foremost cause of our downfall,... the common arsenal from which the opponents of the old Church borrowed their keenest weapons. No writing of the Reformation era is more feared by Roman Catholics, more zealously fought against, and more hostilely pursued, than Calvin's Institutes".

The Swiss city of Geneva, under Calvin's influence as pastor and reformer, became a refuge to which fugitives might flee from persecution, and a training-school in which missionaries and reformers might be equipped and sent forth for heroic service. It was truly the nerve-center of the Reformation. Emperor Philip II, son of Charles V, expressed the thoughts of many foes of the Reformation when he wrote the following to the King of France regarding Geneva:

"This city is the source of all mischief for France and the most formidable enemy of Rome. At any time I am ready to assist, with all the power of my realm, to overthrow it."

The French government on its part threatened to destroy the city if it did not keep its evangelists at home, and sent an ambassador to give notice to that effect. The evangelists continued to pour forth, in defiance of the French government, after Calvin assured the magistrates of the city of Geneva with these bold words:

"Inasmuch as the city depends upon the omnipotent God alone for protection, the highest prudence consists in the most perfect obedience to His will."

Calvinism in Western Europe:
The city of Geneva was truly the nerve-center of the Reform movement. The congregations founded in Switzerland in the time of Zwingli were united with Geneva in a great sisterhood of churches, which came to be known as the Reformed Church of Switzerland. There were many reformed churches in Germany, and many of the southern provinces of Germany were predominantly of the Reformed faith, (e.g. Hesse, Bremen, and the Palatinate, where in 1563 the famous Heidelberg Catechism was produced). The Church or 'kirk of Scotland' as the Scots called it, was of course thoroughly Calvinistic in theology and in practice, having been modeled in many respects on the church in Geneva. The Puritans of England were Calvinists, of course, but the non-Puritan ministers of the Church of England were predominantly Calvinistic also, until the reign of King Charles II. From the time that the French edition of the Institutes were published in France, Calvin was the intellectual master of the Protestant movement in France, and the Huguenots (French Calvinists) grew rapidly in numbers in the 16th century. As early as 1558, there were no less than 400,000 adherents. Calvinism was also the predominant Faith in the northern part of the Netherlands (modern Holland). Calvin's missionary vitality led to the tremendous spread of Calvinism throughout Europe and by the 17th century it superseded Lutheranism as the most vibrant representative of Protestantism.

The Netherlands (modern Holland and Belgium) was composed of anciently independent provinces, where democracy and freedom of thought had grown since the time of the Middle Ages. Because of its industriousness, it was the richest and most thriving district of Europe. Among a people of such intelligence and independence, the doctrines of the Reformation found an early and earnest acceptance. This land of Thomas ý Kempis, and Erasmus was fertile ground for the Reformation. Though the districts in the Netherlands were self-ruled, they were, unfortunately, under the 'protection' of the most unholy Roman emperor, Charles V. As early as 1521, only four years after Luther posted his 95 theses at Wittenburg, Charles V issued a severe edict against the Lutheran heresy. Anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Netherlanders were burned, strangled, beheaded or buried alive in obedience to the edicts of Charles V for such offenses as reading the Scriptures, refusing to worship graven images, or ridiculing the idea of the actual presence of Christ's body in the wafer.
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SECTION II

It was Charles V who presided over the Diet of Worms, and who, at its convening, intended to have Martin Luther burnt at the stake for heresy. Luther escaped in the night and went into hiding, and was later protected by the German magistrates. Charles V's son, Philip II succeeded him and sought to outdo his father in exterminating the heretics from Netherlands. In 1568, he sanctioned a sentence, passed by the Inquisition of Madrid, which included the whole population of the Netherlands in the crime of treason against God and the King. The chief Inquisitor was zealous to carry out the sentence, remarking: "His majesty had rather see all his territories deserted and uncultivated, than to suffer one heretic to remain in them." The inquisition in the Netherlands grew in intensity, as it did in France, but despite this, the number of Protestant Christians grew. Under the leadership of William of Orange, the northern provinces revolted against this bloodthirsty tyranny and gained independence, forming a federation in 1579.

Arminianism
Jacobus Arminius was born in Holland in 1560, and grew up in a land that jealously guarded the faith for which so many had shed their blood. By this time, the majority of the Protestants in the Netherlands were Calvinists. Personal views of Scripture were allowed, but there was little toleration for anything but Calvinist views to be publicly expressed. But this was also a land where humanistic traditions from the Renaissance period had never died out and where Anabaptism was widely spread. Some people felt there needed to be a greater emphasis on the practical aspects of religion, less emphasis on finely distinguished doctrine, and a more tolerant attitude. Arminius, whose relatives were killed in the Netherlands' struggle for independence, was educated through the support of friends, at the University of Leyden.

Later Arminius went to Geneva, where he was greatly influenced by Beza. After Calvin's death, Beza assumed Calvin's mantle and took full leadership of the Academy at Geneva. It was Beza who developed the doctrine of predestination a step further than Calvin, in what is known as the supralapsarian view. This has to do with the order of divine decrees. Did God first "decree" election and reprobation (who would be saved and who would be damned) and then permit the fall as a means by which the decree could be carried out (the supralapsarian position, from Latin supra lapsum literally before the fall), or did he first permit that man would fall and then decree election as the method of saving some (infralapsarian from Latin infra lapsus, after the fall)?

In 1588, Arminius entered a pastorate in Amsterdam, winning distinction as a preacher and pastor. Later he was chosen to succeed Franz Junius as professor of theology in Leyden, where he remained till his death. Dirk Koornhert, a scholarly layman, who wrote against Beza and all strict predestinarians, rejected the notion of predestination, demanding a revision of the Belgic Confession (the Netherlands' own reformed confession, similar to Westminster Confession). Arminius, who was known as a strict Calvinist and an apt scholar, was called to reply to Koornhert and to defend the supralapsarian position. As he studied the problem, Arminius came to doubt the whole doctrine of unconditional predestination and to ascribe to man a freedom which, however congenial to Melanchthon (a disciple of Martin Luther) had no place in pure Calvinism. The essential dispute that Arminius had with Calvinism was regarding the doctrine of predestination. He did not deny predestination altogether, but denied that predestination was unconditional. A bitter controversy sprang up between Arminius and his supralapsarian colleague at the University of Leyden, Franz Gomarus, who was later the leading spokesman for the Calvinists at the Synod of Dort. The conflict between the two men resulted in a schism affecting the whole church of Holland.

One commendable legacy of Arminius was his call for theological perspective. During a period of intolerant dogmatism, when battle lines were drawn over subtle differences in creeds and confessions, Arminius wrote:

"There does not appear any greater evil in the disputes concerning matters of religion, than the persuading ourselves that our salvation or God's glory are lost by every little difference. As for me, I exhort my scholars, not only to distinguish between the true and the false according to Scripture, but also between the essential articles of faith, and the less essential articles, by the same Scripture."

Arminian Articles of Remonstrance

After Arminius' death, his views were championed and further developed and systematized by two men, Simon Episcopius, and Jan Uytenbogaert. Under their leadership the followers of Arminius in 1610 set forth their views in five articles called Arminian Articles of Remonstrance, (a remonstrance is a reproof, to remonstrate is to reprove or correct) which gave them the name 'Remonstrants'. In substance the articles teach as follows:

God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. (Though accused of such, Arminius and his followers were not Pelagians.)
All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.
Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SECTION III

Calvinism and Arminianism
Calvinism
When John Calvin wrote the first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1535 (at the ripe old age of 27), his intention was to serve the Protestant interests at large, but its influence must have far exceeded his anticipation. It proved to be the most influential work of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants in different countries saw Calvin as a pillar of strength to their cause, a theologian of the highest rank, while Romanists feared his pen as one of their most formidable foes. A Catholic writer had this to say of the Institutes:

"It is the Koran, the Talmud of heresy, the foremost cause of our downfall,... the common arsenal from which the opponents of the old Church borrowed their keenest weapons. No writing of the Reformation era is more feared by Roman Catholics, more zealously fought against, and more hostilely pursued, than Calvin's Institutes".

The Swiss city of Geneva, under Calvin's influence as pastor and reformer, became a refuge to which fugitives might flee from persecution, and a training-school in which missionaries and reformers might be equipped and sent forth for heroic service. It was truly the nerve-center of the Reformation. Emperor Philip II, son of Charles V, expressed the thoughts of many foes of the Reformation when he wrote the following to the King of France regarding Geneva:

"This city is the source of all mischief for France and the most formidable enemy of Rome. At any time I am ready to assist, with all the power of my realm, to overthrow it."

The French government on its part threatened to destroy the city if it did not keep its evangelists at home, and sent an ambassador to give notice to that effect. The evangelists continued to pour forth, in defiance of the French government, after Calvin assured the magistrates of the city of Geneva with these bold words:

"Inasmuch as the city depends upon the omnipotent God alone for protection, the highest prudence consists in the most perfect obedience to His will."

Calvinism in Western Europe:
The city of Geneva was truly the nerve-center of the Reform movement. The congregations founded in Switzerland in the time of Zwingli were united with Geneva in a great sisterhood of churches, which came to be known as the Reformed Church of Switzerland. There were many reformed churches in Germany, and many of the southern provinces of Germany were predominantly of the Reformed faith, (e.g. Hesse, Bremen, and the Palatinate, where in 1563 the famous Heidelberg Catechism was produced). The Church or 'kirk of Scotland' as the Scots called it, was of course thoroughly Calvinistic in theology and in practice, having been modeled in many respects on the church in Geneva. The Puritans of England were Calvinists, of course, but the non-Puritan ministers of the Church of England were predominantly Calvinistic also, until the reign of King Charles II. From the time that the French edition of the Institutes were published in France, Calvin was the intellectual master of the Protestant movement in France, and the Huguenots (French Calvinists) grew rapidly in numbers in the 16th century. As early as 1558, there were no less than 400,000 adherents. Calvinism was also the predominant Faith in the northern part of the Netherlands (modern Holland). Calvin's missionary vitality led to the tremendous spread of Calvinism throughout Europe and by the 17th century it superseded Lutheranism as the most vibrant representative of Protestantism.

The Netherlands (modern Holland and Belgium) was composed of anciently independent provinces, where democracy and freedom of thought had grown since the time of the Middle Ages. Because of its industriousness, it was the richest and most thriving district of Europe. Among a people of such intelligence and independence, the doctrines of the Reformation found an early and earnest acceptance. This land of Thomas ý Kempis, and Erasmus was fertile ground for the Reformation. Though the districts in the Netherlands were self-ruled, they were, unfortunately, under the 'protection' of the most unholy Roman emperor, Charles V. As early as 1521, only four years after Luther posted his 95 theses at Wittenburg, Charles V issued a severe edict against the Lutheran heresy. Anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Netherlanders were burned, strangled, beheaded or buried alive in obedience to the edicts of Charles V for such offenses as reading the Scriptures, refusing to worship graven images, or ridiculing the idea of the actual presence of Christ's body in the wafer.

It was Charles V who presided over the Diet of Worms, and who, at its convening, intended to have Martin Luther burnt at the stake for heresy. Luther escaped in the night and went into hiding, and was later protected by the German magistrates. Charles V's son, Philip II succeeded him and sought to outdo his father in exterminating the heretics from Netherlands. In 1568, he sanctioned a sentence, passed by the Inquisition of Madrid, which included the whole population of the Netherlands in the crime of treason against God and the King. The chief Inquisitor was zealous to carry out the sentence, remarking: "His majesty had rather see all his territories deserted and uncultivated, than to suffer one heretic to remain in them." The inquisition in the Netherlands grew in intensity, as it did in France, but despite this, the number of Protestant Christians grew. Under the leadership of William of Orange, the northern provinces revolted against this bloodthirsty tyranny and gained independence, forming a federation in 1579.

Arminianism
Jacobus Arminius was born in Holland in 1560, and grew up in a land that jealously guarded the faith for which so many had shed their blood. By this time, the majority of the Protestants in the Netherlands were Calvinists. Personal views of Scripture were allowed, but there was little toleration for anything but Calvinist views to be publicly expressed. But this was also a land where humanistic traditions from the Renaissance period had never died out and where Anabaptism was widely spread. Some people felt there needed to be a greater emphasis on the practical aspects of religion, less emphasis on finely distinguished doctrine, and a more tolerant attitude. Arminius, whose relatives were killed in the Netherlands' struggle for independence, was educated through the support of friends, at the University of Leyden.

Later Arminius went to Geneva, where he was greatly influenced by Beza. After Calvin's death, Beza assumed Calvin's mantle and took full leadership of the Academy at Geneva. It was Beza who developed the doctrine of predestination a step further than Calvin, in what is known as the supralapsarian view. This has to do with the order of divine decrees. Did God first "decree" election and reprobation (who would be saved and who would be damned) and then permit the fall as a means by which the decree could be carried out (the supralapsarian position, from Latin supra lapsum literally before the fall), or did he first permit that man would fall and then decree election as the method of saving some (infralapsarian from Latin infra lapsus, after the fall)?

In 1588, Arminius entered a pastorate in Amsterdam, winning distinction as a preacher and pastor. Later he was chosen to succeed Franz Junius as professor of theology in Leyden, where he remained till his death. Dirk Koornhert, a scholarly layman, who wrote against Beza and all strict predestinarians, rejected the notion of predestination, demanding a revision of the Belgic Confession (the Netherlands' own reformed confession, similar to Westminster Confession). Arminius, who was known as a strict Calvinist and an apt scholar, was called to reply to Koornhert and to defend the supralapsarian position. As he studied the problem, Arminius came to doubt the whole doctrine of unconditional predestination and to ascribe to man a freedom which, however congenial to Melanchthon (a disciple of Martin Luther) had no place in pure Calvinism. The essential dispute that Arminius had with Calvinism was regarding the doctrine of predestination. He did not deny predestination altogether, but denied that predestination was unconditional. A bitter controversy sprang up between Arminius and his supralapsarian colleague at the University of Leyden, Franz Gomarus, who was later the leading spokesman for the Calvinists at the Synod of Dort. The conflict between the two men resulted in a schism affecting the whole church of Holland.

One commendable legacy of Arminius was his call for theological perspective. During a period of intolerant dogmatism, when battle lines were drawn over subtle differences in creeds and confessions, Arminius wrote:

"There does not appear any greater evil in the disputes concerning matters of religion, than the persuading ourselves that our salvation or God's glory are lost by every little difference. As for me, I exhort my scholars, not only to distinguish between the true and the false according to Scripture, but also between the essential articles of faith, and the less essential articles, by the same Scripture."

Arminian Articles of Remonstrance
After Arminius' death, his views were championed and further developed and systematized by two men, Simon Episcopius, and Jan Uytenbogaert. Under their leadership the followers of Arminius in 1610 set forth their views in five articles called Arminian Articles of Remonstrance, (a remonstrance is a reproof, to remonstrate is to reprove or correct) which gave them the name 'Remonstrants'. In substance the articles teach as follows:

God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. (Though accused of such, Arminius and his followers were not Pelagians.)
All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.
Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.
The Synod of Dort
The dispute soon became involved in politics. The Netherlands were divided between the supporters of "states rights", which included the wealthier merchant class (to which most Remonstrants belonged) and the national party (to which most Calvinists belonged). The National Party wished a national synod to decide the controversy. The states-rights party held that each province could decide its own religious affairs and resisted the proposal. By a coup d'etat the states-rights party was overthrown, Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded and Grotius was condemned to life imprisonment, from which he later escaped.

The Synod of Dort was convened to resolve the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. It lasted from November 1618 to May 1619, seven months. It was the largest and, next to the Westminster Assembly, the most imposing of all synods of the Reformed Churches. Besides representatives from the Netherlands, delegates from England, Scotland, the southern provinces of Germany, and Switzerland shared in its proceedings. Episcopius was the chief spokesman for the Remonstrants, the fire-breathing Gomarus led the charge against Arminianism. The Remonstrants requested an opportunity to discuss their views at the Synod, but were denied the opportunity. They soon realized that what they thought would be an open forum for theological discussion was in fact a hearing, and that they were in effect being tried for heresy. They were required to submit in writing statements in defense of the five articles of Remonstrance and points where they disagreed with the Belgic Confession. Finally, when they refused to go on if not given the opportunity to speak against the convictions of their opponents, the Remonstrants were expelled, and commanded not to leave Dort. Arminianism was unanimously rejected and condemned.

The Canon of Dort ("The Five Points of Calvinism")
Five theological points were formulated to answer the Remonstrants in a document known as the Canon of Dort, which declared:

that fallen man was totally unable to save himself (Total Depravity)
that God's electing purpose was not conditioned by anything in man (Unconditional Election)
that Christ's atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only for the elect (Limited Atonement)
that the gift of faith, sovereignly given by God's Holy Spirit, cannot be resisted by the elect (Irresistible Grace)
that those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith (Perseverance of the saints)
These doctrines have been called the five points of Calvinism and are often symbolized by the well known acronym TULIP. However, by themselves they are not a full exposition of Calvin's theology, but a caricature. The Canon of Dort is more properly viewed in its historical context as a theological response to the challenges of seventeenth century Arminianism. These doctrines, together with the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, became the doctrinal basis of the Dutch Church. Not so extreme as some individual Calvinists - it did not adopt Gomarus supralapsarian views - the synod of Dort reached the high-water mark of Calvinistic creed-making.

The Calvinists were rather heavy-handed in their dealings with their 'Arminian' brethren. For refusing to subscribe to the Canon of Dort, some 200 ministers were deprived of their positions, eighty were banished from the country. Those who continued to minister were sentenced to life in prison. In 1621, a Lutheran professor at Wittenberg, in response to an overture of fraternity from the Dutch Reformed, writes these remarks:

"What good there is to be expected from such brethren, may easily be gathered from the Synod of Dort and their proceedings. The Calvinists had several disputes with the Arminians, particularly about the article of grace or election, in which the latter defended our opinion, and the former that of Calvin. In this controversy, the Calvinists showed so much heat, that, by a hasty decree of that synod, they condemned the Arminians and their doctrines, without allowing them to make any defense, depriving them of the exercise of their religion, and banishing their most eminent ministers from their country forever. Was not that a very brotherly proceeding? If they thus treated such who differed from them in one article, namely predestination, what must we expect who differ from them in so many?"

Later Arminianism
A period of persecution followed until 1632. Since then the state has extended toleration to the group. Since 1795, the Remonstrants have been recognized in Holland as an independent church body. The present membership is 21,500. It is thought by many historians that Arminianism was a revival of a humanistic, rational, and moral understanding of Christianity as represented earlier in the Netherlands by Erasmus. As a theological system Arminianism tries to mediate between the supralapsarianism of Beza, who taught that God willed the fall of man in order to accomplish his decrees, and the Pelagian view, which denied original sin, regarding grace as unnecessary for salvation. Arminianism is flawed by a serious contradiction: on the one hand it affirms predestination and grace, while on the other hand denying it or gutting it of any real significance by asserting that it is conditional upon man's free will. The theologian Otto Heick describes Arminianism as an oxymoron, an "absolute conditionalism":

"God in his decrees is conditioned by man's free will -

Man in his search for salvation is conditioned by God's grace".

The real significance of Arminianism lies in the wider field of English and American church history. The evangelical tenets of Arminianism found a forceful expression in the teachings of John Wesley and the Methodists, with its emphasis on the moral responsibility of man, the need of a new birth, and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit.

Return to Theology Notes
Return to Grace Valley Christian Center Homepage
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 6:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now I picked this off another site that discusses the prose and cons of both sides. It goes into the differences and then gives this:THE FRUIT OF ARMINIANISM
In its strictest form, Arminianism has taught that man is responsible for saving himself via his own good works of devotion. Although not the view of Arminius, or of Wesley, the teaching from some pulpits puts the emphasis on man's efforts to the expense of God's grace. Thus, in its extreme form, Arminianism leads to the belief that if a believer sins, he has lost his salvation, and must be born again over and over again. Hence, the emphasis in some churches of coming to the altar at each meeting to repent, rededicate, and renew the salvation which was invariably lost in the course of daily life. Adherents of this position have no assurance of salvation, no rest in Christ, and no spiritual peace.

Or, on the other hand, if they can convince themselves that they've reached a state of sinless perfection (which is clearly contrary to 1John 1), then believers become proud and super-spiritual, seeing themselves as having reached a higher spiritual plane than regular Christians. A "works equals righteousness" theology leads either to terror and fear or to pride and haughtiness.

Innumerable believers have lived in needless fear because they wondered time and time again whether or not they were truly saved, thinking that each time they sinned, each time they discovered anything internal unlike Christ, indeed, anytime they felt emotionally separated from God, that they were no longer His children. Surely it is not the will of God for His children to live in such bondage. The fact is that we can know for certain that we are His children, we can know for certain that our sins are forgiven, that we will spend eternity in heaven with the Lord. The Lord does not want His children to doubt His love, nor does He want them to believe that they must, through their own efforts and good works, gain or maintain their salvation. Our position with God is determined by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ for us on the Cross. We can rest in His love and grace, knowing that He who began a good work in us will complete it. We need not fear the one who said He would never leave us or forsake us, who promised to present those who believe in Christ faultless before His presence, who said that He would be with us until the end of the age.

Similarly, it is not the will of God for His children to feel prideful, for them to take credit for the salvation that is entirely His work, for them to falsely believe that they are sinlessly perfect, or better than other believers in any way. Arminianism has historically lead to the holiness movements which teach sinless perfection, and foster pride in some, while condemning and terrifying the more timid.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration