Is arminianism a false gospel?

[Simpletruther]

I say no. They are my brothers despite their error. But we have a few hyper calvinists here who say arminianism is a false gospel.

One of these hypers implies they will fellowship with arminians anyway. Which is obviously contradictory to scripture which says we are to not even eat with someone claiming Christ and in sin (and preaching a false gospel I would say qualities as sin).
1 cor 5
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.


And scripture also says those preaching a false gospel are cursed.

Galatians 1
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

It is our responsibility to separate from these divisive hypers if they refuse to repent of this division.

If you refuse to stand against this you are part of the problem.

So where do you stand? With unity in the body or with unity of calvinism over the body?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Hyper Calvinists deny the necessity of the proclamation of the gospel to save the elect, not calling Arminianism a false gospel.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Question: "What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?"

Answer: A simple definition is this: hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God’s sovereignty and under-emphasizes man’s responsibility in the work of salvation.

An obvious ramification of hyper-Calvinism is that it suppresses any desire to evangelize the lost. Most churches or denominations that hold to hyper-Calvinistic theology are marked by fatalism, coldness, and a lack of assurance of faith. There is little emphasis upon God’s love for the lost and His own people but rather an unbiblical preoccupation with God’s sovereignty, His election of the saved, and His wrath for the lost. The gospel of the hyper-Calvinist is a declaration of God’s salvation of the elect and His damnation of the lost.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over the entire universe (Daniel 4:34-35), including the salvation of men (Ephesians 1:3-12). But with God’s sovereignty, the Bible also teaches that His motivation for saving the lost is love (Ephesians 1:4-5; John 3:16; 1 John 4:9-10) and that God’s means of saving the lost is the proclamation of His Word (Romans 10:14-15). The Bible also declares that the Christian is to be passionate and determined in his/her sharing with unbelievers; as ambassadors for Christ, we are to "beg" people to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21).

Hyper-Calvinism takes a biblical doctrine, God’s sovereignty, and pushes it to an unbiblical extreme. In doing so, the hyper-Calvinist downplays the love of God and the necessity of evangelism.

What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical? How is Hyper-Calvinism different from Calvinism?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[SovereignGrace]

I say no. They are my brothers despite their error. But we have a few hyper calvinists here who say arminianism is a false gospel.

One of these hypers implies they will fellowship with arminians anyway. Which is obviously contradictory to scripture which says we are to not even eat with someone claiming Christ and in sin (and preaching a false gospel I would say qualities as sin).
1 cor 5
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.


And scripture also says those preaching a false gospel are cursed.

Galatians 1
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

It is our responsibility to separate from these divisive hypers if they refuse to repent of this division.

If you refuse to stand against this you are part of the problem.

So where do you stand? With unity in the body or with unity of calvinism over the body?

More divisiveness, eh?

 

[rhomphaeam]

And scripture also says those preaching a false gospel are cursed.

Galatians 1
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

You should sense the gravity of what Paul is saying here before you press into something that is beyond your power to turn back. Firstly you are not Paul and it seems unlikely that you could bear witness as Paul did in this short passage of which you quote one verse to make a point. You also need to know what declaring an anathema means and why it is a mistake if you don't have the authority to do it. With or without authority cursing or declaring a curse has direction and unless you are honest with yourself you may not even truly know what the direction of your invocation is.

So just to be very clear with you again. The Scripture through the Apostle Paul does not say that those who preach another gospel are cursed - Paul says by Scripture let those who preach another Gospel be accursed. Those two precepts are entirely different things. In your words there is no distinction and so you are foolishly taking a stand on using the Scripture as a blunt instrument. That is a mistaken ambition it is also divisive.

 

[Simpletruther]

More divisiveness, eh?

Sorry but we are called divide from those causing division in the body who will not repent.

 

[Simpletruther]

But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

You should sense the gravity of what Paul is saying here before you press into something that is beyond your power to turn back. Firstly you are not Paul and it seems unlikely that you could bear witness as Paul did in this short passage of which you quote one verse to make a point. You also need to know what declaring an anathema means and why it is a mistake if you don't have the authority to do it. With or without authority cursing or declaring a curse has direction and unless you are honest with yourself you may not even truly know what the direction of your invocation is.

So just to be very clear with you again. The Scripture through the Apostle Paul does not say that those who preach another gospel are cursed - Paul says by Scripture let those who preach another Gospel be accursed. Those two precepts are entirely different things. In your words there is no distinction and so you are foolishly taking a stand on using the Scripture as a blunt instrument. That is a mistaken ambition it is also divisive.

This was not just paul pronouncing a specific judgement on specific Individuals.

He set forth agenrtsl principal, even if HE taught another gospel let him be accursed. That is how we should consider them. That isn't us making the judgement. That is what we are to recognize.

But regardless of what exactly this means, he goes on to make it crystal clear at the very least it is sin. And we see him even confront Peters sin.

And that is all we need to know. It is sin. We are not to even eat with such a one the scripture says (apart from repentance)

You have not refuted my point in the least, even if I erred in complete understanding of paul's meaning or application of anathema.

 

[rhomphaeam]

This was not just paul pronouncing a specific judgement on specific Individuals.

He set forth agenrtsl principal, even if HE taught another gospel let him be accursed. That is how we should consider them. That isn't us making the judgement. That is what we are to recognize.

But regardless of what exactly this means, he goes on to make it crystal clear at the very least it is sin. And we see him even confront Peters sin.

And that is all we need to know. It is sin. We are not to even eat with such a one the scripture says (apart from repentance)

You have not refuted my point in the least, even if I erred in complete understanding of paul's meaning or application of anathema.

I have no ambition to refute your points. I do not live in a class room environment and whilst I can see that this forum accommodates your seeming apologetics approach I take a rather different one predicated on the very thing you refuse. You don't have to worry about being refuted. For what it is worth don't reduce a curse to a rebuke for sin. Anathema isn't a rational fact - it is grounded in prophetic authority and has to do with handing men over to judgement of God. You do what you do and when you are divisive then others may well rebuke you. Its not rocket science is it?

 

[Simpletruther]

I have no ambition to refute your points. I do not live in a class room environment and whilst I can see that this forum accommodates your seeming apologetics approach I take a rather different one predicated on the very thing you refuse. You don't have to worry about being refuted. For what it is worth don't reduce a curse to a rebuke for sin. Anathema isn't a rational fact - it is grounded in prophetic authority and has to do with handing men over to judgement of God. You do what you do and when you are divisive then others may well rebuke you. Its not rocket science is it?

Regardless of how one views anathema the point stands that it is sin and thus my overall point is still valid in this OP.

Indeed it is not rocket science, some are accusing Arminians of sin with a false gospel accusation. That is divisive.

 

[rhomphaeam]

Regardless of how one views anathema the point stands that it is sin and thus my overall point is still valid in this OP.

Indeed it is not rocket science, some are are accusing Arminians of sin with a false gospel accusation. That is divisive.

Many things are divisive and the Apostle said that he wasn't surprised that such contentions exist - even giving rise to divisions - but he also qualified such an attitude by saying 'so that the truth might be established." If you are at peace with your divisions then why are you complaining that others say you are being divisive? I think where Paul drew at least one line was in regard to causing believers to side with named individuals when those individuals were not being divisive but held apostolic and prophetic authority in the churches. That kind of division is the worst. Yet Paul expressly cited an anathema to the effect that another gospel had come upon the Galatian believers and his anathema was on particular men whom he did not name. You name men and that is your error. If you do it on a forum you must also be willing to be rebuked by those men or others who see the divisive effect of doing so. As to the claim to separate from some believers that is simply a nonsense on a forum and could in truth only have any validity in the churches. There are many sins that believers sin and because they are not in the churches or else bring the name of Christ into disrepute amongst unbelievers they are mostly a matter of privacy. So no need to name such men in the church. In the church other sins are more akin to a spirit of effects and it is the effect that is to be refused by refusing the vehicle of that effect. In short, the men who produce such effects in the churches. Sin is far too simple a way to explain that meaning for that reason.

 

[Simpletruther]

Many things are divisive and the Apostle said that he wasn't surprised that such contentions exist - even giving rise to divisions - but he also qualified such an attitude by saying 'so that the truth might be established." If you are at peace with your divisions then why are you complaining that others say you are being divisive? I think where Paul drew at least one line was in regard to causing believers to side with named individuals when those individuals were not being divisive but held apostolic and prophetic authority in the churches. That kind of division is the worst. Yet Paul expressly cited an anathema to the effect that another gospel had come upon the Galatian believers and his anathema was on particular men whom he did not name. You name men and that is your error. If you do it on a forum you must also be willing to be rebuked by those men or others who see the divisive effect of doing so. As to the claim to separate from some believers that is simply a nonsense on a forum and could in truth only have any validity in the churches. There are many sins that believers sin and because they are not in the churches or else bring the name of Christ into disrepute amongst unbelievers they are mostly a matter of privacy. So no need to name such men in the church. In the church other sins are more akin to a spirit of effects and it is the effect that is to be refused by refusing the vehicle of that effect. In short, the men whoanf produce such effects in the churches. Sin is far too simple a way to explain that meaning for that reason.

I have no problem with being rebuked for being divisive if it can be shown scripturally.

Separating fellowship from those sinning isn’t divisive, it is biblical. If you prefer the word divisive then I would say it’s non sinful biblical divisiveness.

And no it isn’t nonsense to divide outside a church setting. We are not to even eat or associate with them is a general statement. On a forum it is still our responsibility to let it be known.

Consistent silence at such behavior isn’t loving in the least. Truth always accompanies true love.

 

[rhomphaeam]

I have no problem with being rebuked for being divisive if it can be shown scripturally.

Separating fellowship from those sinning isn’t divisive, it is biblical. If you prefer the word divisive then I would say it’s non sinful biblical divisiveness.

And no it isn’t nonsense to divide outside a church setting. We are not to even eat or associate with them is a general statement. On a forum it is still our responsibility to let it be known.

Consistent silence at such behavior isn’t loving in the least. Truth always accompanies true love.

Then stand or fall by your own standard. You should just know that I haven't even tried to refute anything you have said. If I did you would also have to be willing to engage in some exegesis and not sling Scriptures about like confetti and then parade yourself as a righteous man. I don't care what what anyone thinks of me. I really couldn't give a care about it. Not that I am not annoyed by the implausibility of some posters when they fabricate a supposed biblical position but then claim not to understand a prophetic response. That annoys me - but then that on a forum can only lead to being banned for a season even if it is reacted to. In the churches or in the restaurant _ I would just deck them.

 

[Simpletruther]

Then stand or fall by your own standard. You should just know that I haven't even tried to refute anything you have said. If I did you would also have to be willing to engage in some exegesis and not sling Scriptures about like confetti and then parade yourself as a righteous man. I don't care what what anyone thinks of me. I really couldn't give a care about it. Not that I am not annoyed by the implausibility of some posters when they fabricate a supposed biblical position but then claim not to understand a prophetic response. That annoys me - but then that on a forum can only lead to being banned for a season even if it is reacted to. In the churches or in the restaurant _ I would just deck them.

Well I see you sre content to be divisive and falsely accuse. I have not remotely “paraded myself as a righteous man”.

But you are right about one thing you didn’t remotely refute me.

I would love to see in a church meeting, as I suspect the big macho talk of violence is usually just that....talk. Someone flapping their gums about their fantasies of brave manhood.

 

[guest1]

Classic Arminians are not a false gospel but there are some who call themselves Arminians that have a false gospel who are really semi pelagians or pelagians.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Reformedguy]

Classic Arminians are not a false gospel but there are some who call themselves Arminians that have a false gospel who are really semi pelagians or pelagians.

hope this helps !!!

Nobody preaches a false gospel if it presented correctly and Biblically I would say.

 

[rhomphaeam]

Well I see you sre content to be divisive and falsely accuse. I have not remotely “paraded myself as a righteous man”.

But you are right about one thing you didn’t remotely refute me.

I would love to see in a church meeting, as I suspect the big macho talk of violence is usually just that....talk. Someone flapping their gums about their fantasies of brave manhood.

Your use of the term violence is of course wilful because whilst I have occasionally struck someone to the floor with good reason and in defence of another person - the term deck someone can and ought to have a more general application. Still I do like to give folks a way of escape and so I cant complain. On the other hand the security man for our buildings is a very sensitive brother and when he mows the lawns and the mower won't perform precisely as he needs he has on occasions destroyed it on the spot so that it will never work again - and then realising that I was watching him he rushes over and apologises profusely just before going to get his machete to finish the lawn. But he is just about the nicest and most trustworthy guy you could possibly know and why he has keys to every door and access even into private apartments in order to be available when someone gets into difficulties and cant open the door. Thats the environment I live in not a sweet shop.

 

[rhomphaeam]

I would love to see in a church meeting, as I suspect the big macho talk of violence is usually just that....talk. Someone flapping their gums about their fantasies of brave manhood.

Just to be optimistic about this element of your comment to myself. I agree with your inference if you mean that being macho is in any way a focus for Christian men. It isn't. That is something I do feel strongly about and encourage men to be more careful when their macho manners gets in the way of walking in the Spirit. Our security man isn't macho he's just mad - and his madness stems from an unspeakable childhood. Its heart breaking to hear these accounts but it is a mistake to tell strong men that they need to be weak men in order to deflect the accusatory slight of their brethren who are in fact weak men. So its always a balance. We have prayed for this brother to be baptised in the power of God - his general decency extends to being decent yet his fuse is so short that things can and sometimes do result in fireworks. Would you hold him to that? I wouldn't and we have replaced the lawnmower twice in the last two years. Neither would I refuse to fellowship with a classical arminian brother simply because we held a different position on the issue of free will. God bless you.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Question: "What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?"

Answer: A simple definition is this: hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God’s sovereignty and under-emphasizes man’s responsibility in the work of salvation.

An obvious ramification of hyper-Calvinism is that it suppresses any desire to evangelize the lost. Most churches or denominations that hold to hyper-Calvinistic theology are marked by fatalism, coldness, and a lack of assurance of faith. There is little emphasis upon God’s love for the lost and His own people but rather an unbiblical preoccupation with God’s sovereignty, His election of the saved, and His wrath for the lost. The gospel of the hyper-Calvinist is a declaration of God’s salvation of the elect and His damnation of the lost.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over the entire universe (Daniel 4:34-35), including the salvation of men (Ephesians 1:3-12). But with God’s sovereignty, the Bible also teaches that His motivation for saving the lost is love (Ephesians 1:4-5; John 3:16; 1 John 4:9-10) and that God’s means of saving the lost is the proclamation of His Word (Romans 10:14-15). The Bible also declares that the Christian is to be passionate and determined in his/her sharing with unbelievers; as ambassadors for Christ, we are to "beg" people to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21).

Hyper-Calvinism takes a biblical doctrine, God’s sovereignty, and pushes it to an unbiblical extreme. In doing so, the hyper-Calvinist downplays the love of God and the necessity of evangelism.

What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical? How is Hyper-Calvinism different from Calvinism?

www.gotquestions.org

it holds to eternal justification to the extreme, as they see the elect as already born in that relationship to God restored, just ignorant of that truth!

 

[Simpletruther]

Just to be optimistic about this element of your comment to myself. I agree with your inference if you mean that being macho is in any way a focus for Christian men. It isn't. That is something I do feel strongly about and encourage men to be more careful when their macho manners gets in the way of walking in the Spirit. Our security man isn't macho he's just mad - and his madness stems from an unspeakable childhood. Its heart breaking to hear these accounts but it is a mistake to tell strong men that they need to be weak men in order to deflect the accusatory slight of their brethren who are in fact weak men. So its always a balance. We have prayed for this brother to be baptised in the power of God - his general decency extends to being decent yet his fuse is so short that things can and sometimes do result in fireworks. Would you hold him to that? I wouldn't and we have replaced the lawnmower twice in the last two years. Neither would I refuse to fellowship with a classical arminian brother simply because we held a different position on the issue of free will. God bless you.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Regardless of how one views anathema the point stands that it is sin and thus my overall point is still valid in this OP.

Indeed it is not rocket science, some are accusing Arminians of sin with a false gospel accusation. That is divisive.

They are saved by the Calvinism view of salvation, but are ignorant to that!