Prof Johan Malan – A Gospel of Works – Losing your Salvation (Part 2)

Tom (Discerning the World)

Discerning the World is an internet Discernment ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa that was founded in 2008. Tom Lessing originally founded the website "Waak en Bid/Watch and Pray". Tom Lessing joined Discerning the World in May 2013 and all his articles were moved across to DTW.

26 Responses

  1. Aaron says:

    Calvinism and arminianism are both false gospels, and they’re actually the same. Arminianism says that your lack of good works or too many bad works, cause you to lose salvation. Calvinism says that lack of good works or too many bad works, cause you to prove that you never had salvation.

    The focus of both is YOUR WORKS. The two are identical. If a person ends up in hell due to failure of their works, then what difference does it make which of these labels they attach to themselves?

    But avoiding hell is only by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16), without works (Romans 4:5). Thus, calvinism and arminianism are both wrong.

  2. Irma says:

    Hi Debs, wonderful to read about the reconciliation. I respect you for what you have done. >8 )

  3. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    Aaron

    That is why we here at DTW get so hot under the collar when we are called Arminian by dem Calvinists because we are not.

    Arminianism actually formed the Methodist church through John Wesley as he carried Jacob Arminius theology into the future and today the Methodist church are actually Arminians amongst a few others who believe in this doctrine.

  4. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    Dear Irma

    Thank you 🙂

  5. Sharon says:

    Amen Deb-ster
    I am no friend of Calvinism and I am NOT Arminian. NO WAY!

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Aaron

    That is why we here at DTW get so hot under the collar when we are called Arminian by dem Calvinists because we are not.

    Arminianism actually formed the Methodist church through John Wesley as he carried Jacob Arminius theology into the future and today the Methodist church are actually Arminians amongst a few others who believe in this doctrine.

  6. Aaron wrote:

    Calvinism and arminianism are both false gospels, and they’re actually the same. Arminianism says that your lack of good works or too many bad works, cause you to lose salvation.

    I am interested to know from whence you got your information. Would you mind giving us any source/s that Arminius believed a saint can lose his sallvation?

  7. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    Arminianism is based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic supporters known as the Remonstrants. It is known as a soteriological sect of Protestant Christianity.[1] Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement signed by 45 ministers and submitted to the States-General of the Netherlands. The Synod of Dort (1618–19) was called by the States General to consider the Five Articles of Remonstrance. They asserted that:
    1 election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
    2 the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, is efficacious only for the man of faith;
    3 unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
    4 grace is resistible; and
    5 believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

    Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor and theologian in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin’s hand-picked successor, but after examination of the Scriptures, he rejected his teacher’s theology that it is God who unconditionally elects some for salvation. Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was of believers, thereby making it conditional on faith. Arminius’s views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especially Franciscus Gomarus, but Arminius died before a national synod could occur.[citation needed]
    Arminius’s followers, not wanting to adopt their leader’s name, called themselves the Remonstrants. When Arminius died before he could satisfy Holland’s State General’s request for a 14-page paper outlining his views, the Remonstrants replied in his stead crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

  8. Redeemed says:

    Aaron is both correct and incorrect. Arminianism does not believe in a works salvation, but they believe that one can lose their faith and the natural progression for this would be cease to do good and even do bad.

    Arminius did by his own words believe in the “Conditional Preservation of the Saints” or “Conditional Security”.

    For Arminius the believer’s security is conditional—”provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves.” This complements what Arminius says elsewhere in his writings: “God resolves to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere [in faith], but to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as aliens from Christ.”[19] In another place he writes: “[God] wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation.”[20]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints

  9. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    Redeemed

    But believing that you can lose your salvation is a works based salvation because you no longer put your faith in Jesus to keep you, you are now working to keep your salvation by not sinning and this places the person under bondage.

  10. Redeemed says:

    What I meant is that they believe that we are saved by faith and not works with which we would agree. In fact, there is certain common ground with Arminians as opposed to no common ground whatsoever with Calvinism.

    As far as security of the believer however, they maintain that because one is saved by faith which is a case of free will, that the possibility exists that one can lose their faith through free will.

    As I said, in their way of thinking, the natural progression and result of losing one’s faith is the lack of good works and turning away. We would instead say it is a backslidden condition and that God will discipline and chasten His own. After conversion, free will still exists of course, but not to the point of reversing our born-again state.

    Therein lies the reason we do not hold to Arminianism. ARMINIANS CARRY FREE WILL TO THE EXTREME and discount the fact that when one is converted, born again, that one is a new creation, an irreversible event occurs.

    They do not understand that the Lord Jesus Christ keeps us secure, we do not. It is an accomplished fact that cannot be reversed or undone by our free will. We don’t have the power to undo what God has done!

  11. As far as I know Arminius did not believe that a saint can lose his salvation. Dave Hunt writes in “What Love is This.”

    Arminius was wrongfully charged with nearly every false doctrine ever invented, from Socinianism (denial of predestination, of the true nature of the Atonement and of the Trinity) to Pelagianism (the denial that Adam’s sin affected his posterity, an undue emphasis upon free will, salvation by grace plus works, and the possibility of sinless perfection). Those false accusations are repeated today, often unjustly, against anyone who does not agree with Calvinism. So strong was Calvinism in certain parts of Europe in Arminius’s day that to disagree with it was tantamount to a denial of the gospel and even of God’s entire Word – indeed, to the endangerment of one’s life. Arminius had to bear the special onus that came upon any Protestant of his day in Holland who dared to take a second look at Calvinism from the Scriptures, a load of guilt still placed upon non-Calvinists today. He was accused of having secret leanings toward Roman Catholicism in spite of his open denunciation of Catholic sacraments and of the papacy as the kingdom of Antichrist. Indeed, upon visiting Rome to see the Vatican for himself, Arminius reported that he saw “`the mystery of iniquity’ in a more foul, ugly, and destestable form than his imagination could ever have conceived.” 1 While some of those who have called themselves Arminians have been guilty of all manner of heresy, having “adopted views … quite contrary” to what he taught, 2 it is quite a shock to discover that James Arminius was actually biblical in his beliefs and far more Christlike in his life than was Calvin. Vance writes that “Arminius was just as orthodox on the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith as any Calvinist, ancient or modern.” (Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Vance Publications, Pensacola FL, rev. ed., 1999), 126.)

    Arminius himself said of the foul accusation that he believed in the loss of salvation:

    “At no period have I asserted `that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation.”‘” (Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Baker Book House, 1986), 1:741.))

  12. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    Thomas said:

    Arminius himself said of the foul accusation that he believed in the loss of salvation:
    “At no period have I asserted `that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation.”‘” (Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Baker Book House, 1986), 1:741.))

    Maybe someone should put that into wikipedia..

    So it was not Jacob Arminius who set up the 5 points to counter Calvinism Tulip it was ‘the Remonstants’; “When Arminius died before he could satisfy Holland’s State General’s request for a 14-page paper outlining his views, the Remonstrants replied in his stead crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance.” It was them that stated: 5 believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

  13. Redeemed says:

    Jacob Arminius, in his own writings seemed to cause confusion on the issue of holiness and the possiblity of falling away from the faith. No wonder his followers took some latitude on relating his views. Arminius was an admirer and follower of St. Augustine. That alone speaks volumes and is a red flag waving.

    It is interesting to read “Getting Acquainted with Jacob Arminius” by John Knox.

    Here is one excerpt which should salt one’s oats to dig deeper:

    SECTION VII – “THE PERFECTION OF BELIEVERS IN THIS LIFE”

    In this chapter, he brings up the fact that he has been accused of Pelagianism because of his speculation that a believer can live a sinless life. “It is reported, that I entertain sentiments on this subject, which are very improper, and nearly allied to those of the Pelagians.” However, the error of his attackers is that they are failing to acknowledge the caveat he includes in his understanding of perfection. With his understanding that nothing happens without the direction of God, Arminius states, “it is possible for the regenerate in the life perfectly to keep God’s precepts.” He then goes on to show how he is only promoting ideas similar to that of St. Augustine.

    He continues, “Though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought not on this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or entirely, provided I had only added that ‘they could do this by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it.'” As with earlier chapters, Arminius makes sure to keep the grace of God as the crucial element in his doctrine. Arminius goes on to defend himself by remarking that he never asserted that a person can live free from sin, BUT HE NEVER DENIED IT EITHER.

    He appeals to the great church father, Augustine, whose own statements suggested the possibility of perfection. Furthermore, he points to the absurdity of his opponents accusing him of being a Pelagian when his ideas merely mirror those of Augustine, “. . . one of the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine.” Beyond this, Arminius proclaims, “I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, ‘Without me ye can do nothing:’ (John 15:5)” Arminius wants no misunderstanding of his condemnation of Pelagius and his promotion of the authority of Scripture.

    Arminius ends this chapter lamenting the misrepresentation of him by his critics. He assures his audience that what information is being spread about him by men like Gomarus is based only on rumor. He then informs his listeners/readers that he is going to “disclose the real state of the whole matter,” which he does in the next chapter.

    http://www.fwponline.cc/v30n1/getting-acquainted_j-knox.html

    Arminianism has spawned the holiness movement such as Wesleyan Methodist and other legalistic movements which are detrimental to spiritual health. Dr. Ironside has written on this about his experiences with striving for holiness and working himself right into a nervous breakdown.

    If you look at Arminian websites you will find references to John Wesley and refutation of eternal security.

    It may be a mistake to do so, but perhaps Arminius could be compared to John Calvin in an ironic sort of way. Calvin took a huge leap forward but didn’t finish the job which resulted in false doctrine. But at least with Arminus one can say he stood strong against the main deadly tenets of Calvinism. His flaw seems to be to not be clear on eternal security of the believer or come to terms with it himself, leaving open a door to false teaching.

    Again, as I said, Arminianism carries free will to the EXTREME discounting the ability of Christ to keep His own for fear of the believer abusing the grace of God. Any believer that does so will give an account and come under the chastening of the Lord, but he/she will not lose their salvation.

  14. Redeemed wrote:

    Jacob Arminius, in his own writings seemed to cause confusion on the issue of holiness and the possiblity of falling away from the faith. No wonder his followers took some latitude on relating his views. Arminius was an admirer and follower of St. Augustine. That alone speaks volumes and is a red flag waving.

    Well actually Arminius rejected everything Augustine taught and believed. This, again, is what Dave Hunt says of Arminius in his book “What Love is This?”

    Arminius recognized and rejected the false doctrines of Augustine for what they were. In contrast to Augustine, Arminius also rejected the Apocrypha and authority of tradition. He believed in the eternal Sonship of Christ, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, (9) that Christ came to this earth as a man, (10) that He was Jehovah of the Old Testament (11) who died for our sins, paying the full penalty by His one sacrifice of Himself on the cross, (12) that He was buried, rose again and ascended to heaven, (13) that man is hopelessly lost and bound by sin and that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. ‘(14)
    Arminius was evangelical in the gospel he preached. Salvation was entirely through Christ as a work of grace which God alone could do in the heart. He categorically denied the false charges made against him of Pelagianism and Socinianism. (15) He also, with these words, defended himself against the false charge that he taught the doctrine of falling away: “At no period have I asserted `that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation.”‘

    It is astonishing with what disapproval Arminius is denounced today by Calvinists, while Augustine is praised. J.1. Packer quotes with approval “Robert Traill, the Scottish Puritan, [who] wrote in 1692, `The principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind, which is enmity both to the law of God, and to the gospel of Christ, and, next to the dead sea of Popery (into which also this stream runs), have, since Pelagius to this day, been the greatest plague of the Church of Christ, and it is like will be till his second coming.’ “(17) Sheldon, however, says, “The doctrinal system of Arminius, who is confessed on all hands to have been a man of most exemplary spirit and life, was the Calvinistic system with no further modification than necessarily resulted from rejecting the tenet of absolute predestination.” (18) A leading Arminian of the nineteenth century summarized his understanding of that doctrine:
    Arminianism teaches that God in Jesus Christ made provision fully for the salvation of all those who, by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, accept the terms [of the gospel], and all who do thus accept are eternally saved. All who rebel against God, and refuse to accept of Jesus on the terms of proffered mercy, sink under Divine wrath and are eternally lost. (10)

    Someone among the researches is lying. Take your pick.

    9 Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Baker Book House, 1986), 2:115-18, 138, 141-43, 145, etc.
    10 Op. cit., 2:379.
    11 Op. cit., 2:141.
    12 Op. cit., 2:443
    13 Op. cit., 2:387-88.
    14 Op. cit., 2:157, 256; 1:659-60.
    15 Op. cit., 1:102.

    17 J.I. Packer, “Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification” (www.the-highway.com/ Justification Packer.html).
    18 Henry C. Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine (Harper and Bros., 2nd ed. 1895), 2:34-35.
    19 George L. Curtiss, Arminianism in History (Cranston and Curts, 1894), 10.

  15. Redeemed wrote:

    With his understanding that nothing happens without the direction of God, Arminius states, “it is possible for the regenerate in the life perfectly to keep God’s precepts.” He then goes on to show how he is only promoting ideas similar to that of St. Augustine.

    This is what Arminius believed:

    Augustine says, “four questions may claim our attention on this topic. The first is, was there ever yet a man without sin, one who from the beginning of life to its termination never committed sin? The second, has there ever been, is there now, or can there possibly be, an individual who does not sin, that is, who has attained to such a state of perfection in this life as not to commit sin, but perfectly to fulfill the law of God? The third, is it possible for a man in this life to exist without sin? The fourth, if it be possible for a man to be without sin, why has such an individual never yet been found?” St. Augustine says, that such a person as is described in the first question never yet lived, or will hereafter be brought into existence, with the exception of Jesus Christ. He does not think, that any man has attained to such perfection in this life as is portrayed in the second question. With regard to the third, he thinks it possible for a man to be without sin, by means of the grace of Christ and free-will. In answer to the fourth, man does not do what it is possible for him by the grace of Christ to perform, either because that which is good escapes his observation, or because in it he places no part of his delight.” From this quotation it is apparent, that St. Augustine, one of the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine, retained this sentiment, that “it is possible for a man to live in this world without sin.”

    Beside this, the same Christian father says, “let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with each other.” The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this—”that man could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still “greater facility by means of the grace of Christ.” I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing:” (John xv. 5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. (The Works of James Arminius, James Arminius, Vol 1, VII, 178)

    I think we should study Armminius to find out what he really believed and not rely on others who wrote about him. Dave Hunt quoted mainly from this work of which Arminius was the author.

  16. Redeemed says:

    Have you researched the work I referenced by John Knox? What I quoted is from an Armininian site.

    As much as I respect Dave Hunt and his valuable work “What Love Is This?” and his courageous stand against Calvinism, he is not without flaw. And neither was Jacob Arminius. This does not take away from the good that they did. But we have to face facts.

    Somehow through Arminius’ influence the holiness movement got started and it stems from the issue of eternal security of the believer, that a believer can lose their salvation by walking away.

    Thomas, may I direct your attention to this work by Jacob Arminius at

    entitled “Arminius on the Perfection of Believers in This Life” where he refers to his affinity to the teachings of St. Augustine. This from the horse’s mouth, not quoted from another source.

    The intent is not to disrespect Arminius, but to examine the facts.

  17. Redeemed wrote:

    As much as I respect Dave Hunt and his valuable work “What Love Is This?” and his courageous stand against Calvinism, he is not without flaw.

    Why would you deem the direct quotes Dave Hunt uses in his book as flaws? I have already quoted to you what Arminmius said about Augustine and Pelagius on the topic of sinless perfection trough the grace of God.

    Beside this, the same Christian father says, “let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with each other.” The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this—”that man could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still “greater facility by means of the grace of Christ.” I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing:” (John xv. 5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. (The Works of James Arminius, James Arminius, Vol 1, VII, 178)

    .

  18. Redeemed says:

    And Brother Thomas, I have quoted from the works of Jacob Arminius in his own words. How can you discount that my friend? No one is accusing JA of Pelagism.

    We are getting a bit off topic here, but I think it is important to know JA’s stance on perfection in the life of the believer, don’t you? That is the Achilles’ Heel of Arminianism is it not?.

  19. Redeemed says:

    Also, Thomas, I did not say the quotes were a flaw, I said brother Dave was not without flaws as are all of us, including Jacob Arminius. JA seems to say one thing one time and then another thing another time.

    We know Satan is the author of confusion. By flip-flopping on this issue confusion has obviously ensued, resulting in error. Only God knows the true intent of JA’s heart and mind when he arrived at his final moment on this earth. But in any case there was confusion which allowed those who followed to pick up the ball of their choosing and run with it.

  20. I really think you are misreading Arminius when he wrote: “Beside this, the same Christian father says, ‘let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with each other.'” The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this—”that man could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still “greater facility by means of the grace of Christ.” I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing:” (John xv. 5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. (The Works of James Arminius, James Arminius, Vol 1, VII, 178).

    He is not giving any credit to Augustine. What he said is this: “Besides this, the same Christian father (Augustine) says ‘If only Pelagius would agree that we are capable of living sinless lives through the empowering grace of Christ, we could be friends.'” And then he proceeds to elaborate on this by saying: “Augustine did not agree with Pelagius’s notion that we can live sinless lives through our own voluntary resources but that we can accomplish this through the grace of Christ.” And then he denounces both as being wrong. “I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing:” (John xv. 5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ.”

    He did not only refute Pelagius but Augustine as well. In no way did he suggest that we are able to live sinless lives through the enabling grace of Christ Jesus when he quoted John 15:5. He merely reiterated what Paul said in Romans 7: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death [that holds me in bondage to sin]? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” (Romans 7:24-25). Paul, like Arminius, is not saying that we may achieve perfection to the extent that we may achieve sinlessness. He is saying that we can always live in victory over our sinful nature. Why would Jesus command us to be perfect in moral character even as our Father who is in heaven, when it cannot be done? (Matthew 5:48)

  21. Redeemed says:

    Thomas, you are not even looking at the evidence that I have given in

    I did not include quotes as the website says one must have permission. JA speaks FAVORABLY of St. Augustine and he is noncommittal, thereby leaving a vacuum in which leaven of false teaching can grow and has grown.

    I have taken the limited time I have to look into this and it seems that it has fallen on deaf ears and misunderstood at every turn. I CLEARLY stated that I was not inferring in ANY way that JA was Pelagious. But you keep beating that dead horse.

    My concern is about his stance on holiness in the believer’s life and if one can walk or fall away.

    I am out of time and I hope that someone else can pick up on this as I cannot devote any more effort to it. I am somewhat perplexed that you deflect all the evidence that I have given.

    [EDITED by DTW: Please see comment: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/07/22/prof-johan-malan-a-gospel-of-works-losing-your-salvation-part/#comment-252531%5D

  22. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    I’m just diffusing a ‘situation’ here by deleting 2 comments that I believe should not have been said 🙂 ok?

    Redeemed, you confused the situation by bringing Dave Hunt into the equation from the beginning instead of looking at Dave Hunt’s books that he QUOTED FROM.

    And I agree with Thomas, Arminius did not appear to speak two different messages, he spoke one message the other message were the lies from his detractors that he constantly had to defend.

    Redeemed, looking at that link you provided that you can quote from Arminius says, “From this quotation it is apparent, that St. Augustine, one of the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine, retained this sentiment, that “it is possible for a man to live in this world without sin.” this is a blatant refutation of St Augustine.

    If you read that link properly you will see that Jacob is against Pelagius and Augustine. So I am not sure what you were reading when you opened that link 😛

    I was really under the impression until now that Jacob A was a bad guy, but I have seriously changed my mind. However that does not make me an Arminian, it just means that Arminianism was not started by Jacob Arminius but by those Remonstrants.

  23. Redeemed wrote:

    Thomas, you are not even looking at the evidence that I have given in

    I did not include quotes as the website says one must have permission. JA speaks FAVORABLY of St. Augustine and he is noncommittal, thereby leaving a vacuum in which leaven of false teaching can grow and has grown.

    I quoted to you Arminius’ exact same words from his book, the very same that appear in the link you provided and you say I never looked at the evidence you gave?

    Beside those doctrines on which I have treated, there is now much discussion among us respecting the perfection of believers, or regenerated persons, in this life; and it is reported,that I entertain sentiments on this subject, which are very improper, and nearly allied to those of the Pelagians, viz: “that it is possible for the regenerate in this life perfectly to keep God’s precepts.” To this I reply, though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought not on this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or entirely, provided I had only added that “they could do this by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it.” But while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided. For I have contented myself with those sentiments which St. Augustine has expressed on this subject, whose words have frequently quoted in the University, and have usually subjoined, that I had no addition to make to them.

    There are some things Benny Hinn teaches to which I can and do say “Amen.” For instance, the fact that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Does that make me a noncommittal admirer of Benny Hinn? Perish the thought. Arminius seems to be saying that he cannot fault Augustine on his view that a saint can keep God’s precepts perfectly provided, he said, “they could do this by the grace of Christ.” Note carefully, he never said they could do it and neither did he say they cannot do it. If it were possible, he said, if would only be possible through the grace of Christ. His emphasis is on the grace of Christ. “He always left it as a matter which has still to be decided.” Let us quickly scan through some difficult passages in Scripture.

    The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.”(Luk 6:40)

    “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” (2 Corinthians 13:11)

    “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” (Eph 4:13).

    “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.” (Php 3:12)[Here Paul says that although perfection is not attainable this side of the grave, the saint should not shy from striving unto it].

    “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Ti 3:17)

    Arminius’ neutrality in the matter of perfection in this life seems to be on track with Paul’s own thoughts when he said: “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” (Rom 7:17) Is Paul saying “It is no longer I who sin but this thing called the sin principle dwelling in me”? Was Paul making a distinction between his newly created essence in his innermost being that cannot sin (“it is no more I that do it”) and the old creation dwelling in his mortal body (“but sin [singular] that dwelleth in me”). I must admit, I don’t know and like Arminius only say: “But while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided.”

  24. Aaron says:

    Redeemed wrote: “Aaron is both correct and incorrect. Arminianism does not believe in a works salvation, but they believe that one can lose their faith and the natural progression for this would be cease to do good and even do bad.”

    Believing you can lose salvation, is works for salvation. So you are incorrect. Losing salvation is indeed a false gospel of works, and anyone that says you can lose salvation, is teaching works for salvation.

    As for the rest of the discussion that is going back and forth, I don’t particularly care what Jacob Arminius said. When I referred to “arminians”, I was referring to the modern-day understanding of what people mean when they use that term. Jacob is dead so I’m not particularly interested in any defense of him.

  25. Redeemed says:

    Aaron, one CAN be saved by the Gospel of Arminianism. They do NOT say that you have to do works to be saved. They do not teach Lordship Salvation if I understand it correctly.

    One who receives Christ and is converted does not possibly understand the rest of what they teach. You are confusing the basis for original conversion with the standard for maintaining the faith.

    One CAN be saved if a Gospel by faith not works is preached by a group that does not hold to eternal security.

    You are mixing apples and oranges and throwing the baby out with the bath.

    I see your point that they believe that one has to do works to maintain salvation, but that is an entirely separate issue.

    I agree that the discussion on the beliefs of Jacob Arminius is beside the point. Whoever made it what it is today doesn’t matter – it is what it is and that is the crux of the issue. We know that whoever was at fault they are a tool of Satan, the one who is behind all false teaching.

  26. Deborah (Discerning the World) says:

    Redeemed

    The entire point of this article is this: that they believe that one has to do works to maintain salvation. We are NOT talking about having to do works to get saved. So please just stop bringing up this issue.

    Aaron is correct.