Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘Jacobus Arminius’

Meet Dirck Coornhert The Fellow Who Influenced Jacobus Arminius And Refused To Break With Roman Catholicism

Posted by Job on October 7, 2008

A related link: The Ultimate Conspiracy – Dave Hunt and the Jesuit Attempt to Hijack the Christian Faith

More stuff: ” Coornhert argued that the core of a Chrìstian ‘s life was to love God and one’s neighbors, and that ceremonies and ntes were human institutions, not biblically-based. Hence Coornhert attacked Calvin and his followers for their insistence on specific liturgical practices and their rejection of Catholic ntes. In the same work, the Dutchman also attacked the Anabaptist leader Menno Simons for similarly refusing to allow believers to continue following Catholic rituals. Coornhert, who never formally broke from Catholicism, believed that conforming outwardly to Catholic practices would not affect the core of a person’s faith, as that faith was an inward spiritual link between the faithful and God through the Holy Spint.” 

Karin Maag Director, H Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies

Incidentally, this is what Coornhert said to justify the abominable practice of worshiping images of Mary, saints, and angels: “If those who kneel before idols are condemned, Jesus Christ deserved to be stoned for violating the Sabbath, since he was also guilty.” Maybe Jacobus Arminius, father of Arminianism, wasn’t aware of this statement when he decided to cast aside doctrines of elections and predestination in order to decide – based on reading the very writings of Coornhert that he was tasked with refuting – that Coornhert was right. (In other words, Arminius was an adherent to Reformed doctrine before encountering Coornhert’s teachings, and upon studying Coornhert’s teachings he decided that he agreed with them.) Maybe Arminius did not encounter anything in studying Coornhert’s writings that were blasphemous, heretical, or severe doctrinal errors. Or we should consider the more likely part: that Arminius was all too aware of them, and decided that a fellow could be right about soteriology when he was so wrong about so many other vital things. We should consider that Arminius so wanted to reject double predestination in favor of a free will human choice that he was willing to accept the message no matter the messenger. 

Free will Christians try to claim that Arminius was a Calvinist, and that the debate betwen Arminius and those who adhered to Reformed theology was merely one between Calvinists, and that the Reformed position should have found a way to accommodate Arminianism (which is really Coornhertism!), and that in coming up with all of the creeds and catechisms that specifically emphasized predestination and election and denied free will doctrines, the Reformed theologians were “reactionary” and “rigid” instead of “tolerant.” Well, now it is obvious that Arminius was chosen to represent this doctrine rather than Coornhert, and even if it was “a debate between followers of Calvin”, the fact remains that one side of the debate, one of the group of “Calvinists”, was advancing the views of an idolatrous blaspheming papist.


Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

I Have No Choice Left But To Join The Predestination Camp

Posted by Job on November 22, 2007

Update: though I am now TULIP, I will not take the chauvinistic attitudes against LILAC Christians as exhibited by things like this link: The “god” Of Arminianism and this: Free-Willism Preaches Another Jesus. Claiming that free will Christians aren’t going to heaven cannot be supported by honest interpretation of scripture. Thank you. 

I was raised in free will Christianity and had an entire worldview shaped around it that seemed quite logical to me. However, it is now based on that same logic that I must reject the doctrine of Jacobus Arminius with regards to the salvation of man. The tipping point for me was reading an excerpt of a letter from Pelagius, opponent of Augustine and Jerome, to Demetrias. In it, Pelagius, who espoused free will and denied the existence of original sin, asserted that God had given all men the strength to choose good or evil, and that it was our responsibility to use it. He did allow that said strength was somewhat limited, but that God knew that limitation for He knew how much strength He gave us. Still, God gave us sufficient strength to continuously exercise good over evil.

Keep in mind that this is a holy God who hates sin and loves His creation. So then, why then would this God not give us enough strength never to sin at all, knowing that the result would not only be the corruption that He hates but the damnation of His creation to eternal wrath? It it has to be because either He would not or that He could not. Go one way and God is not a God of love. Go another way and God is not all powerful. The result of either is having no God at all.

Also, consider that man does have the ability to choose salvation, even if this ability is not inherent in man but rather a gift of the same common grace that is available to all men. That, then place the responsibility on God to get men to accept salvation. To use a business analogy, God would then be the salesman, humanity would be the consumer, and Jesus Christ would be the product. If this is so, then that makes God the worst salesman in the history of the universe! Consider that fast food restaurants have no problem selling expensive unhealthy low quality food that any benefits derived from eating will disappear like chaff in a furnace (the negative health effects will last somewhat longer especially if you consume such “food” with any regularity) but God’s Son is available for free with immeasurable benefits that accrue over time and last an eternity.

And what are the consequences of passing up McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, or the Chinese food buffet? Missing a meal or having to “settle” for a sandwich made from whatever you can find in your refrigerator. (I suggest living with those consequences whenever possible.) But the consequences of passing up Jesus Christ is eternal wrath. So is our God so incompetent a salesman that He is unable to convince even an utter fool of the merits of His FREE merchandise? Considering not so much that the sovereign holy righteous God would never immolate and humiliate Himself before man in order to beg His acceptance in the first place, but this scenario requires believing that He would do such a thing only to be grotesquely incompetent at it.

Make no mistake, the existence of free will makes every the failure of each and every man that rejects God a failure of God … a failure due to some flaw, unrighteousness, or lack of knowledge in God that cannot be blamed on man. And this is very important in questions regarding the goodness or fairness of God. You may with your human judgment condemn God for being partial, arbitrary, and even cruel for refusing to save everyone. That is fine with me. The reason is that for me the existence of God is made self evident by virtue of creation. I find the existence of a God that may appear less than fair according to limited human understanding by refusing to save everyone preferable to that of a God that is clearly incompetent by any understanding that wants to save everyone but is not only incapable of accomplishing it, but moreover only succeeds in saving a small number! It appears that we are so often needful to believe in a God that is “fair” to suit our own purposes that that even a reasonably competent God – let alone the God of the Bible that is sovereign, holy, high and lifted up, righteous, loving, gracious, and powerful – gets rejected in the process.

So I am now forced to cease resisting the meaning of John 10:25-28Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

Are you willing to accept the free gift of salvation? If so, please follow the Three Step Salvation Plan.

Posted in Calvinism, Christianity, election, predestination, Theodicy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 104 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: