Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Is Arminian Theology Heresy? Second Response to Sonny Hernandez



In the spirit of transparency, if you are reading this blog for the first time, you should know that I am not a fan of Arminian theology. I am a confessing Reformed Baptist, and my beliefs are closely aligned with the Credo-Baptist movement that emerged during, or shortly after, the Protestant Reformation. I am fully committed to the doctrines of grace and consider the expression of Christianity in the reformed churches to be the purest and closest to that revealed in Scripture. Recently, some of my reformed brothers have made sweeping and harsh judgments about Arminian theology that I believe is not only unhelpful but is also, on the face of it, simply mistaken. I believe that the rhetoric has reached a place where it certainly could prove extremely detrimental to increasing the influence of reformed theology in the Christian churches. And I don’t think I am alone when I say that we in the reformed school would like to see our tribe increase. To that end, I am going to provide my personal thoughts on Arminian theology. These thoughts are couched within the context of some of the comments being made by Sonny Hernandez over at Reforming America Ministries. The real issue at which I am trying to get is whether or not one can hold, in any way, to the articles of Arminian theology and possess genuine faith. According to some of my friends, they cannot. The point of this post then is to explore the more concise question: is the failure to affirm the doctrines of grace in reformed theology proof of a false profession? Are Arminians false converts. It is my contention that if the rhetoric of Sonny Hernandez is correct, then Arminian Christians are nothing more than false converts. Personally, I find this position to be reprehensible on every level.

I think it is important from the start to define what I mean by Arminian theology as well as provide a workable definition for what I mean by heresy. Since it is easier to provide a definition of heresy, I will begin there. The Greek word translated heresy in the NT is αἵρεσις, hairesis. The word is translated sect 3x, party 3x, factions, divisions, and heresies 1x respectively. Only three of the NT writers used this word: Luke used it 6x and never in a derogatory manner. Paul used it twice and Peter once and both only used it in a derogatory manner. In Gal. 5:20, it appears in the list of the works of the flesh, which, those who practice, will not inherit the kingdom of God. Those who practice heresy are placed alongside those who practice adultery. Again, Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 11:19 in a negative sense where it is rendered factions in the context of the inappropriate administration of the Lord’s supper. Again, we see the displeasure of God manifesting itself in this instance with the Corinthian community. Finally, Peter uses it in its most ominous sense when he employs it to warn about false teachers. Peter calls these heresies destructive. They bring about damnation. It is this specific use of heresy that I will employ as I attempt to share my views on Arminian theology and whether or not it inherently rises to the level of heresy, at least the way heresy is defined in the New Testament. The specific heresy to which Peter referred was the sort of belief that involved a denial of Christ as Lord. We get a glimpse into this heresy when Peter mentions their greed in 2 Peter 2:3. These teachers are boldly blaspheming the holy ones. They are sexually immoral. They were idolaters, engaging in a self-indulgent lifestyle. Clearly, then, a heretic in this sense of the word is not someone whose faith would be considered genuine. They would be an object of rebuke and correction and if obstinate, subjected to church discipline. Heresy was employed in the NT to address those who perverted the nature of God as well as the nature of the gospel.
Before I go any further, I want to frame up the argument as concise as possible so that you understand exactly what I am getting at:


  • 1. There are no regenerate heretics
  • 2. Everyone persisting in heresy is a heretic.
  • 3.  Arminian theology is heresy.
  • 4.  Therefore, everyone persisting in Arminian theology is unregenerate.

I will put it in a Hypothetical Syllogism:

If you are Arminian, then you are a heretic.
If you are a heretic, then you are unregenerate.
Therefore, if you are Arminian, you are unregenerate.

The necessary conclusion of the proposition that Arminian theology is heresy is that there is no such thing as an Arminian Christian. But I don’t think that is actually what Hernandez is arguing. I think it is worse than that. It seems to be that Hernandez is arguing that the doctrines of grace are the gospel. And in that case, the syllogism would look like this:

If you reject the doctrines of grace, you reject the gospel.
If you reject the gospel, you are not saved.
Therefore, if you reject the doctrines of grace, you are not saved.

My aim in this post is to deny the soundness of this argument, an argument that it seems to me that Dr. Sonny Hernandez affirms.

Now, let’s take a look at Arminian theology by traveling back in time to the early 17th century to see if we can ascertain what Arminian theology affirms. The Remonstrance of the Arminians was drawn up and presented to the Dutch pastors at the Synod of Dort in 1610. Peter Enns provides a summary of the Arminian Remonstrance:

The five points of the Remonstrance emphasized: (1) conditional predestination based on the foreknowledge of God; (2) Christ’s death was universal; He died for everyone, but His death was effective only for believers; (3) saving faith is impossible apart from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit; (4) God’s grace can be resisted; and (5) although God supplies grace so that believers may persevere, the Scriptures are not clear that a believer could never be lost.[1] The Synod of Dort produced what has come to be known as The Canons of Dordt, which is essentially the response of the Dutch Reformed Church to the proposal of the Arminians. The canons are outlined as five heads of doctrine, each with its own respective rejection of the errors concerning that particular doctrine. The first head deals with unconditional election, the second with particular redemption or limited atonement as it is often called, the third with total depravity, the fourth with irresistible grace, and finally, the fifth head deals with the perseverance of the saints. The remainder of this blog post will provide the Arminian article dealing with the doctrine and my own critique of that doctrine. I will explore the theological range of each of the five articles to determine how the interpretation of each one could shift from being within the bounds of orthodoxy to moving into error, serious error, and perhaps even heterodoxy, or as we call it, heresy.

The first article affirms that divine election is based on foreknowledge:
That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sin full 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 in 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.

The positive element of this affirmation is that it attempts to be true to Scripture by not denying God’s eternal, unchangeable purpose in the world. The language of this article can be fairly thorny. The article affirms that God’s purpose is to save those who shall, in the future, believe in his Son Jesus Christ. Notice that the ability to believe is credited to the Holy Spirit and is acknowledged to be through grace. There are different ways this article could be interpreted. The standard view for most Arminians seems to be to claim that God, from all eternity, only elects those whom he foreknew would freely choose to place their faith in Christ.

The problem with this particular view, that election is based on God’s foreknowledge, is that it requires that God learn or become aware of something that he did not know previously. In other words, the idea is that God looks into the future (a crystal ball kind of experience) and sees who chooses to believe the gospel, and he elects them to salvation. The problem is that this is not God choosing me; it is me choosing God. The second problem is that the God revealed in Scripture does not learn and therefore cannot be understood to act based on acquired knowledge. Third, Romans 9 teaches that chose Jacob and rejected Esau, not based on anything either one of them had done, but so that his purpose would stand. This text is the clearest refutation of the view that divine election is conditioned on God’s foreknowledge of the acts of free creatures. God’s election is based on his own purpose. It is not external to God but is based in God. Finally, it is impossible to know the future acts of absolutely free creatures because they could always act to the contrary.

“Thus election was not determined by, or conditioned upon anything that men would do, but resulted entirely from God’s self-determined purpose.”[2]



Deut. 10:14-15
Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.

Eph. 1:4
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.

The second article affirms that the atonement is universal in its value and its intent
That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour 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.”[3]

Notice how the article says that Christ obtained for all the forgiveness of sins but that only the believer enjoys the actual forgiveness of sins. To be clear, one of the most challenging points in the doctrines of grace is this one: limited atonement. Anyone who attempts to argue that this doctrine is as clear as say, the resurrection, or the Trinity, or that it has the clear historic backing of even the early reformers is simply not being honest. Moreover, anyone that claims that Arminian has no reasonable interpretive backing to reject the doctrine of limited atonement simply isn’t being honest or is not sufficiently familiar with the textual data. This is generally the final point to be embraced by most reformed Christians shifting from Arminianism to reformed theology. Needless to say, it is not quite right to say that Arminians of the conservative stripe hold to universal atonement or redemption because they don’t. Evangelical Arminians believe that people who reject Christ have not had their sins forgiven because they did not appropriate that forgiveness by grace through faith in Christ. And therefore, those people will be forever lost. This means that they actually do affirm a limitation on the atonement, albeit, one that is different from their reformed brothers.

The problem with the standard evangelical Arminian view on the atonement is that it essentially means that the death of Christ did not actually atone for the sins of anyone. It simply made men redeemable. It is, for all intents and purposes, when taken to its logical conclusion, not an atonement at all, but only a potential atonement. It depends on the cooperation of the individual. It leads to a synergistic understanding of salvation. As John Owen put it, either Christ died for 1) all the sins of all men or 2) some of the sins of all men, or 3) all of the sins of some men. (1) is outright universalism which amounts to the rejection of the exclusivity of the gospel. (2) is a denial of the sufficiency of the atonement. (3) seems to be the teaching of Scripture on the matter. Christ did not intend to save every man without exception, but all sorts of men without distinction. Matthew explains that the Messiah has come to save his people from their sin. A major hurdle for this view is that its denial creates serious issues for the nature of God. Why do so many people die every year without ever hearing the gospel if Christ truly came to die for their sin? If that is teased out, it seems to call into question God’s power and his intelligence. Hebrews 9:12 says that Christ has secured an eternal redemption by his blood. Such security is impossible if one takes the Arminian article to its logical conclusion.

“Since all men will not be saved as the result of Christ’s redeeming work, a limitation must be admitted.”[4]

2 Cor. 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Heb. 9:12
he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

The third article seems to affirm total depravity
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, in as much 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.”[5]
This article seems a bit odd to many Calvinists because it seems to affirm the doctrine of total depravity. Indeed, concerning the Arminian view of free will, Jacob Arminius himself wrote, “But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers by God through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good.”[6] The modern claim made by Arminians is that total depravity does not equal total inability. The concept of prevenient grace is introduced as a way to explain how men can be both a fallen sinner, depraved in his intellect and passion or will, and still able to freely choose to place his faith in Christ. The doctrine of prevenient grace, however, is clearly borrowed from the older Roman Catholic ordo salutis.

The problem with prevenient grace is that Paul seems to have been completely unaware of its existence when he wrote his letters. For example, 2 Cor. 4:4 says, In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. Notice that if prevenient grace was dispensed at the payment of Christ at the cross to all men, then how could they still be hopelessly blind? Rom. 8:6-8 informs us, For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. And again, 1 Cor. 2:14 teaches, The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The unregenerate sinner is blind, ignorant, and unwilling and unable to see, understand, perceive, or love what he needs to love in order to freely place his faith in Christ. The unregenerate man does not possess the kind of faith necessary to save him! A point often missed entirely in Arminian theology.

Nevertheless, on the doctrine of total depravity, it seems that Arminius and his early followers were far more Calvinistic than modern Arminians or even Calvinists realize. Those who deny total depravity contradict Scripture and commit an egregious error.

Ecc. 9:3
Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Titus 1:15-16
To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

The fourth article postulates the doctrine of prevenient grace
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 co-operative 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, inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.[7]

Arminius himself seems to hold the Roman Catholic view of a superadded grace even in Adam. This seems to me to be the root error for Arminianism on this issue and if pressed to its logical end is highly problematic. Arminius says, concerning Adams ability to know, to perform holy acts, to understand: Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. This is precisely the Roman Catholic understanding of Adam’s original state. Arminius also seems to espouse the Roman Catholic understanding of grace as an infused substance: It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man.[8]

The doctrine of prevenient grace lacks even the slightest support in the biblical text. The real problem is Arminius’ understanding of grace as something infused in converts, and his view of the nature of Adam. Taken to its logical conclusion, this becomes no small theological error. If Adam, even in his natural state required a superadded grace to keep God’s commandment, we must say that either God’s grace was resistible from the start or that God withheld his grace so as to sustain Adam’s obedience. The Arminian would claim the former; God’s grace was resistible from the start. Moreover, such grace would have only enabled the faculties of Adam to choose the good. It would not have guaranteed that he would do so. By this grace, Adam was only enabled and by this grace Adam had access to God. Moreover, when he sinned, he lost this grace as a punishment. This is the Roman Catholic scheme, but it does not seem far from Arminius. Roman Catholic theology believes that the lower faculties such as free will, the cognitive faculties, like human reason, were unaffected by the fall. It does not appear to be the case that Arminius followed the Roman doctrine all the way to this end. The Reformed doctrine of Adam’s original nature, on the other hand, is that Adam was created positively holy. He was not neutral, not balanced between good and evil. He was created with a holy will and with holy affections. These were his natural traits as originally created. This, Rome denies and Arminius seems to implicitly deny as well. R.C. Sproul asks the best question regarding the doctrine of prevenient grace: The $64 question for advocates of prevenient grace is why some people cooperate with it and others don’t. How we answer that will reveal how gracious we believe our salvation really is. The $64,000 question is, “Does the Bible teach such a doctrine of prevenient grace? If so, where?”[9]

“Simply stated, this doctrine [efficacious grace] asserts that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners whom He personally calls to Christ. He inevitably applies salvation to every sinner whom He intends to save, and it is His intention to save all the elect.”[10]

Acts 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

The fifth article refuses to affirm perseverance
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 are 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 from 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.[11]

Concerning this doctrine, Arminius wrote, “Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I have never taught that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of Unconditional Perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.[12]

This article points up toward the fact that Arminianism fails to affirm the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. To be fair, most Evangelical Arminians affirm a modified version of this doctrine at a minimum: the infamous once saved always saved teaching. This is a notorious and damnable doctrine when carried into practice. It is the antinomian, cheap-grace, easy believism that is found so often in many modern Evangelical churches. However, such perversion of this doctrine would have been unconscionable to the framers of the articles of Arminianism presented at Dordt. And the truth is that many, many Evangelical Arminians affirm the perseverance of the saints.

The refusal of Arminian theology to affirm the doctrine of perseverance is particularly disconcerting. Jesus said, And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:39) John informs us, No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:9)

James Montgomery Boice writes, “This doctrine has a logical connection to the other Calvinistic distinctives, of course. Because we are radically depraved and because salvation depends on God’s sovereign acts in our salvation, we have a security that is based on its ability and will rather than our own.”[13] The key difference between the Arminian view and Reformed view is that the latter locates the guarantee of perseverance in the work of the grace of God. The prophet Jeremiah prophesied, And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jer. 32:40) There is no turning away from the new covenant. God puts his fear in the heart of his own and they never turn away from him.

In summary, Arminian theology could be understood and interpreted and embraced in a manner that does not rise to the level of heresy. This, of course, does not mean that Arminianism should be treated as if it is insignificant, an unimportant theological issue. Far from it. Arminians quite often have a tendency to live their theology and it is when Arminianism is lived consistently that the problems morph into egregious error and even heresy. There are strict forms of Arminianism that deliberately pervert the nature of God. These versions of Arminianism easily translate into heresy when they do so. The denial of God’s perfect knowledge, or of God’s absolute sovereignty in a way that leads to open theism or in a way that openly admits of a frustrated deity, are heretical. The problem with most evangelicals today is that they have no idea who Jacob Arminius was nor do they seem to care. And most of them don’t have time to really pay Arminius or his system much attention. Maybe that should not be the case. Maybe that is itself an indictment of the typical American Christian. I tend to think that it is. But even so, it is not heresy, nor does it mean that these Christians do not possess genuine faith. Most Christians would be classified as Arminians because, as R.C. Sproul once said, we are all Pelagian by nature. When we are converted, that Pelagian thinking is eventually purged from our thinking, but the default that replaces it seems to be Arminianism. Those who know better should use their gifts and abilities to change things. We influence people into better thinking, better theology, and better living, not by accusing them of being a false convert, or a hypocrite. That only comes at the end of a very long process in which a person obstinately holds to clearly heretical doctrine or immoral practices. We don’t begin the discussion with someone who is in error by questioning the legitimacy of their faith. My next post will deal with the disturbing and dangerous practice of lumping all non-Reformed Christians into the false convert bucket. It will answer the question: are the doctrines of grace equivalent to the gospel and is Arminian theology necessarily a false gospel? It will also answer the question, what about Calvinists who insist that every Christian embrace Calvinism is just the same way they embrace it or else they are lost?


Mr. Ed




[1] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 493.
[2] Steele, David N. & Thomas, Curtis C. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1963) 30.
[3] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 493–494.
[4] Steele, David N. & Thomas, Curtis C. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1963) 39.
[5] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 494.
[6] Arminius, Jacob. The Works of Arminius, (Baker Book House, London edition, 1996) Vol. I, 659-660.
[7] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 494.
[8] Arminius, Jacob. The Works of Arminius, (Baker Book House, London edition, 1996) Vol. I, 663-664.
[9] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 125.
[10] Steele, David N. & Thomas, Curtis C. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1963) 48.
[11] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 494.
[12] Arminius, Jacob. The Works of Arminius, (Baker Book House, London edition, 1996) Vol. I, 667.
[13] Boice, James Montgomery. The Doctrines of Grace, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002), 158.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Is Arminian Theology "foul" Heresy? A Review of Sonny Hernandez's Position on Arminianism


I want to be clear to every reader of this blog: I am a Reformed Baptist top to bottom. I embrace the doctrines of grace and affirm that they are the most accurate articulation of the gospel of Jesus Christ formulated in the history of the Church apart from that articulated in Scripture itself. I am a Calvinist without hesitation or apology. I am not a moderate Calvinist. I do not consider myself part of the “new” Calvinism. I am not part of the “Young, Restless, Reformed.” This means that I am opposed to Arminian theology in all its forms. I am also opposed to moderate Calvinism, that is, any form of Calvinism that claims to be Calvinism but only accepts part of the doctrines of grace. In other words, there is no such thing as something less than a 5-point Calvinist. Now that I got that out of the way, I wanted to take the time to address some behaviors I see among fellow, reformed brothers as it relates to Reformed theology versus Arminian theology. Over at the site, Reforming America Ministries, you can find a few posts from Dr. Sonny Hernandez regarding his view of Arminian theology. The purpose of this blog is to interact with one of those articles, entitled, Arminianism: A Cheap Grace, Gospel-less Heresy. I will post the comments from Dr. Hernandez in black font and my response in red font.

The article opens with a quote from Augustus Toplady:
"If we sum up the evidence that has been given, we shall find its amount to be, that Arminianism came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence it was digged." 

It is worth mentioning that Augustus was converted through a sermon preached by Wesleyan preacher, James Morris. I think it is ironic that a scathing review of Arminianism, such as Dr. Hernandez offers in his article, actually begins with a quote from a man who was converted by a sermon preached from the pulpit of an Arminian.

Before I go any further, I want to point out that Dr. Hernandez does not offer us a clear definition of Arminian theology up front. He also fails to provide the five articles of the remonstrance delivered to the Synod of Dort in 1610. This makes the discussion more challenging than it needs to be.

Dr. Hernandez opens with the following paragraph:

Arminianism is a foul heresy! No prophet of God, nor Paul, nor Christ, ever proclaimed this semi-pelagian, cheap grace gospel that is powerless to save because it is no gospel at all. The Canons of Dort refer to Arminianism as a “novel idea,” an “invention of the human mind,” “or gross error,” that “…contradicts the Holy Scripture.” This article will explain a few reasons why Armininianism is a foul heresy and not an inconsequential doctrine that Christians can ignore.

No one is disputing that the Arminian system is in error, or that such error ranges in its degree, as one examines its tenants. But all error, even serious error, is not heresy, and certainly not “foul heresy.” Is Arminianism an invention of the human mind? I believe that it is. But I also believe that the “secret rapture” theory and dispensational theology, and every doctrine that is not directly learned from Scripture is an invention of the human mind. But I reject the idea that all such inventions are heresy or “foul heresy.” In fact, I have to believe that I have a few inventions of my own that I hold to, to which of course I am blind and pray daily for grace that God would continue to extend mercy for my failures and that he would open my eyes more to his truth.

Why is Arminianism heresy?

Armininianism teaches that human beings are not totally depraved because they can exercise their frail and fickle free-will to save themselves. This is contrary to Holy Scripture—which teaches that sinners are conceived in sin, dead in sin, slaves to sin, and are servants of sin—that are totally polluted in all faculties and parts of the body and soul. To argue that a sinner can come to Christ by exercising their free-will is to falsely assume that they have the “desire” to do this which is clearly antithetical to the teachings of Paul (cf. Rom. 3:10-18).

This paragraph is an inaccurate portrait of Arminian theology. Paragraph 3 of the 1610 remonstrance states explicitly: “That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will[1] Arminian theology affirms total depravity but rejects the idea that total depravity must mean total inability. I think precision is important in these discussions and making such distinctions is only fair. Otherwise, we open ourselves up to the strawman accusation, an accusation I would like to avoid.

Free-will is the great idol of fallen men who elevate their gross decisions above God’s decree. This is commonly known as contra-causal freedom, or libertarianism—which is a subterfuge that cannot save, nor has it ever saved anyone—because free-will can only send people to hell, and none to heaven. There are several problems that arise from this sophistry:

There is nothing in Arminian theology that necessitates the rejection of compatibilist freedom, the standard reformed position held by most Calvinists today. In fact, the question of free will must first be addressed by properly defining free will. In the debate with Leighton Flowers, Hernandez refused to affirm the 1689 London Baptist Confession’s statement on free will. I admit that I was confused by that exchange and am curious if Dr. Hernandez is a determinist or a compatibilist where this view is concerned. Technically speaking, the absolute denial of free will necessarily leads one to hard determinism. But I am not convinced that Dr. Hernandez holds that position.

As far as I can tell, an Arminian could hold to Arminian theology and affirm absolute sovereignty and human responsibility, taking the compatibilist view on the subject. I readily admit that most do not take that position. However, not taking that position and claiming that they could not logically take it are not the same thing. I am open to correction on this line of reasoning. I admit I could be mistaken on this point.

If God justified a man because he made himself differ from other men with his libertarian freedom to accept Christ—this would make God a respecter of persons, which clearly contradicts Scripture (cf. Acts 10:34). Only a boastful man would dare argue that he is the co-savior or captain of his soul because his decision to be saved was more profitable than someone else’s when both had the same grace extended to them. No one can rescue themselves from God’s wrath, or come to Christ on their own terms or timing, because God has decreed before the foundation of the world that all things—including the salvation of individuals—whatsoever shall come to pass.

On the Arminian scheme, election is not eradicated. It is located in divine foreknowledge. As long as God planned to save whomever responded positively to the gospel and so long as he did so for his glory, the arbitrary charge is unsustainable. I have found that it is nearly impossible to sustain the “arbitrary” objection against most theological schemes because most schemes agree that God has only the highest purpose for all that he does. All that is needed to avoid the charge of arbitrariness is purpose. You see, to say God does something arbitrarily is to say that God had no reason or system in place for his decision or action. This is an unfair caricature of Arminian theology. Personally, I believe that Arminian theology properly represented has enough problems on its own. I don’t need to exaggerate the system in order to present an argument that I believe shows it to be a system that deviates from the Scripture in several areas.

Arminianism elevates human decisions above God’s decree. It subjects God’s decree to man’s decision in lieu of subjugating man’s decisions under God’s decree. Thereby, Arminians will argue that God’s election and reprobation are contingent upon foreseen faith or disbelief, that is, whether a depraved sinner is going to either accept or deny Him. This is not language from heaven; this is a lie from hell! What are the problems with this argument?

This is another false charge against Arminian theology. The Arminian would say that God decrees to save all those who freely place their faith in Christ. There are better ways to challenge the Arminian error in my opinion. This is not technically elevating human decisions above God’s decrees. The problem I see in Dr. Hernandez’s argument is a lack of precision. I saw this in the debate as well. It is a mistake that we have all made and one that we can all improve upon.

If God has to foresee whether a sinner will either accept or deny Him—this would mean that God would have to see something in the sinner that He must laud, and not loathe. God sees absolutely nothing in anyone that He must praise, since our best works do not merit His favor, but His wrath. Also, if God must foresee whether the sinner will either accept or deny him, then God is not transcendent. The all knowing God does not need to foresee; He already knows from all eternity, and that is so because He has ordained everything that comes to pass.

This is a true and devastating criticism of Arminianism. The Arminian would claim that prevenient grace makes a positive response to the gospel possible. But it does not make it necessary, and this is where the problem enters in. Again, we have to be more precise.

Arminianism is diabolically gospel-less because it teaches that the vicarious and atoning death of Christ was made universally for all, even to include those whom the Father will consign to everlasting torment in hell. Does this mean that Christ actually redeemed or just made sinners redeemable? If Christ died for all—this would mean that Christ only made sinners redeemable. Therefore, because the application of His death is contingent upon the mere will of men to either accept or deny it, this cannot be the glorious gospel of grace.

This is simply false on the face of it and it is a very poor and unfair representation of what Arminian theology affirms about the atonement. Article two of the 1610 remonstrance is clear that the Arminian view of the atonement is that it is limited in its effectiveness, but not its value. It is apparently unlimited in its intent, but even this is steering into speculative territory. We simply must do a better job reflecting what Arminian theology affirms and not what the various followers of Arminius in modern America might claim or affirm.

Arminianism distorts the teachings of God’s free-grace. If God’s grace is contingent upon man’s decision, then God's grace is not free, and salvation would have to be ascribed to man and not God. Also, if the will of man precedes the will of God, or if the power of God in the Gospel is only possible if men cooperate, then Paul would be a liar because he said that “it is God that works in us to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13), and he called the Gospel the power of God unto salvation (cf. Rom. 1:16). This is why advocates of semi-pelagian popery are teachers of their own righteousness, and despisers of free-grace.

 Arminian theology would claim that God dispenses grace first, as a result of the work of Christ, enabling all men to respond to the gospel. Without this grace, all men would be damned. This grace is given freely. Nevertheless, if one defines God’s free-grace to save whomever he pleases, as is the case in reformed theology, then the criticism of Arminian theology is true. The Arminian will say that prevenient grace, enabling grace is free.


Arminianism will contradictorily teach that regenerate saints can fall from the faith that they once previously accepted. Unlettered men or women will denounce this necessary conclusion, and will posit that not all Armininians will agree with this notion. Despite these conjectures or opinions of men or women, Arminians can never have assurance of their salvation because if they have the free-will to be saved, then to be logically consistent, they will have the ability to lose it also. On the contrary, regenerate Christians can have assurance of their salvation, since God’s decree is unchangeable, eternal, and absolute.

Unlettered’ is a euphemism for “uneducated.” This is an unnecessary ad hominem that would have been better left out of the article. Arminianism does not teach that you can lose your salvation. Chapter five of the remonstrance closes with these words: 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 from 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.

Therefore, Arminian theology is at best, unsure if the Scriptures clearly teach perseverance.

One criticism I have of Dr. Hernandez at this point is his failure to interact with the original teachings of Arminian theology. If you are going to damn a system to hell and classify it as heresy, you should at least interact with the formal teachings of the system. Clearly, Dr. Hernandez has decided not to do that. I find that decision unacceptable and inexcusable.

Possible Objections

Am I arguing that all Arminians are not saved? I am arguing that no human being can be saved unless the “Gospel saves them.” Arminianism is a false gospel. Therefore, Arminians are not saved. If an Arminian “becomes” saved—or if they are saved—they are not Arminian. If an Arminian is saved, it is despite their Arminianism. There are professing Arminians that are in the rudimentary stages of their faith that may be unlettered or ill-advised about what they really know. However, if they are regenerate, they are not Arminian—because their gospel has no power to save, and has never saved anyone—which means that it is no gospel at all.

This is a classic example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is a way to interpret evidence so that there is no way to refute one’s argument. By making this move, Hernandez can claim that he is not damning any specific Arminian to hell because that person, even though they think they might be an Arminian, they are not simply on the ground that they have experienced true regeneration. It makes Hernandez’s argument nonsensical in my opinion.

(1)   Jim affirms Arminian theology, but he is regenerated.
(2)   No true Arminian is regenerate.
(3)   Jim is not a true Arminian.
(4)   Therefore, Jim is not a counter-example to the claim that Arminians can be regenerated Christians.
Based on the above argument, which seems to me to be the argument that Hernandez is making, there is no way to demonstrate that his claim that Arminians are lost, is false. This is a clear example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It is a really bad argument and Dr. Hernandez should reconsider its use.

In addition, Hernandez seems incredibly confused. Either one can be saved by hearing an Arminian preach the gospel or they cannot. Either one can embrace Arminian theology to varying degrees and possess genuine faith, or they cannot. Here, Hernandez is equivocating on his definition of Arminianism.

How do I respond to moderate Calvinists who call Arminians brothers, and then decry me a hyper-Calvinist for calling Arminianism heresy? This appears to be straw-man argument, because men or women who use this hyper-Calvinist fallacy are either trying to refute an argument that does not exist, or they do not know what hyper-Calvinism means. Calling Arminianism heresy does not warrant the charge of being decried as a hyper-Calvinist. I am not consigning Arminians to hell, or adjuring other Christians to not witness to them or treating them like they are not made in the image of God. I am arguing that Christians should witness to them by telling them the truth. Also, calling Arminianism heresy may sound harsh. However, it is not un-biblical, because Scripture does have a precedent that warrants harsh dialogue or a blunt rebuke (cf. 1 Kings. 18:20-40; Acts 9-24; Matt. 23).

Why does Hernandez call those who refuse to follow him on his views regarding Arminian theology “Moderate Calvinists?” Historically, a moderate Calvinist is one who only partially accepts the doctrines of grace. Second, I would not classify anyone a hyper-Calvinist on the ground that they classify Arminianism as heresy. Hernandez seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth when he says in the above paragraph: I am not consigning Arminians to hell, or adjuring other Christians to not witness to them or treating them like they are not made in the image of God.” Why would we need to witness to someone who we do not believe is going to hell? How can you say you are not consigning someone to hell and then say, in the same sentence, that you are not adjuring other Christians to not witness to them? If they are not consigned to hell, then they do not need the gospel witness. They have already embraced it, even if they have done so imperfectly for the moment.

I do not popishly declare Arminians to be saved, nor do I call them brothers like many of the moderate Calvinists do who decry others like myself to be a hyper-Calvinist just because I call Arminianism heresy. Instead, I witness to them—because it would be quite difficult for me to witness to Arminians especially if I have already called them brothers—which sends a misleading message that I believe they are "brothers in Christ" despite the fact they affirm a gospel that cannot save and that Christ never taught. This is why I argue that moderate Calvinists are really the hyper-Calvinists, because why would they need to witness to Arminians if they already call them brothers? Arminians are not brothers in Christ, which necessitates that Christians witness to them, and not neglect this responsibility by misleading Arminians to believe that they are saved.

I wonder if Dr. Hernandez has ever said that he believes that anyone is saved? I suppose I am not sure what “popishly” means. It seems to me that we have an individual who is insisting that we put someone through an inquisition process, an interrogation of sorts, before we call them brothers or sisters in Christ. Are the doctrines of grace a test for salvation? Is Sonny Hernandez saying that the affirmation of Calvinism, for all intents and purposes, ought to be a test of genuine faith for all professing Christians and that at some point Church discipline ought to be brought to bear on those who simply cannot understand it at the level that Sonny requires? I am very curious to understand if Sonny really grasps the consequences of his position.

Conclusion

In this article, I have argued that Arminianism is heresy because it teaches that salvation is a condition of foreseen faith, and that God's grace is cheap and not free, since it is contingent upon man to determine if they want to accept or deny it. Also, it teaches that God's eternal decree can be thwarted by the creature's contra-causal liberty, and that the death of Christ only made sinners redeemable. This, is why the cheap grace, semi-pelagian lie of Arminianism is a false gospel.

Arminian theology does teach that salvation is a condition of God’s foreknowledge, but it does not view God’s grace as cheap nor does it hold that God’s grace is not free. Arminian theology does not teach that God’s decree can be thwarted. It merely teaches that God’s foreknowledge is the basis of his decree. Arminian theology teaches not only that the death of Christ potentially atoned for man’s sins, it also teaches that given a positive response, it actually atones for man’s sins. Once again, I think a lack of precision in Hernandez’s article has created unnecessary confusion, and made most of his criticism of Arminian theology inaccurate, egregious in some cases, and terribly unfair. Hernandez has made some gross exaggerations and what have to be classified as outright false statements that he should go back and correct.

Arminians, stop treating God like he is the Constitution or Bill of Rights. He is not a god that treats all people equally, never discriminates, and affords everyone the right to exercise their free-will to choose. On the contrary, He is the God who will give His free grace to whomever He desires, and He will also give His justice to whomever He desires. That is because God does as he pleases in the salvation and condemnation of sinners which He has decided before the foundation of the world according to His immutable will. Repent and believe in the Gospel!

I wonder if Dr. Hernandez is a determinist or a compatibilist.

I will follow this post with my understanding of Arminian theology, and my critique of that system along with my thoughts on whether or not Arminian theology necessarily entails heresy. Is everyone who rejects Reformed theology as outlined by Calvinism indeed, a heretic? I cannot help but think that a discussion of Amyraldianism is also in our future.


Mr. Ed