The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Soteriology Questions

Hi
Quite some time ago now I heard Dr. Michael Horton being interviewed and among the questions the interviewer asked Dr. Horton is; do you think that it is possible that an Arminian to be a genuine Christian?
The basic answer that Dr. Horton gave was that he believes that although he believes there are Arminians who are Christians despite their Arminian beliefs. He believes that if they truly believe Arminianism in their heart of hearts, then it is impossible to be a Christian.
I have two questions related to this.
1. Do you agree with Dr. Horton?

2. Recently I told another Reformed believer what Dr. Horton said when asked this question and he said that he totally disagrees. He stated that he knows a person who is a 5 point Arminian, who demonstrates the marks of a true Christian, such as repentance etc… He believes that although the doctrines of grace are important and he doesn’t want to diminish that point. However, not everyone understands how God actually saves, but they show its fruits.

I am only revealing part of this discussion, however this is the gist of my conversation with this other Reformed believer and I expect we are going to be discussing this further.
That being the case I want to be able to contribute to that discussion a little better than I have to this date.
I am beginning a study on this matter and I am hoping that my friends on the Highway can point me in the right direction.
Opinions, Scripture, articles etc… would be appreciated.
Thank you

Tom

Tom, before I answer your questions, I would like to know how you would answer your first question.

Tom, don't know if this helps, but there were at least two good Calvinists who thought an Armenian could be a true believer. Actually, I guess that would be three, including Ryle who I think was Calvinist leaning.

Nothing could be a more weighty testimony against narrow-mindedness than his request, made shortly before his death, that, when he did died, John Wesley should be asked to preach his funeral sermon. Wesley and he had long ceased to agree about Calvinistic points; but Whitefield, to the very last, was determined to forget minor differences, and to regard Wesley as Calvin did Luther, "only as a good servant of Jesus Christ." On another occasion a censorious professor of religion asked him "whether he thought they would see John Wesley in heaven?" "No, sir," was the striking answer; "He will be so near the throne, and we shall be at such a distance, that we shall hardly get a sight of him!" - from J.C. Ryle's short sketch of George Whitefield

“Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritualcondition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only sayconcerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which hepreached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.” - Spurgeon

hbdan,

What seems to be overlooked is that one would be hard pressed to find a true 'Arminian' among professing Christians today. The overwhelming majority of churches and their members are, in fact, semi-Pelagians... NOT 'Arminians'.

To the first question, I agree with Horton and have said nearly identical words many times elsewhere and here on this board. IF, the typical contemporary professing Christian truly believes in the heart the theology which is in the head, then it is literally impossible for such a person to be saved. Why? Because the Bible's gospel/theology is one of sovereign grace and not man's free-will + God's love. The Scriptures teach: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. Modern Christianity denies and even hates these grand truths. Too often I have been told that if salvation is God's determination, then that is a God to be totally rejected and never worshiped. The difference between Calvinism and Semi-Pelagianism is that of an impassible gulf; the paradigmatic antithesis. See my article on this matter HERE.

Secondly, there are far too many professors who are not possessors who are members of churches due to the fact that they are the fruit of a non-gospel presented through a psychologically designed methodology. One may look like a Christian on the outside, but inside they are still dead in sin. This applies to professing Calvinists as well as non-Calvinists.

Thirdly, the Whitefield vs. Wesley story has been too often 'hyped' so as to embarrass or ridicule those who believe that doctrine is fundamentally important. It answers all the necessary and critical questions regarding the eternal destiny of one's soul, e.g., Who is God? Who is this Jesus you claim to believe in? What is sin? How are you a sinner; by nature and today? Why are you a Christian? How did you come to be a Christian? etc., etc.

Wesley's 'Arminianism' is a far cry from the theology taught, preached and believed today in the majority of churches, and one which relationally, is to be much preferred. For an excellent assessment and explanation of the difference between Wesleyan (true) Arminianism and modern Fundamentalism (all flavors), see R.C. Sproul's informative article here: The Pelagian Captivity of the Church.

Pilgrim

That is helpful, but what do you say about this Reformed pastor's example about the 5 point Arminian, who he says displays the marks of a true Christian?
Just so you are aware, I have tremendous respect for this particular pastor. He has a very high view of the Scriptures and isn't afraid to admit that he is wrong, if and when it is proved by Scripture.
I guess what I am trying to do is understand how best to approach this matter biblically.

Tom

Alright, I will answer it as though I am answering this person directly.

Tom,

I would have to give the same answer. IF such a person (5-point Arminian) outwardly demonstrates Christian virtues but this person really believes that the reason they are saved and his/her neighbors who had the same 'opportunity' to be saved are not saved is because HE/SHE chose Jesus and they did not, then this reveals that such a person is resting on a 'work', their free-will decision (aka: faith) and not the grace of God. In short, such a person holds to a synergistic soteriology wherein salvation is a combination of 'grace+works' (Lk 18:11,12). Jesus, John, Paul, Peter and James all have written that salvation is NOT of 'works' but of grace and grace alone.

As to this external appearance of living the Christian life, there are a couple of possible explanations out of several:

1. This pastor is attributing what he 'sees' in this type of individual as evidences of regeneration when in fact these evidences are not actually what the Scripture teaches concerning true Spirit-wrought sanctification.

2. What things which can be observed are counterfeit and the individual is self-deceived as to their spiritual state. (cf. Matt 13:3ff; Mk 4:3ff; Lk 8:5ff)

3. There is the necessity of holding to right doctrine in regard to salvation (Jh 2:23-25; 6:60-66; 8:30; Rom 16:17; 1Tim 1:3; 4:16; 2Tim 4:3;. The NT epistles in many places warn against those who do not hold to the one true gospel (Gal 1:7-9; 3:2), teach another Jesus and/or Spirit (2Cor 11:4), etc.

4. One cannot separate good works and sound doctrine: "in all things showing thyself an ensample of good works; in thy doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity," Titus 2:7.

Pilgrim, I think I quite agree with you, actually. I don't see much similarity between Wesley and his band of early Arminians and modern Armenianism, or Christianity in general today, whatever name it goes by. Wesley preached justification by faith only and regeneration as well as any good Calvinist back there and that is why Whitefield and Spurgeon accepted him. One can even remain in the Catholic church and be a true Christian if you are regenerate and depend only on the merits and blood of Christ as many did in the past.

The church of Rome is a church defiled with error and debased with superstition, but was there ever a nobler Christian woman in this world than Madame de la Mothe Guyon? She did not depart from Christ, though in the midst of a pestilent atmosphere. Remember, too, the names of Jansenius, and Arnold, and Pascal, and Fenelon, which are an honor to the universal Church of Christ; who ever walked in closer communion with Christ than those holy men did? In the midst of the darkest ages, there have shone forth the brightest stars. - Spurgeon

This is not to justify Catholicism, Arminianism, or even Calvinism which does not preach the old gospel. You can go to the Orthodox Presbyterian website for example and find the typical do this, say that, repeat this formula and presto you're a Christian, modern gospel. So I am quite with you, my friend!
Dan

I think I should add that Wesley and those Catholics displayed the spirit and character of true Christians as well, and so endeared themselves to those who disagreed with them theologically on some points. And this is a test we need to consider today especially. I remember going to a newly formed Reformed church in my town some years ago. A candidate for pastor, I'm sure a 5 point Calvinist, preached a sermon on faith. I was speaking with him casually after service and he asked me what I thought of his sermon. I told him something to the effect that it was good, but I felt a bit too general as faith had always been a thing I had been troubled about, wanting to be sure I had the true one as opposed to its many counterfeits. There was nothing unkind or censorious in my remarks. The lamb suddenly turned lion before my eyes (we were pretty much alone where we stood) and he used a modern swear word to describe the works I was obviously depending on. We parted company for a moment, but he came round to me two times afterward and made insults to my person that left me dumbfounded. I had really high hopes of joining this church as doctrinally it was as close as I could find in my area. But with real sadness I decided I could not go there, unless the preacher, who was accepted for the position, made some kind of apology. I did not care that he offended me really, it was just that he was displaying his character and spirit, and that is as telling as one's theology, in my view. 'You shall know them by their fruits"

Tom, I thought it might help to give a part of the funeral sermon Wesley gave for Whitefield to show that it is difficult to determine if another is a Christian or not based on a label like "Armenian" or "Calvinist". While I disagree with Wesley about many things, with regard to essentials I think he was sound, as did Calvinists generally in the past believe he was.

"But how shall we improve this awful providence? This is the third thing which we have to consider. And the answer to this important question is easy (may God write it in all our hearts!). By keeping close to the grand doctrines which he delivered; and by drinking into his spirit.

1. And, first, let us keep close to the grand scriptural doctrines which he everywhere delivered. There are many doctrines of a less essential nature, with regard to which even the sincere children of God (such is the present weakness of human understanding) are and have been divided for many ages. In these we may think and let think; we may "agree to disagree." But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials of "the faith which was once delivered to the saints;" and which this champion of God so strongly insisted on, at all times, and in all places!

2. His fundamental point was, "Give God all the glory of whatever is good in man;" and, "In the business of salvation, set Christ as high and man as low as possible." With this point, he and his friends at Oxford, the original Methodists, so called, set out. Their grand principle was, there is no power (by nature) and no merit in man. They insisted, all power to think, speak, or act aright, is in and from the Spirit of Christ; and all merit is (not in man, how high soever in grace, but merely) in the blood of Christ. So he and they taught: there is no power in man, till it is given him from above, to do one good work, to speak one good word, or to form one good desire. For it is not enough to say, all men are sick of sin: no, we are all "dead in trespasses and sins." It follows, that all the children of men are, "by nature, children of wrath." We are all "guilty before God," liable to death temporal and eternal.

3. And we are all helpless, both with regard to the power and to the guilt of sin. "For who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" None less than the Almighty. Who can raise those that are dead, spiritually dead in sin? None but He who raised us from the dust of the earth. But on what consideration will He do this? "Not for works of righteousness that we have done." "The dead cannot praise Thee, O Lord;" nor do anything for the sake of which they should be raised to life. Whatever, therefore, God does, He does it merely for the sake of His well-beloved Son: "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities." He Himself "bore" all "our sins in His own body upon the tree." He "was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Here then is the sole meritorious cause of every blessing we do or can enjoy; in particular of our pardon and acceptance with God, of our full and free justification. But by what means do we become interested in what Christ has done and suffered? "Not by works, lest any man should boast;" but by faith alone. "We conclude," says the Apostle, "that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law." And "to as many as" thus "receive Him, giveth He power to become the sons of God, even to those that believe in His name; who are born, not of the will of man, but of God."

4. And "except a man be" thus "born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." But all who are thus "born of the Spirit" have "the kingdom of God within them." Christ sets up His kingdom in their hearts; "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." That "mind is in them, which was in Christ Jesus," enabling them to "walk as Christ also walked." His indwelling Spirit makes them both holy in heart, and "holy in all manner of conversation." But still, seeing all this is a free gift, through the righteousness and blood of Christ, there is eternally the same reason to remember, "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

5. You are not ignorant that these are the fundamental doctrines which he everywhere insisted on. And may they not be summed up, as it were, in two words, -- the new birth, and justification by faith? These let us insist upon with all boldness, at all times, and in all places; -- in public (those of us who are called thereto), and at all opportunities in private. Keep close to these good, old, unfashionable doctrines, how many soever contradict and blaspheme. Go on, my brethren, in the "name of the Lord, and in the power of His might." With all care and diligence, "keep that safe which is committed to your trust;" knowing that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but this truth shall not pass away."

6. But will it be sufficient to keep close to his doctrines, how pure soever they are? Is there not a point of still greater importance than this, namely, to drink into his spirit? -- herein to be a follower of him, even as he was of Christ? Without this, the purity of our doctrines would only increase our condemnation. This, therefore, is the principal thing -- to copy after his spirit. And allowing that in some points we must be content to admire what we cannot imitate; yet in many others we may, through the same free grace, be partakers of the same blessing. Conscious then of your own wants and of His bounteous love, who "giveth liberally and upbraids not," cry to Him that works all in all for a measure of the same precious faith; of the same zeal and activity; the same tender-heartedness, charitableness, bowels of mercies. Wrestle with God for some degree of the same grateful, friendly, affectionate temper; of the same openness, simplicity, and godly sincerity; "love without dissimulation." Wrestle on, till the power from on high works in you the same steady courage and patience; and above all, because it is the crown of all, the same invariable integrity!"

hdbdan
Thank you for the Wesley quotes; from what I have read about Wesley and what Whitefield said about him, I think he was/is among the elect.
Wesley’s form of Arminianism made room for the total depravity of man, by what is called "prevenient grace". This basically means that although man is not capable in himself to come to come to Christ, God opens a window so for a short period of time man is able to come to Christ by his own free-will.

Tom

Odd how God works.
Through the 70s we were dragged kicking and fighting from the icy pond of pentcostal legalism to the live giving light of soverign grace.
The AOG is Armenian and the majority would fall into the semi-pelagianism yet, by grace, they would sing;

Thankyou Lord for saving my soul
Thankyou Lord for making me whole
Thankyou Lord for giving to me
Thy great salvation so full and free

I reckon internal conflict is part of,or symptomatic of origianl sin. And God's gracious nature is demonstrated whenever He choses to save in history. I can remember in a Vacation Bible School, late 50s, the teacher had an altar call, only pentecostals would have an altar call for grade school kids' the talk have been about Nick and need to be born-again. The teacher then called all who wanted to be born-again up to the altar.
If this is error how far do we take it? Certainly many relaized on their own that they would never, outside of grace, understood their need. Its also true that many would argue that they must respond. Well dont we need to respond? Isnt the old time pentecostal 'coming forward' really a means to make a public confession of faith? Which is required yes?
When folks are taught and believe in the Trinty, the vigin birth, the diety of Christ and the physical reality of his death and resurrection are they in danger because they speak ,with tears, of the day they 'accepted the Lord' rather than when He accepeted me?

Hitch
Interesting.
Are you aware that Charles Finney is the person who made alter calls popular?
In case you are not aware of the teachings of Finney, in many circles he is considered the be USAs greatest evangelist ever.
This despite that fact he was Pelagian in his theology.
I would encourage you to read this link.
Tom

Interesting read Tom,and so were a few other lines about Finney from this thread. As boy I had trouble with the idea, 'with every eye bowed and head closed' (sic) slip up your hand-then come forward. Who is it they were trying to kid?
Last time I attended an AOG service the preacher , unsatisfied with the altar call response, actually ordered the deacons and their wives to come forward, oh well.
It seems clear ,relying on sources used here, that Finney was far afield. Let me show you somethng from the AOG;

Fundamental doctrines Main article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...s_of_God_in_the_United_States_of_America

With this in mind where do you think it all fits?

Hitch,

Lots could be said about what you wrote/asked. But I'll do my best to make my responses brief and to the point.

1. Asking if someone wants to be born-again is a serious error in doctrine for the new birth, aka: regeneration, born again, born from above, made alive, etc., is outside of both a person's ability and experience. Regeneration is a supernatural, secret and silent work of the Holy Spirit, which is clearly taught by the Lord Christ Himself (Jh 3:3ff). Additionally, this reveals that the person asking the question believes that regeneration follows faith. In short, IF you believe... you will be born again. Billy Graham holds to this heresy and even wrote a book with the title, How to be Born Again. The bottom line is that those who hold the view that the new birth follows and/or is the result of faith, of necessity deny that fallen man is totally depraved; that is sinners are totally unwilling (no desire) and unable (powerless) to believe on Christ UNLESS the Spirit regenerates them first.

2. One can embrace and articulate all the doctrines of Scripture perfectly (hypothetically of course) and still be liable to judgment. The horror of all this is that the majority of churches teach that one only need to give assent to the "essentials of the faith" and "ask Jesus into your heart" and you are saved. Historically, this damnable heresy is called Sandemanianism, or more popularly known as "Easy Believism". True conviction is Spirit wrought and affects the entire man; mind, body and spirit (the heart). When true conviction comes, the result is far more than a simple admission that one is 'separated from God' or one is 'guilty of sin'. True conviction brings forth the realization that one is guilty before God because of who he IS, not just that things haven't always been done perfectly. One also realizes that they are under the wrath and just condemnation of God; God is their enemy and they His. True conviction also reveals the inexorable holiness of God and the dire need to be perfect before God in order to be reconciled to Him. And, that also leads to one's insatiable desire to have Christ as one's own; Lord, Saviour, Mediator and Righteousness. There is much more that I could add here, but these are the universal elements which all who have been brought by the Spirit to Christ (Jh 6:44).

3. Not to sound like a broken record, but IF a person who embraces Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, or Arminianism in their HEART as well as their head, then they cannot be saved, for those systems of theology deny the very grace of God needed to be saved by adding their own "free-will" (autonomy) to that grace.