Saturday, January 02, 2010

The heresy of Classical Arminianism

[continued from here]

... Therefore this Synod of Dordt in the name of the Lord pleads with all who devoutly call on the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to form their judgment about the faith of the Reformed churches, not on the basis of false accusations gathered from here or there, or even on the basis of the personal statements of a number of ancient and modern authorities — statements which are also often either quoted out of context or misquoted and twisted to convey a different meaning — but on the basis of the churches' own official confessions and of the present explanation of the orthodox teaching which has been endorsed by the unanimous consent of the members of the whole Synod, one and all.

Moreover, the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers. ...

(Conclusion, in the Canons of the Synod of Dordt)

Classical Arminianism refers to the belief system of the Remonstrants, especially as codified in the Remonstrant Articles and Opinions. Her founder, James Arminius, did not always share the same view as what Classical Arminianism in the Remonstrants taught — as seen most notably in Arminius' uncertainty regarding the doctrine of Eternal Security [1], while the Remonstrants rejected it outright [2]. This must be seen as the slow [d]evolution of Classical Arminian theology, from Arminius who started off rejecting parts of Reformational theology, followed by the Classical Arminianism of the Remonstrants, and then on to later Remonstrants like Limborch with a steady drift leftwards.

Among the declension of ArminianismS, there would most definitely be a variety of views of what exactly each Arminian believes. For Classical Arminianism however, such a system must be defined especially by the Arminianism formed around the time of the Synod of Dordt, and expressed most notably in the Remonstrant Articles and Opinions, the confessional statements that were "squeezed" out of the Remonstrants (who through being ambivalent were not forthcoming with their views and tried as much as possible to forestall a synod being convened to examine their views, even though they were creating havoc in the Dutch Reformed churches [3] ).

In the Remonstrant Opinions, a Remonstrant creedal statement was obtained from the Remonstrants "only with difficulty" [4]. In this creedal statement, the doctrines of Classical Arminianism were properly delineated, and their distinctive parts shown as follows [5]:

(1) Partial depravity
(Therefore God has not with this plan created in the one Adam all men in a state of rectitude, has not ordained the fall and the permission of it, has not withdrawn from Adam the grace which was necessary and sufficient, ... –The Remonstrant Opinions A3. Bold added.)

(2) Conditional election
(The election of particular persons is decisive, out of consideration of faith in Jesus Christ and of perseverance; not, however, apart from a consideration of faith and perseverance in the true faith, as a condition prerequisite for electing. –The Remonstrant Opinions A7. Bold added.)

(3) Universal Atonement
(The price of redemption which Christ offered to God the Father is not only in itself and by itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race but has also been paid for all men and for every man, according to the decree, will, and the grace of God the Father; therefore no one is absolutely excluded from participation in the fruits of Christ’s death by an absolute and antecedent decree of God. –The Remonstrant Opinions B1. Bold added.)

(4) Resistible Grace
(The efficacious grace by which anyone is converted is not irresistible; and though God so influences the will by the word and the internal operation of His Spirit that he both confers the strength to believe or supernatural powers, and actually causes man to believe – yet man is able of himself to despise that grace and not to believe, and therefore to perish through his own fault. –The Remonstrant Opinions C5. Bold added.)

(5) Conditional perseverance in the faith
(True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish. –The Remonstrant Opinions D4. Bold added.)

The errors of Classical Arminianism are many. Besides the errors stated above, its humanistic slant is seen especially in the work of Grotius for example [6]. Classical Arminianism also has a problem with the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in the doctrine of imputation (by making faith credited as righteousness instead of Christ's righteousness imputed as our righteousness) [7].

The concepts of Justification and Imputation is linked to the doctrine of sin and depravity, and ultimately to the Gospel. This is one of the the reasons why Classical Arminianism is serious heresy, because they explicitly undermine a key tenet of the Gospel: that of the sinfulness of Man.

The Remonstrant Opinions revealed that Classical Arminianism taught the error of Partial Depravity. In his polemic against Arminianism as it reared its ugly head in England, the Puritan scholar John Owen produced a booklet entitled A Display of Arminianism [8] to combat this heresy. Quoting from the Classical Arminians of his day and refuting their arguments, Owen has incidentally given us a window into what these Classical Arminians taught.

In his book, Owen devoted a chapter Of Original Sin [9] to examining the doctrine of sin and imputation held to by the Classical Arminians, where Classical Arminianism's doctrine of the non-imputation of sin is shown.

Quoting the Arminian Venator, it was said that "Infants are simply in that estate in which Adam was before his fall, ..." (p. 70). Boraeus states that "Adam sinned in his own proper person, and there is no reason why God should impute that sin of his unto infants" (p. 72). Corvinus affirmed that "That it is absurd, that by one man's disobedience many should be made actually disobedient" (p. 73). In the Remonstrant Apology, they have even said that "We confess that the sin of Adam may be thus far said to be imputed to his posterity, inasmuch as God would have them all born obnoxious to that punishment which Adam incurred by his sin, or permitted that evil which was inflicted on him to descend on them" [10], and "We account not original sin for a sin properly so called, that should make the posteriority of Adam to deserve of Adam to deserve the wrath of God, nor for an evil that may properly be called a punishment, but only for an infirmity of nature" [11].

All of these evidences Owen collected and deduced their view of original sin. Original sin as historically defined is the imputation of Adam's sin unto the whole human race without respect to the actual sinning of anyone - this the Classical Arminians deny. Rather, especially as seen in the case of infants, infants are born without the stain of original sin (guilt). Through the use of the concept of "prevenient grace", all infants are stated to be born without the guilt of sin. As Owen states, the Classical Arminians redefine Original Sin to mean "a defect of nature, and not of this or that particular person" (p. 73).

Therefore, in Classical Arminianism, all men are born with an "original sin nature" (thus an "infirmity of nature"), but without "original guilt". Sin is genetic rather than federal, transmitted but not imputed. Infants therefore are said to be actually sinless but possessing a sinful nature, and it is from this errant notion that the entire Arminian notion of "an age of accountability" is derived, not to mention the teaching that infants by default go to heaven.

On the topic of sin, justification and imputation then lies a most pernicous error in Classical Arminianism, which makes it heresy. It is not simply a denial of Predestination that makes Classical Arminianism heresy, but its denial of Original Guilt, the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin etc which stands behind their teaching of Partial Depravity, which makes it heresy indeed.

In the next section, we would do some comparisons with Evangelical Arminianism to see the differences between these two which are often confused with each other, and see why Evangelical Arminianism is EVANGELICAL and thus orthodox, while Classical Arminianism is not.


References:

[1] James Arminius (1560 - 1609), The Works of James Arminius, vol. 1, 2.5.6 A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius on: The Assurance of Salvation. Accessed on CCEL.

[2] Appendix H — The Remonstrant Opinions D4, as cited in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt 1618-1619 (Grandville, MI, USA: Reformed Fellowship, 1968, 2008), p. 267

[3] Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches, pp. 50- 51, 148-149

[4] Introduction in Appendix H — The Opinions of the Remonstrants, in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), p. 261

[5] Appendix H — The Opinions of the Remonstrants, in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), pp. 261-268.

[6] Marten H. Woudstra, The Synod and Bible Translation, in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), pp. 132-134.

[7] Louis Praamsa, The Background of the Arminian Controversy (1586 - 1618), in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), p. 48, states:

Arminias interpreted the doctrine [of justification] as teaching that man is justified before God not on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ but by the human act of believing which constituted his righteousness before God.

In his book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL, USA: IVP Academic, 2006), pp. 200-220, Roger E. Olsen tried to spin Arminius' teaching by saying that Arminius cannot mean this because he contradicted himself by stating an orthodox formulation elsewhere. This of course begs the question why one must read it in a Olsen's manner instead of the other way round, especially since some of the later Arminians interpret Arminius' phrase "faith imputed for righteousness" as precisely the error that human faith is considered as righteousness in God's sight, as Olsen himself admits (ie. Philip Limborch, Richard Watson, William Burton Pope, H. Orton Wiley). Despite Olsen's spin, the historical facts are unequivocal that Classical Arminianism is in error at this point.

[8] John Owen, A Display of Arminianism — A Discovery of the Old Pelagian Idol Free-Will, with the New Goddess Contingency, Advancing Themselves into the Throne of the God of Heaven, to the Prejudice of His Grace, Providence, and Supreme Dominion over the Children of Men (Originally published in 1644; Dahlonega, Georgia, USA: Crown Rights Book Company, Reprinted 1999)

[9] Owen, Chapter VII Of Original Sin and the Corruption of nature, pp. 68 - 82

[10] As quoted in Owen, p. 74

"Fatemur peccatum Adami, a Deo posse dici imputatum posteris ejus, quatenus Deus posteros Adami eidem malo, cui Adamus per peccatum obnoxium se reddidit, obnoxios nasci voluit; sive quatenus Deus, malum, quod Adamo inflictum erat in poenam, in posteros ejus dimanare et transire permisit." — Rem. Apol. p. 84

[11] As quoted in Owen, p. 75

"Peccatum itaque originale nec habent pro peccato proprie dicto, quod posteros Adami odio Dei dignos faciat, nec prop malo, quod per modum proprie dictae poenae ab Adamo in posteros dimanet sed pro infirmitate," etc. — Rem. Apol. fol. 84

26 comments:

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Pretty poorly-researched and uncharitable post. You conflate depravity with guilt, which are distinct concepts, since total depravity doesn't necessarily imply original guilt. It's also rather slanderous and unchristian to label people as 'heretics' for disbelieving an unscriptural myth such as original guilt.

PuritanReformed said...

J.C.:

you have not provided proof to the contrary. Instead, you astonishinngly claim that "total depravity doesn't imply original guilt", something which anyone who reads and understands the Canons of Dordt (the definitive confession on the definition of Total Depravity) will find at the least amusing. It is furthermore not slanderous and unchristian to call actual heresy heresy.

I challenge you to prove any of your false allegations, including your charge that "original guilt" is a myth in light of the plain teachings of Scripture especially Rom. 5.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

PR,

"...something which anyone who reads and understands the Canons of Dordt (the definitive confession on the definition of Total Depravity) will find at the least amusing."

I'm speaking of the scripturally derived definition, as well as its linguistic denotation, not some blowhard synod's misrepresenations/misinterpretations.


It is furthermore not slanderous and unchristian to call actual heresy heresy.

That's the point: It cannot be scripturally shown to be heresy, therefore the point that your rhetoric is slanderous and unchristian stands.


I challenge you to prove any of your false allegations, including your charge that "original guilt" is a myth in light of the plain teachings of Scripture especially Rom. 5.

Here's a clue about how logic works: The burden is of proof, not disproof. I don't have to prove the negative in the face of insufficient evidence for a claim.

Romans 5 states nothing about original guilt anywhere. Rather, the burden of proof is on you to show where [you think] it does.

PuritanReformed said...

J.C.:

>I'm speaking of the scripturally derived definition, as well as its linguistic denotation, not some blowhard synod's misrepresenations/misinterpretations

Look, you don't have the right to redefine historically defined concepts. Live with it. Total Depravity includes the concept of inputed sin and thur original guilt.

>It cannot be scripturally shown to be heresy, therefore the point that your rhetoric is slanderous and unchristian stands.

I can prove that it is, so therefore your rhetoric which comes with no citations whatsoever is slanderous and unchristian.

>The burden is of proof, not disproof. I don't have to prove the negative in the face of insufficient evidence for a claim.

Well, the biblical proof is overwhelming. Regardless, you are the one who claimed that the post is "poorly-researched and uncharitable", so the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. Seeing that I have cited important historical works and documents on this topic, you should do the same at the very least.

>Romans 5 states nothing about original guilt anywhere

Well, I guess Paul was writing gibberish in Rom. 5:17-19 then

For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:17-19)

J.C. Thibodaux said...

Look, you don't have the right to redefine historically defined concepts.

Neither you, nor any kangaroo-court council, have the right to equivocate terms:

Depravity: noun, Moral corruption or degradation.

Guilt: noun, the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability.

An old equivocation is still an equivocation: depravity is inarguably a distinct concept from guilt. Chalk up yet another critical failure in understanding for Dordt.


I can prove that it is

No, you can't, as I will unequivocally show.


...so therefore your rhetoric which comes with no citations whatsoever is slanderous and unchristian.

That's a non-sequitur, since pointing out inane accusations supported only by lack of valid evidence doesn't require citations to be valid.


Well, the biblical proof is overwhelming.

No, it isn't, as there isn't a single text in the Bible that establishes such a claim.


Regardless, you are the one who claimed that the post is "poorly-researched and uncharitable", so the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.

(?) Why would I want to show otherwise than what I've claimed?


Well, I guess Paul was writing gibberish in Rom. 5:17-19 then

Not at all. We do die through Adam's disobedience, due to the fact that his sinful nature is passed to each of us, which causes us to sin, by which we incur spiritual death.

Adam's sin -> sinful nature passed to descendants -> descendants sin -> descendants die spiritually

This understanding is plainly established in the context of the passage, which states nothing about our death being due to inherited guilt, but clearly says,

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-" (Rom 5:12) [Emphasis mine]

PuritanReformed said...

J.C.:

What a bunch of ad-hominem insults. Really, is that how you Arminians defend your error?

>An old equivocation is still an equivocation: depravity is inarguably a distinct concept from guilt. Chalk up yet another critical failure in understanding for Dordt.

Wow, you really are adamant in REDEFINING historically defined terms. So what if depravity is not semantically the same as guilt? The fact of the matter is that if depravity IS total, then the whole man is affected, including his will and moral sense. Total depravity implies that Man has no free will to choose good at all, if not for God regenerating Man. Original guilt is a necessary corollary of Total depravity. Since depravity is total, therefore original sin must exists. Since original sin exists, therefore there is original guilt.

Regardless, you are ignoring the historical usage of the term. I guess I should be expecting that from Arminians, who from the beginning in Arminius were devious in hiding their heresy, and the Remonstrants were using the political machinery in an attempt to hold off a council to meet (which thanks be to God was unsuccessful), knowing that the meeting of a council would result in their doctrines being held to the light of Scripture and hence shown to be erroneous.

>pointing out inane accusations supported only by lack of valid evidence doesn't require citations to be valid.

Look, you are the ones making wild accusations without proof. I substantiate my points with research, whereas you don't.

>Not at all. We do die through Adam's disobedience, due to the fact that his sinful nature is passed to each of us, which causes us to sin, by which we incur spiritual death.

The eisegesis is breathtaking.

>"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-" (Rom 5:12) [Emphasis mine]

I guess I expected this eisegetical distortion of the text. The argument in the text goes as follows:

Premise 1: Sin entered the world through one man
Premise 2: all sinned
Conclusion: Death came to all men

Expanding the argument:

Implicit premise 1a: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)
Intermediate conclusion 1a: If and only if sin is real, then death must occur.
Premise 1: Sin entered the world through one man
Intermediate conclusion 1b: If and only if sin entered the world through one man, then death must occur.
Imcplicit premise 1c: If sin entered the world through one man, then all have sinned
Intermediate conclusion 1c: If and only if all have sinned, then death must have came to all men.
Premise 2: All sinned
Conclusion: Death came to all men.

The whole argument of Rom.5 :12 does not support your eisegetical reading, as a logical analysis of the text shows. You are reading your false theology of Arminianism into the text of Scripture.

Flowing from this passage, Paul continued to show that the "many died through one man's trespass" (v. 15), and that "because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man" (v. 17), thus showing forth that all men died in Adam as their federal head.

If you deny that contrary to the express teaching of Scripture, given the parrallelism made between Adam and Christ, then you should logically deny that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. If Adam's guilt is not imputed to men, then Christ's righteousness is not imputed to Christians. If only "sinful nature" is given to sinners from Adam, then I guess Christ's "righteous nature" is infused into Christians. So much for the evangelical teaching of Justification by Faith Alone in your system.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

PR,

Wow, you really are adamant in REDEFINING historically defined terms.

Dordt doesn't 'define' anything, since it holds no authority in Christ's church.


So what if depravity is not semantically the same as guilt?

Because that's the issue we're discussing, if you'll recall. In admitting this, you've already conceded that your 'historical' equivocation fundamentally violates and conflates the very definitions of the terms.


Original guilt is a necessary corollary of Total depravity. Since depravity is total, therefore original sin must exists.

That still doesn't follow. Why must inherited guilt exist for total depravity to exist?


The eisegesis is breathtaking.

Typical response when one is unable to deal with the actual data.


Conclusion: Death came to all men.

And how exactly would this syllogism relate to inherited guilt? Death coming to all men is a given -- because they sinned (Romans 3:23, 5:12).


...as a logical analysis of the text shows.

What are you talking about? You've not demonstrated either how my reading is supposedly 'eisegetic' or how it runs contrary to a logical analysis of the text.


...thus showing forth that all men died in Adam as their federal head.

This is of course a massive leap of logic, since the text states nothing about a 'federal head,' and is the text is quite in line with the contextualized interpretation I offered.


...you should logically deny that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

Which doesn't imply inherited guilt, since spiritual death is through identification with Adam (via sin), whereas righteousness is through identification with Christ (through faith).


If Adam's guilt is not imputed to men, then Christ's righteousness is not imputed to Christians.

Per above, this again is a non-sequitur.


If only "sinful nature" is given to sinners from Adam, then I guess Christ's "righteous nature" is infused into Christians. So much for the evangelical teaching of Justification by Faith Alone in your system.

Quite a reach, since the means of incurring death and life are quite different (works of iniquity vs faith), in spite of the parallelism that does exist. As pointed out above, we do incur (rather than automatically inherit) Adam's same spiritual death by identification with him, rendering the rest of your diatribe all the more absurd.


Look, you are the ones making wild accusations without proof.

As I've already shown, your own accusations of heresy are scripturally untenable. That is hardly making a statement 'without proof.' You, on the other hand, are relying upon deficient exegesis to hurl utterly inane charges of heresy at Christians.


I substantiate my points with research, whereas you don't.

Your 'research' is laden with fallacy, which doesn't take a whole lot of effort to readily expose as being both contra-scripture and contra-logic.


What a bunch of ad-hominem insults.

Where exactly have I hurled insults at you? Are you simply posturing?


Bottom line is, depravity is not the same thing as guilt; the mumblings of defunct councils can't change reality. And all men die spiritually because all men sin,

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..."

You can call it eisegesis all you like, it's what the word of God says.

PuritanReformed said...

J.C.:

>Dordt doesn't 'define' anything, since it holds no authority in Christ's church.

On the contrary, Dordt is THE definite statement in the Church of Christ against the heresy of Arminianism. Delegates from all the Protestant churches with the exception of the Lutherans and the Frech (due to political reasons) attended this great synod and unaminously denounced Armnianism as heresy which resurrected the error of Pelagius from the pits of hell itself. Your score for historical theology: Fail!

>In admitting this, you've already conceded that your 'historical' equivocation fundamentally violates and conflates the very definitions of the terms

You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension! Conceptual inclusion is not the same as semantic inclusion. Using your strange reasoning, women are not homo sapiens, since calling women homo sapiens is a form of equivocation! After all, where in the definition of either women or homo sapiens is the one defined by the other?

>Why must inherited guilt exist for total depravity to exist?

Your question is analogous to asking the question why absolute non-reflection of light must exist in order for blackness to be totally black.

>What are you talking about? You've not demonstrated either how my reading is supposedly 'eisegetic' or how it runs contrary to a logical analysis of the text.

In other words, you refuse to address the logical syllogism in Rom. 5:12 as eluicidated to you.


>This is of course a massive leap of logic, since the text states nothing about a 'federal head,' and is the text is quite in line with the contextualized interpretation I offered.

Your "contextualized interpretation" is acontextual and irrational. You have not even addressed the logical syllogism in Rom. 5: 12. Mere mockery and dismissal show the abysmal failure of Arminian eisegesis.


>Which doesn't imply inherited guilt, since spiritual death is through identification with Adam (via sin), whereas righteousness is through identification with Christ (through faith).

...and you go on to miss the entire argument altogether. Question: how does someone become righteous? Define "identification with Christ". In what manner do we "identify with Christ"? Does Christ save us through a moral governmental theory of the atonement, and thus we "identify" with him in that manner?

If you believe in the moral governmental theory, then your problem is not merely that you are an Arminian, but worse; much worse.

If however you believe in a substitutionary atonement, then righteousness must either come through imputation or infusion - your choice. The latter incidentally is the position of Rome, just FYI.

Or do you have some other scheme? If so, please elucidate.

PuritanReformed said...

[cont]

>Your 'research' is laden with fallacy, which doesn't take a whole lot of effort to readily expose as being both contra-scripture and contra-logic.

You have been repeating this verbiage ad nauseum, all without any proof whatsoever. Methinks you have no idea what you are talking about.


>As I've already shown, your own accusations of heresy are scripturally untenable. That is hardly making a statement 'without proof.' You, on the other hand, are relying upon deficient exegesis to hurl utterly inane charges of heresy at Christians


Of course, you have NOT 1) Prove the exegesis deficient, 2) Prove the charges inane, 3) Prove that they are scripturally untenable, 4) PRove that [Classical] Arminians are Christians. Instead, all we are treated to are a bucketload of ipse dixit screed of "you're wrong and you're wrong because you're wrong". Now, how about proving any of your baseless charges for once?

>You can call it eisegesis all you like, it's what the word of God says.

Well, let's see. One side provides the scholarship and citations, and then provides the exegesis of verses like Rom. 5:12. The other side merely insists that the post is poor scholarship, claims that the Scriptures teaches their doctrines and insist it does without ANY exegesis of ANY kind, and when asked to substantiate their charges, repeat their baseless charges ad infinitum ad nauseum, as if mere repetition of ipse dixit charges would make them stick.

If this is the standard of Arminian biblical interpretation and scholarship, please pardon for me for not taking it seriously. I'll rather follow the plain teachings of Scriptures and treasure the doctrines of the historic Evangelical, Protestant and Reformed Christian faith then abandon it for humanistic reasoning such as yours.

PuritanReformed said...

I have just written a new post giving a detailed exegesis of Rom. 5:12-19. That would be all

J.C. Thibodaux said...

PR,

...Dordt is THE definite statement in the Church of Christ against the heresy of Arminianism.

Wrong again, scripture is the church's authority, not some temporal council. Dordt is no more applicable to the church than the Council of Constance, and was about as just, since they wouldn't even give the accused occasion to defend themselves.

He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him. (Prov 18:13)

Thus, we have scriptural proof that the pronouncements of Dordt themselves weren't scriptural. You stand with your malevolently violent persecutors of the brethren and their godless judgments, I'll stand on the word of God and facts, thanks.


Conceptual inclusion is not the same as semantic inclusion.

Of course, but there is no conceptually necessary tie between depravity and guilt. A person who is depraved can't be charged with a crime that he hasn't actually committed, because the two are distinct concepts. Hence conflating the two is still equivocation. Also, where exactly did Dordt define the term 'depravity' to include 'guilt?'


>Why must inherited guilt exist for total depravity to exist?

Your question is analogous to asking the question why absolute non-reflection of light must exist in order for blackness to be totally black.


You're not substantiating or even explaining this defense. How?


In other words, you refuse to address the logical syllogism in Rom. 5:12 as eluicidated to you.
...
You have not even addressed the logical syllogism in Rom. 5: 12.

I did if you'll recall. "And how exactly would this syllogism relate to inherited guilt? Death coming to all men is a given -- because they sinned (Romans 3:23, 5:12)." You have to relate a syllogism to the argument for it to be considered, which you didn't do until the more recent post (see my reply to it).


Your "contextualized interpretation" is acontextual and irrational.

Which assertion you offer no support for. Funny that you keep projecting this tendency of yours onto what I say.


>Which doesn't imply inherited guilt, since spiritual death is through identification with Adam (via sin), whereas righteousness is through identification with Christ (through faith).

...and you go on to miss the entire argument altogether.


How? You're not explaining your reasoning.


Question: how does someone become righteous? Define "identification with Christ". In what manner do we "identify with Christ"?

Through faith in Christ, which God accounts to us as righteousness. I address this further in my reply to your recent post.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

(cont.)

...all we are treated to are a bucketload of ipse dixit screed of "you're wrong and you're wrong because you're wrong". Now, how about proving any of your baseless charges for once
...
The other side merely insists that the post is poor scholarship, claims that the Scriptures teaches their doctrines and insist it does without ANY exegesis of ANY kind...

Now I know you're posturing, since I directly did exegetically address this directly with the scriptural data near the end of my third post, which I repeat here:

We do die through Adam's disobedience, due to the fact that his sinful nature is passed to each of us, which causes us to sin, by which we incur spiritual death.

Adam's sin -> sinful nature passed to descendants -> descendants sin -> descendants die spiritually

This understanding is plainly established in the context of the passage, which states nothing about our death being due to inherited guilt, but clearly says,

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-" (Rom 5:12)



you have NOT 1) Prove the exegesis deficient

Given the lack of any sort of scriptural indication of Adam's guilt being unconditionally imputed to us, and the idea of Adam's sin being proximate cause of our spiritual death having no contextual support, and my disarming your various polemical devices, I evidently have.


2) Prove the charges inane

And since the exegesis in fact is fatally flawed, then charges of heresy based upon people rejecting your preferred exegesis can be nothing but inane.


3) Prove that they are scripturally untenable

Which is the reason that 1) is proven.


4) PRove that [Classical] Arminians are Christians

Your logic fails yet again. Since the fact remains that you're the one leveling charges that confessing Christians are really heretics, therefore the burden of proof is upon you, the accuser, to prover your charges; not the defense to prove otherwise.


You also didn't answer my question: Where exactly have I been hurling insults at you?

PuritanReformed said...

J.C.:

I will address the scriptural points in the other post too.

>Wrong again, scripture is the church's authority, not some temporal council. Dordt is no more applicable to the church than the Council of Constance, and was about as just, since they wouldn't even give the accused occasion to defend themselves.


Your reasoning is the EXACT same reasoning given by the Aryans against the Council of Nicea, and just as errant. Dordt is right because it is scriptural. That said, because the Canons ARE scriptural, Dordt is autoritative over the Church of Christ.

Your accusation that "they did not give the accused the right to defend themselves" is false historically. The Remonstrant party led by Simon Episcopius was given ample time to defend themselves, but all they did was obfuscate the issues and did all they can to stall the work of the Synod. Johannes Uytenbogaert chickened out and fled before the Synod even convened, while Conrad Vorstius was so outrightly polemical and heretical that even the moderate Arminian-leaning King James I detested him, and thus he was expelled from Holland early in the controversy.


>You stand with your malevolently violent persecutors of the brethren and their godless judgments, I'll stand on the word of God and facts, thanks.

What a load of revisionism. You can continue posturing, while the actual fact is that the Word of God is on my side and that of the Reformed Protestant churches, while you are free to stand with the heretics of Christ's church.

>Hence conflating the two is still equivocation

Continue posturing. You show your ignorance of historical theology the more you do.

>Also, where exactly did Dordt define the term 'depravity' to include 'guilt?

Your show forth your ignorance of the Canons. Just because the word is not used doe not mean the concept is not taught.

First main point
Article 1
Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death ...

Third and Fourth main points
Article 3
Therefore, all people ... are born children of wrath

PuritanReformed said...

[cont]

>You're not substantiating or even explaining this defense. How?


By definition. Examine the analogy preperly. As I have said, the term "Total Depravity" is defined historically to mean something, and it is not up to you or anyone else to re-define it.

>Since the fact remains that you're the one leveling charges that confessing Christians are really heretics, therefore the burden of proof is upon you, the accuser, to prover your charges; not the defense to prove otherwise

And I have. You however have not refuted my proof, unless you count ipse dixit argumentations as "proof".


>Where exactly have I been hurling insults at you?

OK, I have checked out the previous comment. Besides the charges of "unchristian" and "slanderous", I guess I over-reacted. Sorry.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

PR,

The Remonstrant party led by Simon Episcopius was given ample time to defend themselves...

They were not given either ample nor due means, due to the duplicity of the Synod itself.

Having presented to the synod their opinions relative to the Five Points and their remarks on the Catechism and Confession, the Remonstrants wished to enter on the "proposing, explanation, and defense of them, as far as they were able or should think necessary," according to the very terms of the letters by which they had been cited; but the synod, in opposition to the plain and obvious meaning which those expressions conveyed, decided that it was a privilege belonging to themselves alone to judge how far the Remonstrants might be permitted to enter into the explanation and defense of their doctrines.
...
Finding this great aversion in the synod to the precedence of reprobation, the Remonstrants proposed, since they were forbidden to explain or defend their sentiments viva voce, "to explain their doctrines in writing, beginning with the article of election, and proceeding to that of reprobation; to defend their doctrines, and to refute the contrary opinions of the Contra-Remonstrants and of those whom they consider orthodox: but that, in case this explanation or defense seems to be defective, they would answer in writing the questions which the president might think proper to propose to them, or in oral communications by those of their body whom they might judge best qualified for that purpose. And that the liberty which they desired might not appear unlimited, they bound themselves to proceed in such a manner as should not savor in the least of an insolent licentiousness: and that their discussions might not be extended too far, the lay commissioners were empowered to curtail them at pleasure." But these very equitable terms, which were much worse than those which the unsophisticated and grammatical sense of the citatory letters held out to them, were rejected by the synod, at the instigation and by the management of the president, who, after having had recourse to his old trick of propounding questions to each of the cited persons, and after procuring against them three or four synodical censures, had them at length, (Jan. 14th,) dismissed from the synod, with every mark of contumely and scorn which he could invent.
(Watson, R. Synod of Dort)

Hardly adequate provision to defend one's self. That's not justice, that's self-serving partiality exemplified.

(cont.)

J.C. Thibodaux said...

(cont.)

Dordt is right because it is scriptural.

Easily shown to be untrue. One of the canons states concerning those who reject inevitable perseverance,

"By this gross error they make God changeable..." ('Rejection of Errors,' VI)

Yet this is easily shown to be nonsensical, since God is perfectly capable of revoking a covenant promise to an unfaithful party, yet He Himself still remain unchanging, since the conditionality is inherent to the covenant promise. This Synod was not only scripturally deficient, but logically incoherent in their reasoning with the same, further solidifying its utter irrelevance to the church.


Your reasoning is the EXACT same reasoning given by the Aryans against the Council of Nicea

You'll have to do better than spurious correlation, since I'm no Arian (or Aryan for that matter) and Dordt was no Nicaea. It's been noted that the members of that Synod were already well-known opposition to Arminianism (making an impartial hearing all but impossible); also of note was the fact that Protestant Churches of Prussia, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and many of the minor German states weren't invited at all (Bangs, C.; Introduction to the Works of Arminius). Such attempts to stack the deck with partial judges, all the while excluding major portions of Protestantism hardly amount to anything comparable to an actual church council. To cite Dordt as some sort of 'authority' is little more than saying, "Look! Some of the most vocal anti-Arminians from specific segments of Europe were selectively gathered so they could put on some pretense of a trial and declare Arminianism to be heresy!" I've seen more authoritative pronouncements in Sunday bulletins.


Continue posturing. You show your ignorance of historical theology the more you do.

Wow, more projection. Since you can't deal with the actual data, all do is wildly claim that I'm ignorant, driving my point home.


Just because the word is not used doe not mean the concept is not taught.

But here we were discussing the term 'total depravity,' remember? So if you cite Dordt as the authority in defining the term, yet if Dordt never did define the term, then you've already lost.


>You're not substantiating or even explaining this defense. How?

By definition. Examine the analogy preperly.


I did; arguments from analogy are generally too weak to be viable since analogies inevitably break down, and yours doesn't explain anything. So answer the question: Why must inherited guilt exist for total depravity to exist? What inherent principle[s] would make it comparable to non-reflection and blackness?


As I have said, the term "Total Depravity" is defined historically...

So if Dordt didn't define the term, then who did? Sorry, depravity is depravity, guilt is guilt, and a bunch of people wanting to blend them or confusing them doesn't change the distinction.


>...the burden of proof is upon you, the accuser, to prover your charges; not the defense to prove otherwise

And I have. You however have not refuted my proof, unless you count ipse dixit argumentations as "proof".


And again you fail to understand logic, since my defense doesn't require 'proof,' your accusations do. Thus all I need do is demonstrate that there's reasonable doubt to your accusations (the holes in your reasoning and lack of compelling scriptural evidence behind your charges serving quite adequately).


Besides the charges of "unchristian" and "slanderous", I guess I over-reacted. Sorry.

Thank-you for the clarification. For the record, the terms I used only describe the words' effect, not you personally (I do not believe you are consciously trying to slander other people).

PuritanReformed said...

J.C.:

since God is perfectly capable of revoking a covenant promise to an unfaithful party, yet He Himself still remain unchanging, since the conditionality is inherent to the covenant promise

Read the whole thing. This is what it says:

===

Who teach that not every election to salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it.

By this gross error they make God changeable, destroy the comfort of the godly concerning the steadfastness of their election, and contradict the Holy Scriptures, which teach that the elect cannot be led astray (Matt. 24:24), that Christ does not lose those given to him by the Father (John 6:39), and that those whom God predestined, called, and justified, he also glorifies (Rom. 8:30).
==

That is why I say that faith is not strictly a condition. I deny that there are any conditions in the Covenant of Grace.

was the fact that Protestant Churches of Prussia, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and many of the minor German states weren't invited at all

What do you mean by Prussia? I am not that knowledgeable about historical geography, but I do know that representatives from the German Reformed churches such as the Elector Palatinate, Hesse, and Nassu-Wetteravia were present. Lutherans (the Scandivanian countries) of course were not invited.


Such attempts to stack the deck with partial judges, all the while excluding major portions of Protestantism hardly amount to anything comparable to an actual church council.

The only Protestant group that were not invited are the Lutherans (for obvious reasons to those who know their church history). All others were invited. Just because the Lutheran nations occupy a larger land mass doe not make them "major portions of Protestantism".

To cite Dordt as some sort of 'authority' is little more than saying, "Look! Some of the most vocal anti-Arminians from specific segments of Europe were selectively gathered so they could put on some pretense of a trial and declare Arminianism to be heresy!"

All the Reformed churches were present including the Swiss and of course the Dutch (except for the French who could not came due to their king's prohibition), and the British reformers too. That made up all the non-Lutheran Protestants. I don't regard the fanatical Anabaptists and the Socinians to be Christian for that matter.

But here we were discussing the term 'total depravity,' remember? So if you cite Dordt as the authority in defining the term, yet if Dordt never did define the term, then you've already lost.

Just because Dordt did not use the term does not mean that some years later the term was not used to describe the doctrine. When the acronymn TULIP was used to describe the Canons of Dordt, then it is definitive.

Why must inherited guilt exist for total depravity to exist? What inherent principle[s] would make it comparable to non-reflection and blackness?

If there is no total non-reflection, then the object would not be seen to be absolutely black. So likewise, no imputed guilt means the person at birth is legally tabula rasa; not guilty of sin at all, and thus not totally depraved. And anyway, it is not inherited guilt, it imputed guilt. That you make such an error makes me wonder if you even understand the concept at all.

PuritanReformed said...

[cont]

And again you fail to understand logic, since my defense doesn't require 'proof,' your accusations do.

Utterly hilarious, coming from somebody who cannot even construct a proper logical syollogistic argument when discussing Rom. 5:12.

Face the facts - your grasp of logic is just as bad as your grasp of Scripture.

PuritanReformed said...

[cont]

They were not given either ample nor due means, due to the duplicity of the Synod itself

Duplicity? Who were the ones who were trying all thy can to avoid having their teachings examined by a synod? Oh yes, Arminius himself did all he could to avoid a synod at all. Here is what he himself says:

======
But I was deterred from adopting that method, on account of three inconveniences, of which I was afraid:

First, I was afraid that if I had made a profession of my sentiments,
the consequence would have been, that an inquiry would be instituted on the part of others, with regard to the manner in which an action might be framed against me from
those premises. Secondly, another cause of my fear, was, that such a statement of my opinions would have furnished matter for discussion and refutation, in the pulpits of the
Churches and the scholastic exercises of the Universities.
Thirdly, I was also afraid, that my opinions would have been transmitted to foreign Universities and churches, in hopes of obtaining from them a sentence of condemnation, and the means of oppressing me.
[James Arminius (1560 - 1609), The Works of James Arminius,
vol. 1, 2:1:8 A Declaration of the sentiments of Arminius on Revision of the Dutch Confession & Heidelberg Catechism,
My reasons for refusing a conference
]
======

Arminius himself didn't want a synod and did all he could to forestall one.

Speaking of duplicity, Arminius couldn't even give a straightfoward answer to questions regarding his orthodoxy. As written:

====
...we must agree with the charge ... that he [Arminius] was not free from a certain kind of duplicity. No matter how clearly his views represented a marked departure from the Reformed faith, he always hid himself under the cloak of orthodoxy. The verdict of Roger Nicole on Arminius cannot be contravened:

His attitude toward confessional standards was open to question, for a theologian of his caliber must have realized that there was a substantial rift between his views and the system of teaching as well as the express utterances of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. Nevertheless, he paraded under the flag of allegiance and under the vows of conformity from the time of his ordination to his death. He repeatedly promised not to teach anything from the pulpit or the university chair which might be out of eeping with the standards. Obviously, if he had done just that, it is unlikely that he would have been the center of such storms and the rallying point of a whole group of uneasy spirits, whose heterordoxy was often more pronounced that [sic] his own.
[Lois Praamsma, The Background of the Arminian Controversy, in Peter Y. De Jong, Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt 1618-1619, p. 46]
============

Teaching Arminianism while professing allegiance to a Calvinist confession of faith and catechism is devious deceitfulness. If you are convinced that Calvinism is error, you should at least have the integrity to say so instead of pretending allegiance to it!

PuritanReformed said...

[cont]

... (Watson, R. Synod of Dort)

What a load of historical revisionism! The Remonstrants have EIGHT YEARS from 1610 with the publishing of the Remonstrant Articles to the synod of Dordt to put forward their case. Instead, all they did was drag their feet on the issue. Even the Synod's request for a document containing their teachings on the disputed 5 points between the two parties resulted in the Remonstrants appearing a day later than scheduled, and the handling in of their Opinions to the Synod by the 34th sessions of the Synod. The Remonstrants dragged their feet even in their defence.

With such horrible behavior, it is a wonder they were not kicked out earlier.

As for the conduct of the Synod, guess what? When you are charged to appear before the synod you are supposed to present your case and persuade the delegates present of your case. AT NO TIME ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO ACT AS JUDICATORS OF YOUR OWN CASE! Worse still, you are the defence, NOT the prosecutor and should not act such! The Remonstrants arrogately thought of themselves that they could direct the way the synod was ran and that they accused were the reformed instead of them, instead of following the proper procedure. They were kicked out because of their arrogance and insubordination.

In the 57th session of the Synod of Dort, the president of the Synod kicked the Remonstrants out because of their deplorable conduct, saying:
You boast that many foreign divines did not refuse to grant your request. Their moderation arose from a misunderstanding. They now declare that they were deceivd by you. They say you are no longer worthy of being heard by the Synod. You may pretend what you please, but the great point of your obstinacy is that you regard the Synod as a party in the case. Thus you have long delayed us. You have been treated with all gentleness, friendliness, tolration, patience, and simplicity. Go as you came. You began with lies and you end with lies. You are full of fraud and double-dealing. You are not worthy that the Synod should treat wit you further. Depart! Leave! You began with a lie, with a lie you ended! Go!
(as cited in De Jong, p. 59)

The Remonstrants through their arrogance and insubordination caused themselves to be kicked out of Dordt - that is a fact no matter how much historical revisionism you Arminians do.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

PR,

Read the whole thing.

I did, I condensed it for brevity, which is irrelevant to my point.


What do you mean by Prussia?

Um...as in the country, 'Prussia.'


All others were invited.
...
All the Reformed churches were present

Not if churches of quite a number of nations weren't.


I don't regard the fanatical Anabaptists and the Socinians to be Christian for that matter.

You apparently don't know historical theology either, since far from all Anabaptists were fanatical.


Just because Dordt did not use the term does not mean that some years later the term was not used to describe the doctrine. When the acronymn TULIP was used to describe the Canons of Dordt, then it is definitive.

Which you have no logical/grammatical basis for proving. Thus, some people equivocating it for Dordt's understanding of original sin is hardly convincing evidence that depravity should now be considered guilt.


If there is no total non-reflection, then the object would not be seen to be absolutely black. So likewise, no imputed guilt means the person at birth is legally tabula rasa; not guilty of sin at all, and thus not totally depraved.

You miss the point yet again, what conceptual basis do you have for saying that 'not guilty' means 'not depraved?'

And anyway, it is not inherited guilt, it imputed guilt. That you make such an error makes me wonder if you even understand the concept at all.

So it didn't come from Adam? Are you even aware that more than one non-mutually-exclusive attribute can be ascribed to the same phenomenon?


> And again you fail to understand logic, since my defense doesn't require 'proof,' your accusations do.

Utterly hilarious, coming from somebody who cannot even construct a proper logical syollogistic argument when discussing Rom. 5:12.


And where exactly is my logic deficient? Also, you do realize that your appeal to the validity of another argument to address my statements here is the red-herring fallacy, right?


Who were the ones who were trying all thy can to avoid having their teachings examined by a synod?

Given the Dutch church's brand of 'justice,' this is hardly surprising.


...we must agree with the charge

Agreeing with a charge is hardly evidence.


"Obviously, if he had done just that, it is unlikely...

Very vague and conjecture-laden, lacking by way of specifics, making it somewhat irrelevant.


With such horrible behavior...

Please, your sophist and petty attempts at fault-finding are hardly an excuse for the Synod's abject tyranny, unchristian handling of their affairs, and outright subversion of religious liberty.


AT NO TIME ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO ACT AS JUDICATORS OF YOUR OWN CASE!

And in human courts, prosecutor and judge should not be the same party.


They were kicked out because of their arrogance and insubordination.

As the latter citation of Watson's makes clear, the Remonstrants were misled as far as how much liberty they were granted in their defense. Thus, Bogerman's little temper-tantrum can hardly be considered an accurate synopsis. In doing so, he sealed his little inquisition's status as an inconsequential, partial, and bigoted kangaroo-court.

PuritanReformed said...

Um...as in the country, 'Prussia.'

That's besides the point. I was asking its relation to states such as Hesse and the Elector Palatinate. I am not assuming that Prussia is necessarily synonymous with its succesor Germany.

Not if churches of quite a number of nations weren't

This is getting ridiculous. Italy, Austria, Spain and Russia were not represented in Dordt as well, if you want to be facetious. Which part of non-Lutheran Protestantism do you NOT understand?

You apparently don't know historical theology either, since far from all Anabaptists were fanatical

I give up. Using your own reasoning, the presence of a few true Christians in Roman Catholicism would make it truly Christian? Yes, not ALL Anabaptists are fanatics, but just because you can point out a few good one does not make the entire movement a peaceful one (read Zwiakau prophets and Munsterites)! And we are not talking about the descedents of the Anabaptists like the Mennonites, who learned from the mistakes of their fanatical forefathers.

Which you have no logical/grammatical basis for proving

I think it has been proven beyond doubt that you are the one who have no idea of historical theology, and I'll let others judge who has proved his case, and who is merely posturing. Arminians are lying when they claim they believe in Total Depravity while re-defining the term.

The Arminian Jack Cottrell says this about the doctrine of Total Depravity:
====
Second, every child is born guilty and condemned to hell apart from the grace of God that sovereignly intervenes for the elect alone.
(http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2008/03/cottrell-original-sin-or-original-grace.html)
===

Looks like even your fellow Arminian do not agree with you.

Are you even aware that more than one non-mutually-exclusive attribute can be ascribed to the same phenomenon?

So elucidate.

And where exactly is my logic deficient? Also, you do realize that your appeal to the validity of another argument to address my statements here is the red-herring fallacy, right?

It is red herring if I use it as an argument. I am not. I reject your "logic" because it is not even one bit logical. Who would ever thought that the burden of proof lies with the defence (me) than with the accuser (you), who comes into my blog accusing me of slander and unchristian behavior yet insists that the burden of proof is on me?

This is wasting my time anyway. If you still refuse to see it, I leave you to your postusing. Any unbiased prson can see that I have time and again substantiate my points, while you have not. The most you did was attempt to interpret Rom. 5:12-19, (and your revisionism of Dort is laugheable), but besides that you did not interact with all the other sources and arguments.

PuritanReformed said...

Please, your sophist and petty attempts at fault-finding are hardly an excuse for the Synod's abject tyranny, unchristian handling of their affairs, and outright subversion of religious liberty.

I reject your historical revisionism. You failed to even interact with the fact that Arminius himself was devious in professing to hold to the Calvinist confession but teaching his own Arminianism. The Remonstrants were arrogant, devious, deceitful, and outright duplicitious. The Synod was convened because these heretics were causing controversy within the churches, and didn't have the integrity to state their teachings clearly and leave the Reformed churches to form their own churches (they were finally forced to do so after the Synod). The Remonstrants were wicked people who seek to undermine the Churches of Christ. Even if Arminianism was right, their actions of subterfuge were deplorable, and no amount of calling Dordt a "kangeroo court" would help your cause.

The Remonstrants always have the religious liberty to form their own churches, instead of attempting to take over the Reformed churches through subterfuge. In fact, they did so only years after Dordt ended. You are lying when you say that Dordt subvert religious liberty when it did not. What Dordt was to stop the underhanded tactics the Remonstrants were using to subvert the entire Dutch Reformed churches.

PuritanReformed said...

Unless you have something new to add, not more posturing, this discussion is over.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

PR,

...Which part of non-Lutheran Protestantism do you NOT understand?

Again, hardly representative of the entire church, making Dordt thoroughly non-authoritative.


Arminians are lying when they claim they believe in Total Depravity while re-defining the term.

But they're not redefining the term, since you've been able to produce no concrete basis for equivocating 'depravity' with 'guilt.'


Looks like even your fellow Arminian do not agree with you.

Looks like you don't realize that I'm not a disciple of Arminius, I just happen to agree with him on some points.


It is red herring if I use it as an argument.

You were answering my statement,

"...since my defense doesn't require 'proof,' your accusations do"

So, lacking any coherent counter, your only defense is to try and shift focus, also known as a red-herring.


Who would ever thought that the burden of proof lies with the defence (me) than with the accuser (you), who comes into my blog accusing me of slander and unchristian behavior yet insists that the burden of proof is on me?

And thus you fully expose your sophistry, since you are in fact the accuser (accusing Classical Arminians of heresy), yet acting as if you're the victim when someone calls you on it.


You failed to even interact with the fact that Arminius himself was devious...

You fail to avoid using red-herrings again, since I was discussing Dordt, not Arminius.


The Remonstrants were arrogant, devious, deceitful, and outright duplicitious.

Unlikely. It's the Calvininsts who've traditionally played fast and loose with the facts about Arminians/Synergists. From Owen's stupidly implying that Arminians worship free will, to Sproul's repeated mischaracterizations of all synergists as 'Pelagian/Semipelagian,' Calvinists in general, even the very educated, have an awful history of showing lack of either comprehension and/or honesty when characterizing their theological opponents, and are thus are not reliable sources in the least.


The Remonstrants always have the religious liberty to form their own churches... You are lying when you say that Dordt subvert religious liberty when it did not.

Wrong again.

"Dort did not suppress all other religions other than Reformed. Holland tolerated the Pilgrims, the Lutherans, the Anabaptists, and even the Roman Catholics, although they were not to erect public places of worship." (S. Vandergugten, The Arminian Controversy and the Synod of Dort)

Even by the admission of Calvinists such as Vandergugten, the Dordtians were all-too-subject to the severe moral failings of their day with regards to persecution. It was the Remonstrants, Grotius, and Van Oldenbarnevelt, who were the champions of impartial justice and Christian treatment of those who disagree -- which suffered persecution, imprisonment, and death (respectively) at the hands of the Dutch government and its carnally power-hungry 'church' for the sake of their moral integrity. So, I'm sorry, who exactly was lying?

PuritanReformed said...

So, I'm sorry, who exactly was lying?

You, of course! You say that you are not defending Arminius, yet you claim that these devious and manipulative Remonstrants are the ones undergoing persecution. It is hilarious that you defend the thugs against the churchmen. It is analogous to defending the terrorists because they are "being persecuted" by the "power-hungry" government of the United States.

Enough said on this topic. I am not interested in reading any more wild and false accusations against the churchmen in favor of duplicitious and manipulative heretics.

This a warning for you:

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!
(Is. 5: 20-21)