And truth be told, the more reasonable and loving Calvinists will no doubt be more persuasive, and generally winsome, with rhetoric that recognizes and respects the distinction you've drawn up here. Indeed, a wise set of bloggers once wrote about truth that it be taken a stand for, "...but... in LOVE, fool!".

Bear in mind that those of us who are not Calvinists do not believe we are the erring brother or the heritic. Although the good folks here (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/lily.htm) use the expression damnable heresy numerous times. I tend to take a slightly less harsh approach and look at what Christ said about who will be surprised when they find out they are not saved. Its not the Calvinists, the Arminians or us Molinists; but the people who spent so much time arguing about it that they did not cloth the poor, feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, etc. Seeking truth is important but we must also remember that truth is much larger than doctrine.

I think you raise excellent points here. Oh that we would adhere to what you are saying. I call myself a calvinist, and think we need to be kinder on both sides of the argument.

Thank you for considering this "counter-point". The first issue here to be considered is "How Important is Truth and Doctrine?" I address this issue in my web site www.reformeddoctrine.org .

The Synod of Dort in 1618-1619 considered Arminianism a/k/a Semi-Pelagianism to be important enough to hold that international convention to deal with those teachings a/k/a doctrine. The Synod of Dort adjudged Arminianism a/k/a Semi-Pelagianism to be heresy. By no means was it an "intramural" contest. Here is a link to what The Canons of Dort state - http://www.crcna.org/pages/dort_canons_main.cfm

Charles Spurgeon said: "..I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright. It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is `Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men." [Free Will - A Slave, A sermon delivered Sunday morning, December 2, 1855, at New Park Street Chapel, London, England.]

Love is not just tolerant of everything. Would it be loving for our church leaders, our shepherds, to allow any wolves-in-sheep-clothing to mislead and harm their flock? Love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;" I Corinthians 13:6. Sometimes, I think when someone states to someone else "love one another", they may just really want that other person to "agree with me" or "be silent".

Consider that a socially conscious Jew or other unbeliever could say the same thing about someone who urgently and repeatedly warns him or her that Jesus is the only way to salvation. They may accuse them of spending too much time arguing narrow theology "that they did not cloth the poor, feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, etc."

Scriptures do not approve for Arminians or any other false teachers to have full freedom to spout their heresy. Scriptures do not consider a Calvinist who dares to confront and refute him or her to not be acting in love.

In conclusion, the general issue is how important is truth and doctrine. The specific issue is whether or not Arminianism a/k/a Semi-Pelagianism continues to be heresy that needs to be refuted rather than tolerated. Scriptures deal with the issue of false teaching and the need to oppose, refute, and correct false teaching much, much more than it deals with the issue of clothing the poor, feeding the hungry, and visiting the prisoners, etc. But, you can and should do both. Thank you again for reading and considering this counter-point.

Bill, thanks for the comment.

You said: "The Synod of Dort adjudged Arminianism a/k/a Semi-Pelagianism to be heresy."

Well, first off, we in the Reformed camp also need to avoid the tendency of treating the Three Forms of Unity or Westminster Confession as being in any way co-equal with Scripture. I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm merely making a cautionary remark.

Second, are you committed to the position that any professing Christian who considers themselves Arminian is therefore damned? I don't know any established Calvinist teacher/pastor who thinks this (RC Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, Mike Horton, Sam Storms, etc.). They may all preach hard against Arminian theology as a distortion of the clear teaching of Scripture, and rightly so, but when the chips are down none of them would actually believe that every non-Calvinist is going straight to Hell.

So I guess I'm wondering what you think it means to consider Arminianism a "heresy" and what criteria you judge to be necessary in order to make a theological debate an intramural one.

You said (quoting Spurgeon): "but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both."

But of course, the whole point is that most people are actually better than their professed beliefs. Most Arminians I've talked to do believe that salvation is entirely a work of God and that no merit can be ascribed to human will or action. But they have a difficult time believing that God would eternally predestine (or allow when He could stop it) some people to go to Hell, and so they inconsistently wish to ascribe free will to their choice to reject God's grace. This is obviously a dangerous position to be in, which is why Sproul doesn't like the question "are Arminians saved?", but instead prefers the question "are Arminians safe?"

You said: "Scriptures do not consider a Calvinist who dares to confront and refute him or her to not be acting in love."

I'm not sure if this was directed at my original post or one of the previous comments, but if to me, then I think you've missed my point.

The point is not a message of tolerance where everyone gets along, "loving" one another by pretending not to have any differences. Just look at a few of my older posts or any of my posts on my other blog and you'll find I'm not opposed to jumping in and trying to show Arminians why they're wrong (or more commonly, defending Calvinism against objections). But that doesn't mean I pretend that there are no differences between Pelagianiam and Semi-Pelagianism (which that Spurgeon quote above comes close to doing) or that I treat Arminians as contemptible heretics who deserve no grace or respect.

You said: "In conclusion, the general issue is how important is truth and doctrine."

Truth and doctrine are of the utmost importance. But this can easily be used as an excuse to avoid charity, which is no more virtuous than those who focus entirely on charity at the expense of right doctrine.

You said: "Scriptures deal with the issue of false teaching and the need to oppose, refute, and correct false teaching much, much more than it deals with the issue of clothing the poor, feeding the hungry, and visiting the prisoners, etc"

This is, to say the least, a contentious claim. In fact, I'm inclined to disagree. The majority of what the Gospels record about Christ has more to do with concern for the poor and the prisoner than correcting false teaching. Jesus' interactions with the Jewish leaders get heated, but they are relatively few and far between. This is a moot point, of course, as you've already said that we should do both. But many who call themselves Arminian show just these sorts of fruits; fruits of a regenerate, Christ-centered life. Again, this brings us back to the question of whether or not Arminians can be saved, and whether we ought to consider them erring brothers rather than heretics. I believe we can and should.

Thank you again for the thoughtful response.

David, thank you too for your reply to my comment. You raise some interesting points and questions.

I agree with you that neither the Three Forms of Unity nor Westminster Confession are in any way co-equal with Scripture. I am also not aware of any Reformed denomination who holds that viewpoint, although people (not you) sometimes raise that point to trap or make it appear that those who use such Reformed confessions are in that box.

I am sure that you would agree that these Reformed Confessions are worthy of respect and consideration especially when they specifically address an issue in dispute and make a specific judgment. That is what makes The Canons of Dort, one of the Forms of Unity, so valuable. It specifically addresses the teaching of Arminianism a/k/a Semi-Plagianism and judged it to be heresy.

The danger of making such an obvious statement that neither the Three Forms of Unity nor Westminster Confession are in any way co-equal with Scripture is that such a statement tends to marginalize and minimize the importance of all creeds. For example, even if you win the argument that the Canons of Dort should not be how we judge Arminianism a/k/a Semi-Pelagianism, by such a statement you also leave the door open to attack the Apostle's Creed and all other creeds as also not being co-equal to Scripture. Such a statement (that the creeds are not equal to Scripture) may also be true with the Apostle's Creed, but is it helpful to consider that statement (that the creeds are not equal to Scripture) when, for example, one is using the Apostle' Creed to refute error or to establish the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith?

In my web site, www.reformeddoctrine,org , in the lead article, "Calvinism: The True Doctrine of Salvation", I specifically address the issue of "Are Arminians Saved?". As you can see, I am not committed to the simple proposition that people who consider themselves Arminian are therefore damned.

I write in part: "... So then, will Arminians be saved? As true Calvinists, our simple answer is “Yes, if they are God’s elect.” But, Scripture says more, much more, and warns us of false prophets and misleading claims to be saved. Scripture exhorts us to distinguish the good from the bad “by their fruits”. See Matthew 7: 15-23 ...
I certainly think some (or maybe even many) Arminians will be saved. There are some "Arminians" who may be taught but do not believe enough of the Arminian doctrine. They may be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine,” as stated in Ephesians 4: 14, but not "fall from the faith". I think I have been in this class in my travels between various Protestant churches where Arminianism was taught, and even today I struggle to avoid the subtle influences of Arminianism and stay true to Calvinism. ...

Thus, I think that there are “Arminians” who believe or teach Arminianism from lack of understanding of Scripture but who will be refuted by knowledge of the truth and who will repent and come to the truth.

But, I also think that there are some Arminians who stubbornly believe or teach Arminianism in "vain worship of God" and are not truly saved. They cling to “free will” and their own feelings of justice above Scripture and stubbornly hold to their belief that their God would not unconditionally elect certain people to salvation. They cling to their own image of God that fits their own sense of “free will” and justice. To the God revealed in Scripture which is best summarized by the doctrine of Calvinism, they declare: “That is not the God I serve! ...”

However, whether we are an Arminian or a Calvinist, Scripture does exhort us to not be complacent about salvation."


Please do not consider the foregoing partial quote my whole opinion on this subject. But, whether you read the whole article, or just the quote, thank you for your interest.

In regards to your wondering: "what you think it means to consider Arminianism a "heresy" and what criteria you judge to be necessary in order to make a theological debate an intramural one." The Canons of Dort is one standard by which I consider Arminianism heresy and not just an intramural dispute. My interpretation of Scripture is another standard by which I consider Arminianism heresy, although my interpretation of Scripture certainly deserves much less respect than the Canons of Dort.

As a side note, it should be noted that many of us make interpretations of Scriptures, but many of us seldom acknowledge them to be just our interpretations of Scripture. The danger is that many of us simply consider our interpretation of Scriptures as the supreme standard of Scripture and prefer it to the Reformed confessions and creeds. Not that you have done that; it is just a danger that many of us face.

Thank you again for the thoughtful response. I welcome any further comment by you, in part thankful for this opportunity for discussion and in part out of respect for you as one of the authors of the blog. However, whether or not, either of us replies is not necessarily an indication that we agree with whatever last comment that is made. Thank you again.

Bill, thanks again for the comment. You have no idea how strange it feels to be debating against a Calvinist!

You said: " The danger of making such an obvious statement that neither the Three Forms of Unity nor Westminster Confession are in any way co-equal with Scripture is that such a statement tends to marginalize and minimize the importance of all creeds."

Of course it can be taken to the other extreme. My only point was that some Reformed people, though they admit that these great Reformed statements are not infallible or totally beyond revision, treat them as if they are. The point of confessions and creeds is to summarize the faith that we believe is taught by the Bible. So, if (hypothetically only) I were to disagree with some article of Reformed theology, merely quoting the Canons of Dordt or Westminster Confession should not be considered an answer to my objection, nor should it be considered sufficient to end the discussion.

In any case, I believe you are exactly right when you say that the answer to the question "are Arminians saved?" is "Yes, if they are numbered among the elect." But the simple fact that it is possible for Arminians to be numbered among the elect seems sufficient reason to treat them with respect, as erring brothers in need of correction.

It's also worth pointing out that you and I might not actually disagree, and that this debate is one of semantics. But the semantics are of the utmost importance here. We both seem to believe that Arminians are accepting a false doctrine and that they need to be confronted and shown the truth, and that it is possible for Arminians, despite their error, to be among God's elect. So, in the end, it's simply a matter of HOW we confront our Arminian brothers, whether we approach them saying "listen, brother" or "repent, heretic!"

When using Matthew 7: 15-23, what would you (Bill) think that the "fruit" is? My understanding is that people usually take Jesus' use of fruit as either the Fruits of the Spirit, or as good works. Refering back to the other time Jesus uses the "depart from me" line in chapter 25 it would seem that that is the stronger argument but either way I think it is difficult to make a case that Calvinists are the only ones showing evidence of fruit.

Also, you stated

There are some "Arminians" who may be taught but do not believe enough of the Arminian doctrine. They may be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine,” as stated in Ephesians 4: 14, but not "fall from the faith".

It seems to me that this seems to imply that while God unconditionally elects those who he sees fit, somehow my set of beliefs on that matter. Believeth in proposition x y and z and ye be damned by y and x damned ye not? I am a little unclear as to how much of a given doctrine I need to believe in to unelect myself.

Anyway, my main point, is simply that it is difficult within scripture for me to see how these intramural squabbles have turned into damnable heresy squabbles. Jesus spent little to know time dealing with Calvinism or Arminianism or any other ism. Humility is needed when looking at theological questions, in large part, because we cannot (in a literal traditional sense) get the answers first hand from God himself. We are thus left with our limited finite mental resources, the Holy Spirit and the gift of community. I value learning from other professing Christians, but if all who disagree with your Christian tradition are heretics, it is difficult for any of us to learn from eachother.

Scott,

"Jesus spent little to know time dealing with Calvinism or Arminianism or any other ism."

True enough, but I would caution you that statements like these can be a bit misleading. For one thing, there are LOTS of things that Jesus never talks about (abortion and gay marriage, for starters), and we wouldn't simply assume that He must have had no opinion about them, or that He would not have considered them important. Second, there are a few places, specifically John 3 and 6, where some would argue that Jesus does in fact teach Calvinism, though obviously not in an explicit and systematized way. And thirdly, there were no Calvinists or Arminians in Jesus' day, so we can hardly expect him to talk about them.

"I value learning from other professing Christians, but if all who disagree with your Christian tradition are heretics, it is difficult for any of us to learn from eachother."

Exactly. It's not about accepting other views as true, it's about how we treat those with whom we have disagreements.

Thanks for your comments!

David,

You are absolutely right. I should have taken more time to formulate my thought as it did come out pretty silly. My point is that systematic theology did not seem to be a driving force in Christ's salvation plan. Not saying that certain elements of theology cannot be contentious and have eternal ramifications, just simply furthering the reasons people like JP Moreland and William Lane Craig might still have a shot at salvation. I appreciated you backing my claim that Christ spent more time referring to our fruits than false teachers. While I strongly (very strongly) disagree with the Calvinist position I would never consider railing against it or thinking someone might not be saved. I think false teachers and false prophets would be more like someone who prophesied that Christ in the flesh was going to be visiting his Revival on Sunday night. I hadn't picked up from any of the news reports I have watched that He did. I think it is alot more fruitful to attack someone like him than someone who we think interprated a few passages differently than we do. Just my thoughts.

"It's not about accepting other views as true, it's about how we treat those with whom we have disagreements."

Which would included listening and learning. Not just waiting til they finish their thought to rail into how wrong they are. Paul seemed to utilize the "all truth is God's truth" perspective. Like for me, I will happily point to Piper again and again knowing full well that he preaches "hard" Calvinism because he speaks a lot of truth.

In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul talks about divisions breaking out over whom we follow. He breaks it down pretty simple and says No!. We preach Christ crucified and we follow Christ. Further, almost every time in Scripture we see a false teacher rebuked it is due to legalism, hypocrisy or dishonesty. One can be a good Calvinist and hate his brother, but one cannot be like Christ (which is what Christian refers to) and argue and divide. Jesus did not spend much time on doctrine, Paul only did it in those above mentioned circumstances. I am not saying we unconditionally accept all teaching. I am saying we should be very leery of letting our denominational squabbles steer us away from the Great Commission and the Greatest Commandments. I will viciously defend Christ and Christ crucified. But I am prepared to accept that on issues that the church has wrestled with without resolution for a couple thousand years, I may not be able to solve that debate today, so to argue or how big of a heretic someone is seems less important than the very obvious and clear commands of scripture.

Just to clarify I am not calling for any type of radical ecumenical stance, just the humilty to recognize that none of us are infallible not even Piper and Overton, even though they are studs.

But which of the two is studlier? :)

If you look hard enough on youtube you can find a video where piper says crap, so I think he may win.

He also has a youtube video set to Michael Jackson's Bad, so I guess there's no contest.

hands down piper takes the studlier than overton award on that one. I will look that up right now.

*roger I don't know if you follow other authors posts here but you better get on the ball. Piper has two supercool youtube videos up. you are lagging my friend. how can you profess with your lips that you are king of new media when Piper is winning the studly youtube video competition. tsk tsk tsk. oh that we would live in a world where a theologians studliness was not judged by the content of their youtube videos, but we do, oh how we do

Hah!

Of course, Piper has people...does Roger have people?