Arminianism is a system of belief that attempts to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and mankind's free will, especially in relation to salvation. Arminianism is named after Jacob Arminius (1560—1609), a Dutch theologian.

Some erroneously think of Catholicism as basically Arminian

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some erroneously think of Catholicism as basically Arminian

    [FONT=trebuchet ms, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=16px]Arminianism is an offshoot of Netherlands Reformed theology so it has many commonalities with what is generally referred to as Calvinism. For example, Arminians use a 66 book bible, accept a doctrine of scripture that corresponds in part to sola scriptura and they hold to the other solas too despite the gainsaying of some Calvinists. Catholicism on the other hand does not teach sola scriptura, and sola fide is an area of much debate between Catholics and Protestants through the ages. The other three solas are usually not as contentious. Catholicism is also (like arminianism in this instance) a non TULIP view of the gospel.[/SIZE][/FONT]

  • #2
    How could Catholicism be Arminianism when it began some 1500+ years before Arminius? :)
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Bede View Post
      How could Catholicism be Arminianism when it began some 1500+ years before Arminius? :)
      Arminian belief has always existed. It just wasn't called Arminianism.
      Clyde Herrin's Blog
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by theophilus View Post
        Arminian belief has always existed. It just wasn't called Arminianism.
        What was it called before Arminius?
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Bede View Post

          What was it called before Arminius?
          Lets examine the Reformed (pre-council of Dort position), although these positions of the Reformed traces it roots back to Scripture, many people associate it with being strictly Calvinist. The typical way the Calvinist would argue its case in history was that God is sovereign and moved first. We are dead in sin, therefore, only those who have been acted upon by God, regenerated or resurrected by his grace (spiritually speaking) are then given hearts of flesh, eyes to see, and ears to hear the gospel. Therefore God knows who the Elect are through the mystery of providence (we don't know who God knows is saved) but God knows. God only can do the act of regeneration. Since God knows the elect and dies for them everyone else is left dead in their sins. The atonement is limited for them, that is the elect. And I could continue, but basically irresistible grace is argued to be irresistible because a dead man cannot resist. Also to note, the perseverance of the saints is a widely mistaken doctrine, but the basic principal is that God loses none of the elect. The issues are about Salvation itself.


          Click image for larger version

Name:	image_154.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	34.0 KB
ID:	3700







          Jacob Arminius had an issue with how this was being described. Arminius claimed that the Reformed position makes God the author of sin. Wherever Arminianism has taken root, an Arminian will defend God, claiming the Reformed not only makes God a tyrant but also implicated in the destruction of sinners. Arminius moved the needle, and came up with some pretty radical distinctions. Quite a distinction between the Arminius' position and the wide umbrella of the Reformed positions.

          Some of Arminius' points are that God does elect but not individuals. Grace is provided to all the world freeing us. God gives a half way or temporary grace, just enough grace so that everyone has ears to hear and eyes to see. So when they hear the Gospel they are free to choose to reject it or accept it.

          The Reformed position states 1) man is fallen in sin, 2) unable to choose, 3) God regenerates individuals and 4) God sustains us.

          The Arminian position states 1) man is fallen in sin, 2) God provides grace to choose, 3) we then choose, 4) we have the freedom to leave or stay.

          Jacob Arminius says against Luther and Calvin that our will is not in bondage or dead but rather weakened and enfeebled. Flowing out of that is how Arminius builds his system of theology. It is worthwhile to note, that Jacob Arminius was a Calvinist. In his lifetime he was questioned, charges were brought to him in academic institutions, but nothing proven, he affirmed the Reformed positions. He never published a work during his lifetime. It wasn't until after his death that his writings were discovered, and those who believed his position were called Arminians.

          On a personal note, I do not find that most people are Arminian but rather Pelagian/Semi Pelagian. Usually, presuppositions have not been thought through. For example, the question is asked if whether God is Sovereign? Of course about all Christians say Yes. Then it is asked, does man have free will? Most new Christians say Yes. Then this question becomes as a simple beginning point of discussion and dialogue, if God is Sovereign and chooses to act upon man and man rejects God - is God powerless? Just because a person mentions free will does not mean that they are Arminian. Often times, I have observed Calvinist arguing against Arminians while both are committing the fallacy of equivalence. Two different meanings altogether. I'm just emphasizing that there is a specific definition in relation to man's nature and original sin that defines the autonomous or libertarian will that Calvinist reject. Having "choice" itself does not dictate free will from a Calvinist point of view.


          Click image for larger version

Name:	Dilemma.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	154.5 KB
ID:	3701

          God bless,
          William
          Comment>

          • #6
            But what was it called before Arminius?
            Comment>

            • #7
              The Pope is in league with the Anti-Christ.
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Phillip View Post
                The Pope is in league with the Anti-Christ.
                I don't believe the Pope, at least the current Pope, is a Christian. But, in league with the antichrist?

                John is the only author in the Bible who uses the phrase "the antichrist". One of four verses, 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Who is it who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh? The Roman Catholic Church or the Synagogue of Satan (affectionately called "God's chosen people" by many Evangelicals)? Are you saying the Pope is in league with Israel?
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                  I don't believe the Pope, at least the current Pope, is a Christian. But, in league with the antichrist?
                  Calvin saw the prophecies of Daniel as relating to and fulfilling within his own historical context, and thus “Mahomet” (Muhammad) and the Pope (both the office itself and, specifically, Pope Paul III, who ruled from 1534 to 1549) are “the two horns of the Anti-Christ and the two legs correspond with Islam and the Papacy” (SD 1987:162).

                  I believe, if the above is true it is because both Islam and the Catholics place both their prophet and pope in the center of God's temple to be worshiped. Likewise Martin Luther said, the pope is "the true Anti-Christ" of whom it is written that sitteth in the temple of God, among the people". John Knox also weighed in by writing of "the vanity of the Papistical Religion" and the deceit, pride, and tyranny of that Roman Anti-Christ.

                  I have every reason to believe their views are real, because they are consistent with Lutherans, Reformed, Anabaptists, and Methodists which all included references to the Papacy as the Antichrist in their confessions of faith:

                  Smalcald Articles, Article four (1537)

                  ...the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2, 4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians... Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists... The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him. This we are unwilling to do, even though on this account we must die in God's name. This all proceeds from the fact that the Pope has wished to be called the supreme head of the Christian Church by divine right. Accordingly he had to make himself equal and superior to Christ, and had to cause himself to be proclaimed the head and then the lord of the Church, and finally of the whole world, and simply God on earth, until he has dared to issue commands even to the angels in heaven...[2]

                  Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537)

                  ...Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2, 3: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God. He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority...[3]

                  Westminster Confession (1646)

                  25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.[4]

                  God bless,
                  William
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Describing the Catholic faith as Arminian is unnecessary in that all that need be said is that they believe one can choose to be saved (through them) or not. They in my experience, do believe in free will. That is yet another false doctrine they adhere to. They say and do things in the name of a Lord whom they don't even know. They do wonderful works in His name, cast out demons in His name, preach in the streets in His name. What would the Lord say to those who do not know Him? "Go away, ye that work iniquity; I never knew you." Many will be self-deceived through false churches IMO.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by William View Post

                      Calvin saw the prophecies of Daniel as relating to and fulfilling within his own historical context, and thus “Mahomet” (Muhammad) and the Pope (both the office itself and, specifically, Pope Paul III, who ruled from 1534 to 1549) are “the two horns of the Anti-Christ and the two legs correspond with Islam and the Papacy” (SD 1987:162).

                      I believe, if the above is true it is because both Islam and the Catholics place both their prophet and pope in the center of God's temple to be worshiped. Likewise Martin Luther said, the pope is "the true Anti-Christ" of whom it is written that sitteth in the temple of God, among the people". John Knox also weighed in by writing of "the vanity of the Papistical Religion" and the deceit, pride, and tyranny of that Roman Anti-Christ.

                      I have every reason to believe their views are real, because they are consistent with Lutherans, Reformed, Anabaptists, and Methodists which all included references to the Papacy as the Antichrist in their confessions of faith:

                      Smalcald Articles, Article four (1537)

                      ...the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2, 4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians... Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists... The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him. This we are unwilling to do, even though on this account we must die in God's name. This all proceeds from the fact that the Pope has wished to be called the supreme head of the Christian Church by divine right. Accordingly he had to make himself equal and superior to Christ, and had to cause himself to be proclaimed the head and then the lord of the Church, and finally of the whole world, and simply God on earth, until he has dared to issue commands even to the angels in heaven...[2]

                      Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537)

                      ...Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2, 3: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God. He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority...[3]

                      Westminster Confession (1646)

                      25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.[4]

                      God bless,
                      William
                      Originally posted by William View Post

                      Calvin saw the prophecies of Daniel as relating to and fulfilling within his own historical context, and thus “Mahomet” (Muhammad) and the Pope (both the office itself and, specifically, Pope Paul III, who ruled from 1534 to 1549) are “the two horns of the Anti-Christ and the two legs correspond with Islam and the Papacy” (SD 1987:162).

                      I believe, if the above is true it is because both Islam and the Catholics place both their prophet and pope in the center of God's temple to be worshiped. Likewise Martin Luther said, the pope is "the true Anti-Christ" of whom it is written that sitteth in the temple of God, among the people". John Knox also weighed in by writing of "the vanity of the Papistical Religion" and the deceit, pride, and tyranny of that Roman Anti-Christ.

                      I have every reason to believe their views are real, because they are consistent with Lutherans, Reformed, Anabaptists, and Methodists which all included references to the Papacy as the Antichrist in their confessions of faith:

                      Smalcald Articles, Article four (1537)

                      ...the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2, 4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians... Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists... The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him. This we are unwilling to do, even though on this account we must die in God's name. This all proceeds from the fact that the Pope has wished to be called the supreme head of the Christian Church by divine right. Accordingly he had to make himself equal and superior to Christ, and had to cause himself to be proclaimed the head and then the lord of the Church, and finally of the whole world, and simply God on earth, until he has dared to issue commands even to the angels in heaven...[2]

                      Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537)

                      ...Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2, 3: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God. He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority...[3]

                      Westminster Confession (1646)

                      25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.[4]

                      God bless,
                      William

                      Thank you for posting that William. I had read some of that in the past and it's exactly what I was thinking of. But in my case not as detailed. You do a great job! :)
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Phillip View Post
                        Thank you for posting that William. I had read some of that in the past and it's exactly what I was thinking of. But in my case not as detailed. You do a great job!
                        You are most welcome Phillip. I am happy that you joined us... sometimes among our doctrinal disputing (Proverbs 27:17) we lose sight ... and are at times emotionally drained. Your enthusiastic and light hearted replies are a nice welcome and a refreshing drink of water.

                        God bless,
                        William
                        Comment>
                        Working...
                        X
                        Articles - News - SiteMap