Arminianism Has Flooded the Reformed Churches

Our opposition to the offer of the gospel is not academic. Through the teaching and practice of the offer, Arminianism has flooded the Reformed churches. Today, a Reformed man cries out: "O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance; Thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps" (Ps. 79:1). The revivalistic, "soul-winning" mentality of free will has taken over among many Reformed people. The altar call, that johnny-come-lately innovation of Finney, an abomination before God and man, is widely practiced in Reformed churches. The evangelism of Billy Graham is revered, so that if one dares to call the message of Graham "the doctrine of Pelagius out of hell," as the Canons of Dordt do indeed call it, he is likely to be stoned as a blasphemer in the streets of Reformed Jerusalem. The children of the covenant are more and more viewed, not as covenant children to be reared in the truth but as potential converts who must make the decision for Christ. Reformed churches are wide open to the most blatant Arminian, "free willist," evangelistic societies, e.g., Campus Crusade for Christ. They are ravaged by ecumenical endeavors based on Arminian universalism., e.g., Key '73 and "Here's Life, America." Loosened from their moorings by Arminianism, they are swept by every wind of doctrine that finds salvation in man's feeling and experience, e.g., neo-Pentecostalism. Even the Holy Scriptures are defiled. Reformed people, schools, and churches gladly receive, eagerly use, and enthusiastically distribute as the Bible a book that is nothing other than a man's revision of the Scriptures along the lines of Arminian theology. Kenneth Taylor's The Living Bible, in all its myriad forms, is the bible of Arminianism. Systematically, it corrupts those passages of Scripture which teach the sovereignty of God in salvation and damnation, so that they will teach the sovereignty of the will of man. With this book, the Remonstrants had routed the Synod of Dordt. If a Reformed man had done to the sacred Scriptures in the interest of the Reformed faith only one tenth of that which The Living Bible has done in the interest of Arminianism, he would have been drawn and quartered in every pulpit and religious paper in the land, and his bible would have been scorned at the book stores. As for The Living Bible, it is lavished with praise, and its sales are booming. Why? Because the spiritual leaders delude the people, so that they no longer know that salvation is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God Who showeth mercy, and the people love their delusion. 

There is only one hope for Reformed men and Reformed churches, and only the sovereign grace of God can realize it-- back to Calvinism: the old Calvinism of Dordt, of Calvin, of Augustine, of Paul. And this means the rooting out of the well-meant offer of the gospel. 

David J. Engelsma 

Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, pp. 63-65

THE GREAT HERESIES that have destroyed many churches in the past, and that in in the process of destroying many other churches today

 With regard to the specific gross heresies that sweep a church away from Christ to antichrist, away from God to Satan, away from the true church to the false church, they include the following according to Scripture and the Reformed creeds.

There is the gross heresy that Jesus is not God come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-6). This is the lie of liberalism, particularly Protestant liberalism. But this lie has many aspects. And we must not suppose that this lie at once enters a church in the gross form of an outright denial of the deity of Jesus and of the Trinity. Usually, it enters a church in the form of a rejection of sovereign grace in salvation. Arminianism leads to theological liberalism. Arminianism is incipient theological liberalism. it is incipient theological liberalism by virtue of Arminianism's denial that God's (one) gracious will for the salvation of (elect) sinners is effectual. An ineffectual, dependent god is not the God of classical (biblical) Christianity.

There is the lie that salvation is earned by, or dependent on, the works of the sinner. This is the false doctrine of Rome. This error is exposed in the book of Galatians.

There is the lie of salvation by, and dependent on, the free will of the sinner. This is the false doctrine of much of evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and neo-Pentecostalism today. Paul condemns the doctrine of free will as a form of a false gospel that characterizes a false church: "[Salvation] is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Rom. 9:16). The Synod of Dordt condemned this lie as a false gospel on behalf of all Reformed churches everywhere to the end of time.

But the doctrine of free will comes into churches subtly, usually by means of a teaching that, although there is a predestination of some to salvation (about which the churches hear less and less), there is also a universal love and grace of God in Christ that desires the salvation of all without exception and that goes out to all without exception, attempting the salvation of all.This universal grace, in the nature of the theory, is not efficacious, so that the implication is that the reception of this grace depends on the sinner's acceptance of it (about which the churches hear more and more as time goes on). The time to fight this false gospel to the death as at the point of its subtle introduction into a Reformed church). "Obsta principiis!" ("Resist the beginnings!")

In an informative book, the Presbyterian Gary North (with whom I have crossed swords over Christian Reconstruction post-millennialism) demonstrates that the apostasy of the once-great Presbyterian Church (USA), the church of the Hodges and Warfield, into deepest, darkest liberalism began in the early 1900s with the insertion into the Westminster Confession of an article teaching a universal love and grace of God and a desire of God for the salvation of all without exception. The revision of the confession, in 1903, consisted of a "missions-related affirmation that God loves humanity in general and seeks the salvation of all mankind - a denial, in other words, of God's 'double predestination' of fallen mankind to either heaven or hell."The apostasy of the Presbyterian Church (USA) went this way: "from Calvinism to Arminianism to liberalism."

I for one do not intend to be the reason that my grandchildren must fight criticism of Scripture, rejection of the deity of Christ, and denial of the resurrection of the body, because I would not fight the beginnings of liberalism in the denial of God's sovereignty in the salvation of elect sinners. Besides, I regard the false gospel of salvation by the free will of the sinner, making an inherently impotent cross effective for oneself, as being as much a denial of the gospel as is outright liberalism.

There is also the gross heresy that criticizes Scripture as a human word and a human book, full of errors, subject to the critical judgment of man's mind, whether his scientific mind, his philosophical mind, his ethical mind, or his religious mind. Invariably, it enters a church by the criticism of the opening chapters of the Bible. The battle should be fought there. If the battle with unbelief is lost in a church at Genesis 1, the end will be the criticism of the opening chapters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

There is the gross heresy of mysticism: salvation not by faith in Christ according to the word, but by feeling, by direct, emotional contact with God. This is the horrendous error of the charismatic movement, in addition to its other errors. But this movement does not take a church over all at once with the introduction of new prophecies, holy laughter, being slain in the Spirit, and other such monstrosities. It will seek entrance by asking for the "mere" approval of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit in our age.

There is the gross heresy of antinomianism. This appeared already in the apostolic churches, as 2 Peter, Jude, ad the Nicolaitans and Jezebel in Revelation 2 and  3 prove. This is the error of licentiousness as the lawful implication of grace. But also this evil does not appear in a church full-blown: "Let us sin that grace may abound." Rather, it comes in almost innocuously: "We must not discipline the man or woman, but in love receive him or her, even though he or she walks impenitently in sin. Is Jesus not merciful (especially to my son or my daughter)? Is not God a God of love? Doesn't God forgive sinner's?" This seemingly Christian attitude and mind are, in fact, an attack on the third mark of the church. Their sentiment is also another gospel than the gospel of Scripture. The gospel of Scripture teaches salvation from sin, not salvation only from the punishment of sin, as though the forgiven sinner can, and even may, continue impenitently in the bondage of sin, to the great dishonoring of a holy God. The evangelical churches in the United States, in addition to their other errors, are antinomian through and through.

These are the great heresies that have destroyed many churches in the past, and that are in the process of destroying many other churches today.

Every believer must be on guard against them in his or her own church and fight them if they begin to appear.

Out of a love of the truth!

Prof. David J. Engelsma 

Bound to Join, pp.143-146

Thoughts on ARMINIANS by Augustus Toplady

I much question whether the man that dies an Arminian can go to heaven. But certainly he will not be an Arminian when he is in heaven. The employ of the blessed is to cast their crowns at the feet of God and the Lamb, and to sing, "Not unto us, O Lord."

Should it be thought harsh to question the salvation of one who dies under the blindness of Arminianism; as if a man who only robs God in part might miss of glory; let it be considered that, even on earth, if a person robs me only of my watch, or of a single guinea, he has forfeited his life to the law, as much as if he had robbed me of all I am worth.

The old Arminians mentioned in Scripture are blamed for thinking wickedly that God was such an one as themselves; but our new Arminians out-sin their predecessors, and actually represent God as a being in many respects considerably inferior to themselves. They suppose Him both to form schemes with less wisdom, and to execute them with less power, spirit, and success, than a prime minister of common sense forms and executes his. They dare to ascribe to God such impotence, blunders, imperfections and disappointments, as they would blush to ascribe to a Ximenes, or a Sully. 

Arminians consider the grace that is inspired into a true believer's heart, as a text of Scripture written upon a pane of glass, liable to be demolished by the first hand that flings a stone at it.

All the disputes between us and the Arminians may be reduced to these two questions: 1. Is God dependant on man, or is man dependant on God? 2. Is man a debtor to God, or God a debtor to man?

When the Arminians foolishly affirm concerning the will of an unregenerate man, viz., that "its liberty consists in an indifferency to good or evil, like a balance in equal poise;" holds true of a regenerate man in some circumstances, and in some respect, viz., that a person who is happily resigned to God's providential disposals, may (in point of absolute acquiescence) be said to have his will in equilibrio, i.e. he wishes to be quite conformed to the divine pleasure, and to incline neither to prosperity nor adversity, life nor death, but is desirous that God's own hand may incline the scale. We are never truly contented, nor of (course) truly happy, until God and we have but one will between us.

The Arminians think, that in conversion God does little or nothing for men, but gives them a pull by the elbow, to awake them from their sleep. Rather, he acts as maritime officers do by their sailors; he cuts down the hammock of carnal security in which the elect are; down they fall, and the bruises and surprise they receive awaken them from their death in sin, and bring them to themselves whether they will or no.

According to Arminianism, grace has the name, but free-will has the game.

Arminians suppose God to give us heaven, as the king grants a brief for building a church. The brief runs, "We have granted our most gracious letters patent." But these same most gracious letters are amply paid for before they are granted. No fee, no brief.

Some people (especially the Arminians) seem to speak of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Established Church, as if those articles were like Mr. Van Bushel's newly-invented elastic garters, which are so contrived by springs, that they will accommodate and fit themselves to any leg that should wear them.

Arminians will ask, "Where's the use of preaching the doctrines of grace, even supposing them to be true? since we may go to heaven without a clear knowledge of them." And a man may go to heaven with broken bones; yet it is better to go thither in a whole skin. A man may get to his journey's end, though it rain and thunder all the way; yet it is more comfortable to travel in fair weather. You or I might make a better shift to live upon a scanty allowance of bread and water; yet, surely, an easy fortune, and a decent table are, in themselves, abundantly preferable to poverty and short commons. Who would wish to go upon thorns when his way may be strewed with roses?

Where is the difference between Arminianism and Epicurism? To suppose a fortuitous concourse of incidents is no less Atheistical than to suppose a fortuitous concourse of atoms.

I can compare some ranting Arminian preachers, who represent salvation as a matter of chance, and press men to help forward their own conversion, upon pain of damnation, to none so well as to auctioneers; who, with the hammer in their hands, are always bawling out, "Now is your time; now is your time: a-going, a-going, a-going."

Such a method is equally inconsistent with the analogy of faith, and subversive of the majesty of the gospel. Shall I order a dead soul to awake, and raise itself to life? Let me rather address the living God, and say, "Awake, and put on thy strength, O arm of the Lord! Breathe on these slain, that they may live!"

Augustus Toplady 

Works of Augustus Toplady, "Observations and Reflections," pp. 540-541

Can Arminians be Saved?

Our question for this issue is: "Can someone who is theologically Arminian be truly saved?" This is not an easy question.

We want to emphasize at the beginning that Arminianism is another gospel that is no gospel (Gal. 1:6-7). Its teaching denies the sovereignty of God in salvation and the power and effectualness of Christ's death on the cross (by teaching that Christ died for all it teaches that His death actually saves no one). It also denies that salvation is by grace alone with its teaching concerning the sovereignty of the human will. These are fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

Not only that, but we believe that Arminianism has crept into the teaching of many Reformed churches under the guise of a love of God for all men, a desire on God's part that all men without exception be saved, and the teaching that there are gifts of grace and benefits of the cross for all. This poses a deadly danger to Reformed churches.

We agree, therefore, with the following quote: "False doctrine is worse when it goes under the cover of the truth, and when it quotes Scripture, and sings Amazing Grace. Satan is always at his best in opposing the truth when he does it in the name of Christ. There has never been a more subtle expression of false doctrine than which affirms all the 'truths' of the Christian faith on the basis of human effort, merit of works, foreseen faith, or 'free will.' To affirm grace on the condition of works is the ultimate perversion. It is The Lie" (John K. Pederson, Sincerity Meets the Truth, pp. v, vi).

But does this mean that those who hold to free will and other teachings of Arminianism cannot be and are not saved? We do not believe that. Even here, however, we wish to be very careful in our answer. We would insist that a person who truly and consistently believes that he is saved by his own willing and running, contrary to Rom. 9:16, cannot be saved; he has denied the very heart of the gospel.

The teaching that man is saved by his own running is Rome's, the teaching that he is saved by his own willing is that of apostate Protestantism, but really they are no different. That teaching, according to Romans 10:1-4, is ignorance of and refusal to submit to the righteousness of God, and leaves a person in need of salvation. By his emphasis on will and works a consistent Arminian sets himself outside Christ (Gal. 5:4).

Nevertheless, many people inconsistently confess both grace and works. They ascribe their salvation wholly to God's grace, and yet speak of having chosen Christ, of having free will, and of God being dependent in salvation on their own free will choice. They thank GOD for their salvation and yet speak as though they were the ones who made the decisive choices.

Usually this is the fault of the teaching they have received - teaching which speaks along two lines. It is a teaching that affirms grace on the basis of works and free will. Those who teach such things have the greater fault. Nevertheless, those who think along these lines, though they may be saved, also need to realize that what they believe is not the truth, and need to repent of it.

So too, as the author quoted above says: "We need rather to be greatly ashamed of ourselves for our tolerant friendship with the doctrine of human sovereignty which lies at the rotten core of evangelicalism, and which, on account it, of our sleepy indifference to is a testimony to our own cowardice." Grace saves, not free will and works.

Ronald Hanko
http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/cr-news/item/731-can-arminians-be-saved 
http://www.prca.org/

Is Grace Resistible?

From a reader: “I wish, if possible, that you help me deal with the Arminian objections to the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace. In a virtual debate I had with an Arminian, he claimed that prevenient grace (Arminian doctrine) is biblical and that we can see it in verses such as John 12:47: ‘And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.’ With this verse, he concludes that grace is not irresistible, because otherwise the whole world would be saved. He claims that this text gives no chance to the Calvinist to say that the word ‘world’ means ‘world of the elect.’ For example, Jesus includes the unbelievers and the damned in the word ‘world.’ He also claims that this text cannot be talking about the internal or external call. The text says that Jesus came to save the world. How can we understand this verse in the light of Reformed doctrine?”

The answer to the question concerning John 12:47 involves the meaning of the word “world.” It is evident from the argumentation in the question that the Arminian to whom the questioner refers wants to make the word “world” mean every man, woman and child that ever lived. This is always the key question that arises in connection with the defence of the truth of God’s sovereign grace over against those who deny it. Already in the latter part of the sixteenth century and the early part of the seventeenth, the Arminians defended their position on free will by appeal to the word “world.” Countless times in the history of the church this question has been discussed and those of the Reformed faith have explained the word as it ought to be explained. One could wish that Arminians who still bring up such arguments would do their homework for once, instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions on questions that have been answered times without number.

There are many reasons why the word “world” cannot mean everyone who has ever lived. It is true, as others have said, that “A Christ for all is a Christ for none.”

1. If the word “world” means everyone who has ever lived, then God loves everyone who has ever lived. If God loves everyone who has ever lived, Christ died for everyone who has ever lived. If Christ died for everyone who has ever lived, the love of God is without power and the cross loses it redeeming glory. God loves people who are not saved and Christ died for people who are not saved. So God’s love goes for nothing and Christ’s cross has no power to save.

2. If God’s love and Christ’s cross are ineffectual, then God is not omnipotent. He cannot do what He wants to do. Already Augustine, back in the fifth century, insisted that what God wills to do, He does. The Roman Catholic Church denied Augustine’s teaching and adopted the views of Pelagius who taught that God loves all men and Christ died for all men. Do today’s Arminians want the same Pelagian doctrine as the Roman Catholic Church? Let them read the history of the church and learn that their doctrine came from Roman Catholicism.

3. It is clear that the questioner’s opponent not only believes that God loves everyone, but he also believes that every man, woman, child and babe in arms receives the grace of God. He speaks of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is a grace given to everyone so that he can make up his own mind whether or not he wants salvation. But some resist this grace. They are, however, resisting a mirage, for not all men have grace, not even prevenient grace. Where in the Bible does one find a prevenient grace? One who teaches this faces the question: Is the grace of the Almighty God so shamefully weak that it has no power to save? We are told in Scripture to rely in our troubles on God’s grace. God told Paul, as he struggled with the thorn in his flesh, “My grace is sufficient for thee” (II Cor. 12:9). A resistible grace is a powerless grace. In all my afflictions, I have no need at all of a powerless grace.

4. To teach the Arminian doctrine that grace is resistible is to teach that man has a free will. The teaching that man has a free will is a flat, calculated attempt to deny total depravity. To refer to Ephesians 2:1 is sufficient to prove that total depravity is a reality. The trouble is not that Scripture does not teach total depravity; the trouble is that proud man wants to help save himself. He is too proud to consider himself what he truly is: a sinner dead in trespasses and sins. A partially depraved person does not need the cross of Christ. Paul, in Ephesians 2:1-10, insists on this. If salvation is partly our work, then we can boast of what we do and all glory does not belong to God.

Many years ago, when I was teaching catechism classes, I had a girl in the class who came out of the Roman Catholic Church. Although she eagerly took hold of the truths of the Reformed faith, she still stumbled over the sovereignty of God in all His creation and in all the deeds of men. We had discussed it time and time again, and I had exhausted all the biblical arguments; so, finally, I made one attempt to persuade her by saying to her, “If you had to choose between a sovereign God or a God who waits on you and on all men, what would you choose?” She put her head in her arms and sat in her seat what seemed to me and the others in the class to be an interminable amount of time. It was utterly and completely quiet in the room. At last she lifted her head and with the light of pure joy on her face and tears streaming down her cheeks, she said, “I want a sovereign God!” She has not wavered from that for over fifty years.

The question is not abstract theology. I have no need of a god who is not sovereign. I have no need of a god who waits on me before he can act. If that were true, I could just as well worship Buddha. I am a sinner hopelessly lost and unable to do anything but hate God, defy Him in His works, blaspheme His name or coldly ignore Him. I need a God who can, by divine power, conquer me and overcome all my resistance by irresistible grace. Does that make me a helpless and abhorrent sinner who does nothing for his salvation? Yes, it does. But it is better to cry out, “God be merciful to me a sinner” and go home justified (Luke 18:13-14), than to stand with the Pharisee and loudly boast, “Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, because I have accepted Christ and so saved myself.” Such boasting is not the way to the cross and to heaven.

I shall deal with John 12:47 and Deuteronomy 30:6 (to which the questioner also refers) in the next News, God willing.

 

 

Prof. Hanko

Covenant Reformed News, July 2014

www.cprc.co.uk 

www.facebook.com/CovenantPRC 

www.youtube.com/cprcni 

'All Men', 'All' and 'World'- The Biblical Meaning

One of the greatest arguments against the Reformed Faith (or "Calvinism") is that God loves the world or all men, but what do these terms mean in the Bible?

The following was given as a handout at the public lecture on 'God is Love' .  It sets forth, according to the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, the biblical (and natural) meaning of phrases such as 'all', 'all men' and 'world'.
You can download the original handout here.




Does the word “world” (Greek: kosmos) mean “the entire human race”?

“If thou do these things show thyself to the world” (John 7:4). 
“I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him” (John 8:26).
“Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world is gone after Him” (John 12:19).
“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18).
“I have chosen you out of the world; therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:19).
“Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and ye shall be sorrowful but your sorrow shall be turned into joy” (John 16:20).
“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple whither the Jews always resort” (John 18:20).
“I thank God […] that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8).
“We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels and to men” (I Cor. 4:9).
“Which [the gospel] is come unto you as it is in all the world …” (Col. 1:6).
“They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world and the world heareth them” 
( I John 4:5).
“And we know that we are of God and the whole world lieth in wickedness” 
(I John 5:19).

Do the words “all” or “all men” refer to the entire human race without exception?

“When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him” (Matt. 2:3).
“Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judaea and all the region round about Jordan and were baptized of him” (Matt. 3:5-6).
“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake” (Matt. 10:22).
“If we shall say, Of men; we fear the people for all hold John as a prophet” (Matt. 21:26).
“And all the city was gathered together at the door” (Mark 1:33).
“When they had found Him they said unto Him. All men seek for thee” (Mark 1:37).
“[And he] began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him, and all men did marvel” (Mark 5:20).
“All men mused in their hearts of John whether he were the Christ or not” (Luke 3:15).
“Behold the same baptizeth and all men come to Him” (John 3:26). 
“If we let Him thus alone, all men will believe on Him and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:48).
“Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together and burned them before all men” (Acts 19:19).
“This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people” (Acts 21:28).
“Thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard” (Acts 22:15).
“For your obedience is come abroad unto all men” (Rom. 16:19).

Do the words “every man” (in context) refer to the entire human race without exception? 

“After that He put His hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored and saw every man clearly” 
(Mark 8:25).
“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached; and every man presseth into it” (Luke 16:16).
“Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine […] but thou hast kept the good wine until now” (John 2:10).
“And every man went unto his own house” (John 7:53).
“And [they] sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men, as every man had need” (Acts 2:45).
“For I say, through the grace of God given unto me, to every man that is among you […] to think soberly according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3).
“But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal” (I Cor. 12:7).
“But all these worketh that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will” (I Cor. 12:11).
“Whom [Christ] we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28).
“They shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest” (Heb. 8:11). 

Is this interpretation of all, every, anyone, and world really so radical, or is it simply the normal way in which we use language? 

“The whole world looked in horror as the Twin Towers crumbled to the ground.”
The world mourned the death of Marilyn Monroe.”
“The world stood still the remember the tragedy which occurred last week.”
“Everyone is invited to the youth center for pizza after the meeting.”
“All are reminded to clear away the chairs after supper.”
“After the visit to the museum, everyone is asked to be on the bus no later than 1 PM.”
“Does everyone have a pen and a notepad?”
“Everyone! Get in the car!”
“Can anyone recommend a good butcher?”
“Is anyone interested in going to the park?”

Rev. Martyn McGeown
http://limerickreformed.com/articles/by-author/rev-martyn-mcgeown/item/105-all-men-all-and-world-the-biblical-meaning

You Don't Believe in Free Will?!

 

If there is one "sacred cow" in the modern church it is "freewill." Almost every person I meet in the modern church assumes that 1) man has freewill, 2) that man can use his freewill to choose salvation, 3) that God is a perfect gentleman who would never force salvation on man.

Deny "freewill" and you will hear objections:

1. You are making man to be a robot!
2. God would never do that!
3. That is a horrible doctrine!
4. Why bother?

The problem is that most objections are based on emotional responses, knee-jerk reactions.

Let us be clear what we mean.

1. The only ultimate "freewill" is God's. Only God can say, "I will do all my pleasure" (Isa. 46:10) Only of God can it be said that He works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). Our wills, whatever else they might be, are the wills of creatures and necessarily limited.

2. Man has a will. Man's will (not "freewill," but will) is his faculty of choice. Man, whether a sinner or not, has this faculty of choice. A robot and a puppet do not. No one teaches that man is a puppet. Therefore, man can make real choices between options presented to him. He can choose tea over coffee; he can choose to buy one model of car over another. Of course, his choices are limited by various factors. I might choose to buy a 2012 BMW car, but if I don't have the money I will have to settle for something cheaper. In addition, man is free to choose in that he is not forced by God to make a choice one way or the other.

3. Man was created (in Adam and Eve) with freewill. This freewill was a faculty of Adam's mind according to which he made choices. Adam's mind and whole being (and therefore will) were perfectly upright and holy. Adam willingly and with delight served God his Creator. God made man that way in His own image, but with the possibilty of falling. We know, of course, that man fell into sin. The contentious issue is this: did man's fall affect his nature, and especially his will?

Fallen Man

1. The Pelagian denies that the nature of man was affected by the Fall. According to that view, Adam fell but it was a very minor affair. Man became guilty, but his mind, soul and will were basically unaffected. And none of his posterity were affected by Adam's fall either. There is no original guilt, or original corruption (original sin). Modern man, as a sinner, is still in the image of God and still able to serve God. You ask: why does no man live a life without sin?  The answer: all men sin because of the evil examples of parents and other human beings. Sin is not in the nature, but in the "nurture."

2. The semi-Pelagian admits that man was seriously affected by the Fall. He lost many of the powers of his original nature. Man is "weakened" but not ruined by the Fall. Now it is much more difficult to serve God and to choose good. This view teaches that man is "sick" but not "dead." But man still has the power to cooperate with the grace of God.

3. The Bible teaches that the Fall ruined Adam and also all his posterity. As a result of the Fall man became a slave to sin (John 8:34), totally corrupted and depraved, and he lost the image of God (knowledge, holiness and righteousness [Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; John 8:44] ). Now man does not have a "free" will (he has the faculty to choose but that has been corrupted also). He has a corrupted will.

The Choices of a Fallen Man

1. What is will? What is faculty of choice? Are you, as a sinner, completely free to choose, and entirely uninfluenced in that choice? No! A man chooses that which he loves, that to which he is attracted, that which pleases him. Why do you choose to drink coffee, perhaps, whereas that would not be my choice? Because you like coffee, and I cannot stand the smell of it! Why does a sinner choose to sin? Because the sinner loves sin!

2. A sinner when faced with the choice of righteousness or sin, holiness or depravity, loving God or loving self will always choose the latter. Why? Because he has a totally depraved heart, a twisted mind, a perverted will and a ruined, fallen nature.. Therefore, sinners choose willingly to sin. They follow sin greedily (Eph. 4:19) even when they know that sin will destroy them. Sin is irresistible to the sinner. God does not force a person to sin against his will. Sin is his natural choice exactly because he has a fallen nature.

a. Man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1-3)
b. Man hates light and loves darkness (John 3:19-20)
c. Man's carnal mind is enmity [hostility] against and cannot even be subject to God's Law (Rom. 8:7-8)
d. To the natural mind the Gospel is foolishness and he cannot receive it (I Cor. 2:14)
e. There is none who does good, seeks God, understands, etc (Rom. 3:10ff)
f. man drinks sin up as water (Job 15:16)
The Bible is FILLED with testimonies such as that.  And when the Bible does talk about sinners seeking God, longing after God, etc., it speaks of saved, regenerate, belieivng sinners. Do not confuse the two!

3. So, offer to the will of the sinner (who is dead in sin, hates light and loves darkness, finds spiritual things foolishness and cannot receive them, does not do good, understand or seek God, and whose very mind is hostlity to God) the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and what will the reaction ALWAYS be? Rejection! Unbelief! Refusal to repent! Why? Because the unbeliever freely, willingly and in accordance with his fallen nature ALWAYS hates Christ and is never atracted to Him.

4. Does that mean that conversion is impossible? Yes, for man it is. Man is as the Bible describes him: totally depraved. Does that man that God cannot convert a man? Of course, not! God can convert the most hardened sinner. Does that mean we should not preach to sinners? No, of course not! We must preach to sinners, but in preaching we do not rely on our abilities to appeal to man's will, but we preach knowing that it is God who gives life to sinners. God is pleased to use means to bring elect sinners to salvation.
5. What about you, believer? Is it not true that you were also like the unbeliever described above? Consider the analogy of the so-called "perfect gentleman" Jesus knocking at your heart (there is not one word in the Bible about this "gentleman Jesus" by the way; and Rev. 3:20 is not about Jesus knocking on the door of an unbeliever's heart but about Christ knocking on the door of the church in Laodicea!). If you love darkness and the light of the world is knocking at your door will you ever in a million years open the door? Will you not like a darkness-lover lock the door and get away from Him as far as you can? Did you overcome your own depravity, your own slavery to sin, your own enmity against God? Of course not!

6. Why do some believe? Because God by His Spirit works, opens the closed heart (Acts 16:14), opens the blinded eyes, unstops the deafened ears, and even gives life from the dead, and gives a new heart. Does He give that to everyone? Clearly not! He gives it to the elect.

Conclusion

We do not deny that man has a will. Man has a will, a very active will, a will actively and greedlly set on evil, only evil, always evil. His will is corrupt and disordered because his whole nature is corrupt and because the whole man is enslaved to sin. That is why we need salvation: God frees our will, and changes our nature, and then we believe. Salvation is not of man's freewill (man's will is bound to sin). Salvation is of God's grace, free, sovereign, efficacious, amazing grace!
And, in heaven, when our will shall be finally delivered from the corruption of our nature, we will no longer even be able to choose sin. That will not mean that we will be robots, only able to chose good and never evil. We will be free, perfectly free, happily and gloriously free, to serve God forever without even the possibility of sin!
How did you become convinced there was no "freewill"? And have you experience strong opposition as you expressed these beliefs?


Rev. Martyn McGeown
http://limerickreformed.com/blog/item/572-you-dont-believe-in-free-will?

A Definition of Gospel Preaching: Calvinistic or Arminian?

I think the right method of preaching is this. At our first beginning to preach at any place, after a general declara­tion of the love of God to sinners and his willingness that they should be saved, to preach the law in the stron­gest, the closest, and the most searching manner possible; only intermixing the gospel here and there, and shewing it, as it were, afar off.... I mean by preaching the gospel, preaching the love of God to sinners,
preaching the life, death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ, with all the blessings which in consequence thereof are freely given to true believers.¹

---

Who said these things? Who presented this as his view of preaching and his definition of preaching the gospel? Who here begins his statements of gospel preaching as a declaration of a uni­versal love of God for all men absolutely (common grace) and His will or desire to save everybody (free offer)?

It was not free offer advocates like Louis Berkhof, Phil Johnson, Iain Murray, or John Piper. It was that arch-Arminian John Wesley (1703-1791)!

Even more than Jacob Arminius himself, Wesley has probably done more to further Arminianism than any other man. Through the 40,000 plus sermons he preached in Great Britain, Ireland, and America; his vast writings (including his sermons, journal, and Notes on the New Testament), totaling 32 volumes in one edition; his Arminian hymns (along with those of his brother, Charles) sung all over the world; the many min­isters his movement produced, including lay preachers and women preachers, on all continents; the many soci­eties and churches he established or spawned across the world—Wesley has promoted global Arminianism more than any other.

He provided the seeds not only for the Methodist movement and other Arminian churches, but also for the Holiness movement (for his Arminianism led him to em­brace and promote perfectionism), as well as for Pentecos­talism and Charismaticism (which are typically Arminian and which develop Wesley’s endorsement and promotion of charismatic phenomena, such as dreams, visions, heal­ings, “gifts,” etc.), with their many respective churches and numerous denominations across the world.

No wonder Wesley had to “gut” the Thirty-Nine Ar­ticles, the confession to which he was sworn as an Angli­can minister! His unfaithfulness to his ordination vows and creed have also been widely followed throughout the church world. Many are the ways in which he has sought to undo the Reformation! The wise words of Solomon certainly apply to John Wesley: “almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation” (Prov. 5:14).

Centuries after his death, Wesley continues to be the darling of millions of Arminians and even, sadly, pro­fessed Calvinists, the world over. The latter would have especially pleased him for he hated the gospel of particu­lar grace, calling it a “blasphemy” that represents “God as worse than the Devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust.”2

John Wesley sought to weaken and destroy the truth of the sovereignty of God in any way he could, even re­sorting to condensing, distorting, and falsifying Augustus Toplady’s 134-page book Absolute Predestination into a 12-page tract, ending with these scurrilous words: “The sum of all is this: One in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will; the reprobate will be damned, do what they can. Reader believe this or be damned. Witness my hand, A- T-.” Toplady neither wrote nor held any such thing. Wesley biographer Stephen Tomkins is right: “Now this fraud had proved [Wesley] a criminal worthy to be transported to America if not hanged.”3 Toplady understandably declared of John Wesley: “I believe him to be the most rancorous hater of the gospel system that ever appeared in England.”4

Earlier in the letter from which the quotation at the very beginning of this article was taken, Wesley rightly declares that the nature of the gospel to be preached is a “very important” issue: “I have had many serious thoughts concerning it, particularly for some months last past; therefore I was not willing to speak hastily or slightly of it, but rather delayed till I could consider it thoroughly.”5

And what was his conclusion? The Arminian Wesley does not here define the gospel as universal atonement or the opportunity that man can be saved if he uses his free will aright. Rather, Wesley, after “many serious thoughts” and “some months” of thorough consideration, distils and defines the Arminian gospel as “a general declaration of the love of God to sinners and his willingness that they should be saved”—the very gospel of common grace and the free offer so beloved of many professing Calvinists!

*Rev. Angus Stewart

The Standard Bearer, Volume 90 No. 12, pp. 285-286

http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/definition-gospel-preaching-calvinistic-or-arminian 

 http://rfpa.org/pages/the-standard-bearer 

*Rev. Stewart is pastor of the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Northern Ireland. This article appeared first in the British Reformed Journal, issue no. 59 

---

1 Quoted in Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in Eng­land, Book 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), I:152-153; italics mine.

2 Quoted in Stephen Tomkins, John Wesley, A Biography (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2003), p. 78.

3 Tomkins, John Wesley, p. 170.

4 Quoted in Tomkins, John Wesley, p. 173.

5 John Wesley's letter to Ebenezer Blackwell, dated 20 Decem­ber, 1751 (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1751/).

The Poisonous Petals of the Arminian Lilac

In God's creation the lilac, like the tulip, has a beautiful place.

 

It is not a poisonous plant but a splendid flower of sweet perfume and purple hue. Its color symbolizes royalty and dominion. As such, the lilac would be a fit emblem of the Reformed faith and its key doctrine-- the absolute sovereignty of God. But the lilac may be viewed as the emblem of the Arminian heresy, and then it takes on quite a different character. It becomes an ugly, stinking flower. Its color is the pale gray of disease and death. Its petals are poisonous.

The late John Gerstner, a Presbyterian minister, invented the acronym LILAC to summarize the five points of the Arminians. He did this because the tulip flower has been the symbol of the Five Points of Calvinism. The two "flowers" look like this: 

T -Total Depravity

U - Unconditional Election

L - Limited Atonement

I - Irresistible Grace

P - Perseverance of the Saints

L - Limited Depravity

I - I Choose Christ

L - Limitless Atonement

A - Arrestible Grace

C - Carnal Security

In this chapter we examine briefly these poisonous metals of the Arminian LILAC. The reader will understand that we cannot launch into a detailed critique of the Arminian heresy here. For that consider the Canons of Dordt themselves, particularly the second part of each head of the doctrine, where the Arminian errors are explicitly mentioned and refuted. We can only point out the main errors. Nevertheless, with the sweet smell of TULIP in our souls we will come to know the stench of the Arminian LILAC.

It was the Arminian party in the Dutch Reformed churches who first summarize their teachings into five points of doctrine. This they did following the death of Jacob Arminius, the man who initially advanced the erroneous doctrines and after whom the Arminian party was named. Arminius had been teaching the errors associated with his name for many years following his ordination into the ministry in 1588. Especially in his preaching on the book of Romans, he parted with the historic Reformed teaching concerning the state of the natural man and concerning the way in which the sinner is saved. But it was after Arminius' death in 1609 that his followers put his views together in summary form. In 1610 they set forth in five articles their Remonstrance (petition) as a defense for their position, which is why the Canons of Dordt consist of five heads of doctrine and why we speak of the five points of Calvinism. The first point of the Remonstrants expressed the Arminian view of predestination:

That God, by an external, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the holy Ghost, shall believe on this His Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the gospel of John 3:36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

At first glance it may seem as if the Arminians were stating an orthodox doctrine of predestination. The language appears sound and straight. But in reality their view of divine election and reprobation is that they are conditional decrees. Notice that the article says that God chooses those who will believe and passes over those who will not believe. That is, God's choice of some persons to be saved is based on (conditioned by) their faith and their perseverance in faith; and His rejection of others damnation is based on (conditioned by) their unbelief and disobedience. For the Arminians, God;s decree of predestination is not sovereign and unconditional; it is not freely made without any regard to man's acts in time. Rather it is conditioned by what man does. In eternity God looks ahead and sees who will believe and who will not believe and predestinates accordingly. In this opening statement the Arminians revealed the heart of their heresy: God is not sovereign in salvation; man is. God's will does not rule in the redemption of mankind; man's does. The poisonous, putrid petal of the Arminial LILAC is: I choose God (Christ), and therefore He chooses me.

How pervasive that poison is in the churches today! Oh, that the smell of the beautiful, biblical TULIP would prevail as it did in the time of Dordt: God chose me to believe, sovereignly, unconditionally, entirely of grace!

This point, however, was just the beginning of the Arminian poison. On their second point the Arminians continued their vile errors: 

That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that He has obtained for them all, by His death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the gospel of John 3:16, "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: "And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

In this statement the Arminians boldly set forth universal atonement: Christ has died for all men, head for head. His death on the cross covered the sins of all people that ever live. His sacrifice obtained forgiveness and freedom for every person in all of time and history. Christ's death, then, is not just for the elect of God; it is not limited to that select people determined by God. It is for all men without exception.

Yet at the same time the Arminians had to reckon with the fact that all men do nto enjoy this salvation in the death of Christ. Some men perish in their unbelief and never receive the benefits Christ obtained for them. This assertion implies that Christ has died in vain for some; His death is not sufficient to secure some people's salvation. What is this but a denial of the efficacy and all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement? This poisonous petal of the Arminian LILAC insists that Christ's limitless atonement fails! 

This is not the sweet fragrance of the gospel, as Arminians claimed; this is the stench of the lie. Besides, in this article the Arminians again grounded salvation in the faith of the sinner, not the sovereign work of God in Christ at the cross. At best Christ's death only makes salvation possible for the sinner. The determining factor in salvation is not what Christ did in dying but what the sinner does by believing. Christ has died in vain unless the sinner believes! This poisonous petal is also prominent in the churches of our day. Oh, that the sweet savor of the biblical, Reformed TULIP might prevail today as it did at Dordt: Christ died only for those elect given Him by the Father-- sufficiently, efficaciously, with everlasting security of their salvation.

In their third point the Arminians returned to their devilish deceptions and subtle subterfuges. They hid the truth of their position behind solid language:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through His Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5: "Without Me ye can do nothing."

It appears from this statement that the Arminians were upholding the Reformed doctrine of total depravity, that man is thoroughly corrupt in himself and incapable of doing any good part apart from the grace of God. It appears that they were defending sovereign grace in the salvation of the sinner, so that only God by His regenerating Spirit causes man to repent and believe. It even seems that they condemn free will.

But this was a grievous deception. In reality, the Arminians taught just the opposite. A close reading of the Rejection of Errors section in Heads 3 and 4 of the Canons of Dordt reveals their true position on the nature of man's depravity and on the nature of God's saving grace. From the Rejection of Errors we learn that the Arminians taught that man is only partially depraved and that he has retained his power of free will after the fall. Therefore, the unregenerate sinner is not totally dependent on the grace and Spirit of God for salvation. He is able to prepare himself for salvation and cooperate with God in salvation. According to Arminians, fallen man can hunger and thirst after righteousness and life by himself; he can offer the sacrifice of a contrite and broken spirit apart from the Spirit. He can use his natural powers to meet God halfway on the road of salvation. God gives the sinner a common grace to show him Christ and encourage him to conversion, but it is up to man to exercise his free will and decide whether or not he will be saved. In the Arminian scheme, faith is not God's sovereign gift worked in man's heart by the power of the regenerating Spirit but an act of man that actually precedes regeneration.

So again, the Arminians denied the sovereignty of God's saving grace, this time by promoting the poisonous petal of "limited depravity." The fathers of Dordt saw this for what is was: nothing but a resurrection of the old Pelagian heresy which denied man's total depravity and advanced man's power of free will. Oh, that once more this poisonous perfume of the Arminian LILAC might be snuffed out in the churches and the precious scent of the Reformed TULIP be powerfully smelled and savored!

The fourth article of the Arminians must be viewed in the light of what we have just seen:

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, in as much as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places. 

Again, it seems as if the Arminians are defending sovereign grace, at least in the first part of the article. God's grace, they appear to say, accounts for all the good that man does.

But notice the words that are used to describe God's grace as it comes to the sinner. The article speaks of "assisting" grace and "cooperative" grace, implying that God simply needs to help man along in the attainment of salvation and that man works along with the God to achieve this. The fourth point exposes the Arminians in their real position-- that of Pelagianism. In addition, the Arminians plainly stated their rejection of sovereign, irresistible grace. The grace of God as it comes to the sinner is able to be resisted by the sinner. God tries to save the sinner when He comes to him in the gospel. The Spirit approaches man with the grace of salvation, but God can be turned away by man's sovereign will. The Spirit comes with regenerating grace but cannot give it until man first believes by an act of his free will. And if a man does not want to believe, the Spirit is stopped in His tracks! Such is the stinking flower of the Arminians: arrestible grace.

How powerful is this poisonous petal in the churches! Oh, that the precious odor of the biblical TULIP might waft through the churches as it did at Dordt: God's sovereign grace is irresistible and conquers the wicked heart and will of the elect sinner, so that he is infallibly brought to faith and conversion by the Spirit alone!

In their last article the Arminians expressed their belief concerning the perseverance of the saints:

That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of His life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through His Spirit in all temptations, extends to them His hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire His help, and not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away fro the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds. 

It should be evident that once more the Arminians revealed their true colors, this time by rejecting the absolute perseverance of believers. They are willing to say that God makes it possible for the saved to persevere. He gives them sufficient grace. He assists them in the battle of faith so that they can possibly overcome and reach the goal of eternal salvation. But notice two things concerning the Arminian position set forth in this article. First, they make perseverance dependent on the activity of the believer. Christ extends His hand to help the believer and will keep him, but only if he wants help, makes himself ready for the battle, and works hard on his own. Once more, the position of human sovereignty in salvation is proclaimed. God cannot make the believer persevere unless the believer wills and works first. Second, the Arminians state in so many words that they do not believe the total preservation of believers and therefore the absolute security of the saved. He can be saved today and perish tomorrow. He can be saved all his life, but in the very end he can be lost and join the wicked in hell. This last petal in the Arminian LILAC is another poisonous one: carnal security. It leaves the believer with no assurance of being saved to the end. It leaves him trusting in himself for final deliverance. That is carnal security.

Of course, this final article follows from all that the Arminians teach. If at every point salvation is dependent on the will of man, then salvation is ever on shaky ground; it can never be safe and secure. Salvation can only be certain if it is dependent on God's will and God's work from the start to finish and at every point in between. Such is the pure flower of biblical Calvinism: God keeps His own unto the end so that none are lost. He gives them grace to persevere so that they all arrive in glory. This is the sweet perfume of the Reformed TULIP. The petals of the Arminian LILAC emit a deadly poison. 

Which flower are you savoring? 

Charles J. Terpstra

Always Reforming, (Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2009): 9-16 

http://rfpa.org/collections/books-by-david-j-engelsma/products/always-reforming-doctrine-by-david-j-engelsma