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
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete