Tag Archive | Arminianism

The Damnation of Little Infants?

Spurgeon, “Misrepresentations of Calvinism:”

Larbert Old Church Graveyard, Baby Headstone“Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinists proper, is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere, in some corner of the earth, a miscreant who would dare to say that there were infants in hell, but I have never met with him, nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person. We say, with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little, and, therefore, where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically. But I think I speak for the entire body, or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions, and those unknown to me, when I say, we hold that all infants are elect of God and are therefore saved, and we look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree, and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus, who said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” doth daily and constantly receive into his loving arms those tender ones who are only shown, and then snatched away to heaven.”

Source: http://thecripplegate.com/theologians-on-infant-salvation/

Arminianism And Infant Salvation

Post mortem image baby cabinet card c.1885 courtesy Fawn Weir

BB Warfield:

“If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway”

~(Two Studies on the History of Doctrine, 230)

Source: http://thecripplegate.com/theologians-on-infant-salvation/

We Do Not Limit Christ’s Atonement

Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin by George S. Stuart“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer ‘No.’ They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say ‘No; Christ has died that any man may be saved *if’— and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, *No, my dear sir, it is YOU that do it.’ We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but ARE saved, MUST be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything BUT saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”

~Charles Spurgeon

Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/87650-Why-does-Limited-Atonement-Matter, Comment #4

Not a Saving Mercy Indeed

David Clarkson (Select Works, 420-421):

Giovanni di Paolo 003They ascribe to him a will of universal salvation; when they discern it can be no other than a mere velleity, an incomplete intention, a weak, ineffectual desire, a faint and fruitless wishing of such general happiness, when he knows it will never be effected, and is resolved not to take the course to effect it. This is such a mercy, as jostles out and clashes with his other perfections, and is inconsistent with his knowledge, power, sincerity, wisdom, blessedness, and mercy itself in the true notion of it.

With his knowledge; for who will desire and design that, which he knows will never be effected? With his power; for who will not effect that, which he really intends and designs, if he be able? With his sincerity; for what ingenuous person will pretend to desire and design that which he never means to bring about? With his wisdom; for who will propose to himself an end, and never intend the means which are proper, and alone sufficient to obtain it? With his blessedness; for to fall short continually of what one desires and intends, is an unhappiness. With the nature of Divine mercy and goodness; for that is not real goodness, which does no good, or not the good it makes show of. That is not saving mercy indeed, which leaves the objects of it miserable, when it can relieve them; that wishes them well, but lets them perish eternally. But that which they ascribe to God, is such a mercy, as can well digest the everlasting misery of all mankind: such a love, such a goodness, as could be satisfied, if not one person in the world should be saved.

Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/universal-will-salvation-destroys-mercy-83253/, Comment #1 (Thank You, Reverend Winzer!)

Clever Arminius

1187339_85389071“Questions about Arminius’ doctrine arose as early as 1590… By 1596, after studying Romans chapter 9, he concluded that… God has willed to accept those who seek acceptance with Him by faith. This was a clever move. He appeared to be defending justification by faith all the while redefining the doctrine of election and the definition of faith… Confessional pastors and theologians in the Netherlands and elsewhere began to sound the alarm. Dialogues were conducted and Arminius said the right things… Despite swirling doubts, the regents of the University of Leiden appointed Arminius to professor of theology. Almost immediately, Arminius was controversial. He was reported to teach that God elects those whom he foreknows would believe. He also raised questions about the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works. In public, however, Arminius went out of his way to agree with his orthodox colleagues.”

Read the complete quote and more: http://heidelblog.net/2014/04/the-canons-of-dordt/

No Confidence in Arminians

Interesting food for thought:


Sandcastle sculpture (4856466479)They are Arminians to a man; they deny the absolute sovereignty of God, his eternal choice of an elect people, and that Christ bore their sins only. They deny the total depravity of man, for they insist that he possesses a free will and can accept Christ and be saved by a decision of his own; thus directly repudiating God’s word, as found in John 1:13; 6;44; 8:36; Rom 9:16, and other passages. And where any teacher or preacher is unsound on these basic truths, no confidence must be placed on him on any other subject. If he is all wrong at the foundations, his superstructure is bound to be faulty.

~ A . W. Pink – Letter to Lowell Green August 19, 1934

Source: http://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/avoiding-arminian-preachers/

Man’s So-Called Free Will

JohnNelsonDarby

“This re-appearance of the doctrine of freewill serves to support that of the pretension of the natural man to be not irremediably fallen, for this is what such doctrine tends to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all persons in whom this conviction is based on gross external sins, believe more or less in freewill.” – Man’s So-Called Freewill, John Nelson Darby

Source: http://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/mans-so-called-freewill/