For all those out there wondering if perhaps the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism are cracked up too much, that's it's just an issue of where the source of election comes from (God's choice or his foreknowledge of our choice), and that the differences really aren't that big in the end, keep reading- because it's now offical, folks. Arminianism is really a different gospel. And I have it right from a horse's mouth.

It all started when I decided to do some undercover work over at the "BIBLICAL THEOLOGY DISCUSSION FORUM," ( http://www.eternalsecurity.us/forum/index.php ) a
"forum dedicated to the promotion of Biblical Christianity. A unique Forum with a distinctive Arminian flavor." Just as an example of what sort of place this is, they have an entire forum called "Eternal Security" and dedicated to discussing "the errors of this false doctrine."

Anways, I assumed a persona called "Learning" (which soon became "Learner"), a theological neophyte with pointedly bad English skills (not unlike myself, actually...) and made this post:

http://www.eternalsecurity.us/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2669

I was basically wanting to see if anybody had the guts to tackle this excellent piece of apologetic head-on. In the last post as of Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:16 am, made by one "Take up the Cross," I finally got the typical response I guess I was expecting. But this isn't the noteworthy part. The noteworthy part is the post made by the site's administrator on Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:21 pm, in which he links to this article, penned by himself:

http://eternalsecurity.us/arminian_conundrum.htm

This article deals squarely with John Owen's "Arminian conundrum," in which Owen sets forth a pretty good argument for the doctrine of limited atonement (which should probably be called something more like "real redemption.") It was not the ad hominem attacks, nor the painfully patent beating around the bush, which got my attention, but rather the author's honesty in answering Owen's condumdrum by re-writing the gospel. Yes, read that again. The author completely, clearly, and unashamedly turns the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ on its head by denying that Christ's death was even a payment for anything- it was merely a "provision." Apparently our friend never took the time to look up "propitiation" in his greek lexicon.

That the Arminian belief system inexhorably leads to this type of false teaching is something we Calvinists would be quick to assert, but, to be honest, I never really thought a good Arminian would allow himself to be forced to admit this (unless he was, say, Charles Finney). My naievety might seem amusing to some here, but I must say I am flabbergasted at this unblushing and flagrant display of heterodoxy. "Moral government" sounds so putridly pejorative, I never really thought anybody would actually admit to it.

I guess you learn something new every day. This time is was that for every million ignorant evangelicals who have no idea where there beliefs ultimately lead, there is those few scary ones who do.

Last edited by Henry; Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:07 AM.