10. You believe that God has done His part, now you have to do yours.
9. You believe that every time you repent, God wipes your slate clean.
8. You believe that people are saved because they responded to an altar call.
7. You believe that it is unfair for God to command things people can't do.
6. You believe that God helps those who help themselves.
5. You fear that the Rapture might take place before you get a chance to repent of your latest lapse from Christian character.
4. You think the Book of Life is written in pencil.
3. You feel compelled to remind everyone that obedience is necessary lest they think that because salvation is of grace and not works, grace is a license for sin.
2. John Wesley is your hero.
1. You believe Charles Finney was the greatest evangelist of all time.
Sounds like Arminianism to me.
ReplyDeleteThe theology of the heretic Pelagius (ca. AD 354 – ca. AD 420/440) is the well-spring of Arminianism.
ReplyDeleteGood post Andy - I get most of these, but what is the problem with #9? (#10 I would understand as progressive sanctification; not synergistic salvation). I think sometimes #3 is necessary, only because "cheap grace" is so ridiculously common and almost universally accepted by those calling themselves "evangelicals" today.
ReplyDeleteThe key is "every time you repent." i.e. you have to keep repenting to wipe your slate clean again. Well what if you find yourself distracted by a pretty woman and turn to lust after her, for just a moment, and then get hit by a bus?
DeleteMarie, thanks for your comment. The problem with #9 is that all of our sins were paid for by Christ. He bore them all on the cross. It is a Pelagian way of thinking that we keep dirtying up our record and needing it straightened out again. This does not discount godly sorrow for sin, but it does mean that we do not live in servile fear that God is going to disown us whenever we fall.
ReplyDelete#10 is the typical alter call appeal. That's what I was driving at.
Regarding #3, I would direct attention the words of the apostle Jude, verse 4: "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." The people who think grace is a cover for sin are those who are predestine to perdition. Grace is not cheap, it is free.
Gotcha. Thanks - I learn so much from your blog; I just skimmed your latest entry on the trichotomous/dichotomous position, and am glad to finally read the theological implicatyions of that. I think my pastor is a trichotomist, but in studying NANC literature (Jay Adams and others), I've come to realize Scripture is NOT teaching 3 separate parts. However, I didn't realize it mattered. I apreciate how your posts are well-thought-out and articulate on some pretty tough subjects.
ReplyDeleteRe: #9 - totally agree. I see the need to confess as ongoning, to be back in right fellowship with God (ie daily "foot washing") - it's not uncommon to encounter people in counseling who think they can lose their salvation. I may just print this entry out with quick Scripture references where appropriate.
#1 It shocks me how Evangelicals are so divided on this guy. Armenianists love him because of his methods. Calvinists look at his "fruit". The logical choice should be the latter.
ReplyDeleteIf all Christians would simply read his life and theology, Charles Finney would fade out of church history at the very least.
Forgot one.... your favorite "hymn" is "There is a new name written down in glory"
ReplyDeleteJoseph, I think you're absolutely right. When I read his Memoirs, I was clearly impressed that he was a blowhard bully who was totally ignorant of Scripture and doctrine. All of the grand stories of his "power" and "anointing" are all from his own mouth. Any one of his comtemporaries who mentions him is almost always critical.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that Wesley did not believe in original sin affecting all? I have never heard that concerning him.
ReplyDeleteWayne, Wesley was an Arminian. Arminianism is the modern form of Pelagianism, with a few small, insignificant alteration. Arminianism, like Pelagianism believes that Adam's sin did not affect all of mankind, except by setting a bad example. Human will, therefore, is not so corrupt as to be unable to will to come to Christ. Arminians usually always pay lip-service to Original Sin, but when pressed for a definition, they do not provide anything like an orthodox statement. Finney, of course, flat out denied Original Sin as unjust.
ReplyDeleteActually some of the old classical Arminians did believe in total depravity/original sin and that God alone saves, but they somehow thought free will figured in there. As I understand it Pelagians believe in a completely free will, no need of God's grace to allow us to 'choose' to repent, children not born sinful, etc.
DeleteYES some of what we call Arminians today are actually semi-pelagian or pelagian, sadly. But many classical arminians aren't... but they are in serious error.
Hey Andy, great discussion! I hope to be able to jump into this conversation in the days ahead. I think that there is a misconception of Arminius sometimes. I have been having trouble having your site receive my comments, so I will split up a few interesting quotes I want to send.
ReplyDeleteFirst quote: Calvinists Peterson and Williams in their book, "Why I Am Not An Arminian", acknowledge that Arminius and Arminians "held that the human will has been so corrupted by sin that a person cannot seek grace without the enablement of grace. They therefore affirmed the necessity and priority of grace in redemption. Grace must go before a person's response to the gospel. This suggests that Arminianism is closer to Semi-Augustinianism than it is to Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism." Pg.39
Here are a couple quotes from Arminius -- "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 in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, will, and perform whatever is truly good." (Declaration of Sentiments)
ReplyDelete"In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace." ("Public Disputations,") Works.
See I think Pelagius was not even going to say we were even partially incapacitated by sin - especially not children.
DeleteWayne, thanks for jumping in. My reponse would be this: Having read many of Arminius’ contemporaries, I find it very hard to believe, indeed impossible, that Arminius has been misunderstood. His opponents in the 17th century were much closer and more familiar with both his writings and his person. This is why I find it problematic when a writer from our era re-analyzes the controversies of that period and comes to a different conclusion from the men who were involved in it. It sounds revisionist to me. Secondly, it is always possible, within any writer as voluminous as Arminius, to find a stray sentence here and there which can pass the test of orthodoxy when placed in isolation. I’m sure the same could be done for Arius, and even Pelagius himself.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few quotes from Arminius. Hardly orthodox, and very Pelagian:
“It is certain that God determineth divers things which he would not, did not some act of man’s will go before.”
“God would have all men to be saved, but, compelled with the stubborn malice of some, he changeth his purpose, and will have them to perish.”
“No such will can be ascribed unto God, whereby he so would have any to be saved, that from thence his salvation should be sure and infallible.”