Reference: http://lookuntothelord.com/2012/05/01/second-response-to-jason-brown-re-arminians/
Curt Wildy stated:
"Issue Two: Is the lack of faith exhibited during times of anxiety, depression, or fear tantamount to believing a false gospel or erring from the doctrines of grace as discussed in the articles at issue? Does our doubting rise to the level of believing a false gospel anything like unto the false gospel of Arminianism?"
Consistent with what was observed in my last blog entry on Brother Wildy's post, as well as a new entry he has made, "What Constitutes Heresy", Brother Wildy is wrestling with if he is correct on the matter of heresy and the threshold that constitutes or evidences eternal damnation, which certainly calls into question the damnation of the Arminian.
What is troubling about Brother Wildy's consideration of the supposedly eternally damned Arminians is that the principal reason he seems to give for the damnation of those he considers teaching false gospels or doctrines in his recent post on heresy is:
"My trouble lies in encountering those who claim to worship Christ, who claim to believe in the Doctrines of Grace, but whose views are so foreign, so alien to mine in other key points that I simply cannot wrap my head around it."
The fundamental confusion here is going beyond what the Scripture indicates as the only sufficient evidence of eternal life, which is professed belief in Jesus Christ for sin atonement (1 John 4:6-15). The only sufficient evidence for eternal damnation, therefore, is the denial of these truths. Believers that hold doctrines that logically contradict these truths, but nevertheless confess them should be logically considered ignorant, not damned. 2 John 1:7-11 is dealing with the central doctrine of Christ that He is come in the flesh to atone for sin (vs. 7). As long as Christ is confessed in this sense, Christians have no biblical right to count others as unbelievers.
As Don Fortner stated:
"I am fully aware that some will react to what I have written here by saying, “That’s compromise. I am not about to embrace as my brother a person who says he believes something contrary to the gospel of the grace of God.” That is your privilege, if you so choose; but I am afraid you will have to exclude Aaron, Solomon, Peter, and Paul from the church to make room for your swollen head and swollen heart. For my part, I would rather run the risk of embracing a hundred false brethren, who may cause me great pain and sorrow, than that of shutting one of God’s saints out of my life (Galatians 6:1-2)"
He is absolutely correct, and legalistic Christians like Brother Wildly should heed this exhortation rather than giving occasion to Romans 2:24, "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."
Brother Wildy's Third Issue:
"Can the Apostle Peter’s denial of Christ be equated to holding to a false gospel or being ignorant of the true Gospel? No; even when Peter in fear, pride and/or faithlessness, sought to forbid His death and later denied Him, he never held to a false gospel of salvation based upon creature act, creature will, or creature effort."
The point I made, however, is that Peter after his confession of Christ in Matt. 16:16, was, at the very least, ignorant of the "true gospel" as clearly shown in Matt. 16:22. Peter did not understand the necessity of Christ's death to atone for sin. Certainly, I would concede that Peter still trusted in Christ as the Messiah, but he was clearly ignorant of the true gospel, which contradicts Brother Wildy's first sentence in the paragraph quoted. It is consistent with this gospel ignorance to say of the Arminian that he is ignorant as to the manner in which he is apprehended of in Christ Jesus.
Brother Wildy's Fourth Issue:
"Does 2 Timothy 2:13,18,19,25,26 imply that actual regenerate children of God can be in doctrinal error to the degree that they believe a false gospel or are ignorant of the true? No..."
He then states later:
"Concerning Hymenaeus and Philetus and verses 18 and 19 “Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some;” I cannot really comment too deeply. I have heard some teach that Hymenaeus and Philetus were unsaved (false brethren) and others teach that they were true brethren who greatly erred. I have always taken the former position (that they were unsaved/heretics) shared by John Gill and others, I continue to hold to that position, and leave any possibilities concerning their salvation to God. I would definitely not use their ”resurrection is past already” error to argue that a person can be a regenerate child of God and yet remain an active Arminian, Sacramentalist, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. I cannot imagine why anyone would even want to argue such."
How ironic that he concedes that the possible salvation for Hymenaeus and Philetus should be "left to God", as he seems to agree that Paul is teaching in verse 19. He should take his own advice in regard to the Arminian and other brethren that clearly confess Jesus Christ as Lord and that He died for their sins. He basically concedes the possibility that they were regenerate but were in gross gospel ignorance. What more needs to be said? He has conceded the point. I commend his academic honesty for not twisting the passage to disallow what I have always argued from it; namely, that it speaks to the possibility of their salvation, not the actuality of their salvation, especially verses 19, 25, and 26.
Why on earth mix Buddhists and Hindu with Sacramentalists and Arminians? Do Buddhists and Hindu in any sense confess Jesus as the Christ and that he died for their sins? Do they pass all the standards of 1 John for what counts as knowledge of salvation? They have no Biblical hope of eternal salvation as long as they reject Jesus Christ, as all the elect have Christ revealed directly and spiritually at regeneration (John 17:3, 1 John 4:4), and this testimony of Christ and the spirit (1 John 3:24) quite precludes the worship of idols, even in those apart from the preached word by mental competence or geography.
Is it possible that some Arminians are worshiping their autonomy as a god like the Hindus and Buddhists worshiping their cruder idols? Well, of course, and it makes it impossible to recognize the unregenerate, false professors among Arminians and Sacramentalists, but I concede that it seems likely and logical that the grosser the error from the doctrines of grace, the more likely that true foes of God are to be found.
The most attractive thing about Arminianism to a true Christian is the manner in which God's justice cannot be controverted, so you will often hear the sincerely born again among them stress this above all. If someone is stressing the autonomous nature of the will for, apparently, it's own sake, this might be a good indication they are worshiping a god other than that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
No comments:
Post a Comment