Does Arminianism present a false Gospel?

[Carbon]

Would you say there are different levels of Arminianism or types? For example, the Charles Finney type of Arminianism, the Charles Wesley type of Arminianism, and Jacobus Arminianus Arminianism?
Or, are they all the same?

Is one heresy, all heresy, or none?

Does Arminianism present a false gospel?

 

[makesends]

Would you say there are different levels of Arminianism or types? For example, the Charles Finney type of Arminianism, the Charles Wesley type of Arminianism, and Jacobus Arminianus Arminianism?
Or, are they all the same?

Is one heresy, all heresy, or none?

Does Arminianism present a false gospel?

I believe all three, without realizing it, present heresy by logical implication. Not by intention. However, the marks are there -- The worldview of self-determinism, the importance of man's worth and ability to decide, the notion of God's promises that implies that God owes us something when we do right. Can't help but wonder, sometimes.

 

[Arial]

Would you say there are different levels of Arminianism or types? For example, the Charles Finney type of Arminianism, the Charles Wesley type of Arminianism, and Jacobus Arminianus Arminianism?
Or, are they all the same?

Is one heresy, all heresy, or none?

Does Arminianism present a false gospel?

They are not all the same and some are worse than others, Finney's being the most heretical, and Jacobus Arminius and Wesley would likely not recognize his system as theirs.

Arminius and Wesley believed in total depravity---Finney did not. Both agreed on universal prevenient grace, conditional election, resistible grace and universal atonement.

Finny on the other hand denied original sin saying sin is voluntary choice only. He rejected imputed guilt (Adam's sin affects example, not nature). He taught there was no need for prevenient grace, that humans already have full moral ability. He taught faith as a natural human act, not a gift from God. He taught the atonement was mot substitutionary but as a moral influence. Regeneration to Finney was a decision of the will.

All will radically change the interpretation of many scriptures and create contradiction within the Bible. Are they heresy? It was declared so at the Synod of Dort, but what was being disputed there was a misunderstanding of Arminius' view, the misunderstanding being more Wesleyan, I think. And it is mostly Wesley and a whole lot of Finny that we see today.

I would say they are heresy.

 

[JesusFan]

They are not all the same and some are worse than others, Finney's being the most heretical, and Jacobus Arminius and Wesley would likely not recognize his system as theirs.

Arminius and Wesley believed in total depravity---Finney did not. Both agreed on universal prevenient grace, conditional election, resistible grace and universal atonement.

Finny on the other hand denied original sin saying sin is voluntary choice only. He rejected imputed guilt (Adam's sin affects example, not nature). He taught there was no need for prevenient grace, that humans already have full moral ability. He taught faith as a natural human act, not a gift from God. He taught the atonement was mot substitutionary but as a moral influence. Regeneration to Finney was a decision of the will.

All will radically change the interpretation of many scriptures and create contradiction within the Bible. Are they heresy? It was declared so at the Synod of Dort, but what was being disputed there was a misunderstanding of Arminius' view, the misunderstanding being more Wesleyan, I think. And it is mostly Wesley and a whole lot of Finny that we see today.

I would say they are heresy.

Would also state as you did here that Finney was full Pel theology, while traditional armianism would be Semi pel , and that those holding to that view are saved by doctrines of grace, but misunderstand what the bible really teaches on that theology

 

[JesusFan]

I believe all three, without realizing it, present heresy by logical implication. Not by intention. However, the marks are there -- The worldview of self-determinism, the importance of man's worth and ability to decide, the notion of God's promises that implies that God owes us something when we do right. Can't help but wonder, sometimes.

They are saved by the true Gospel as held to by Calvinism, but they really misunderstand what the bible teaches concerning this issue

 

[fastfredy0]

To be fair, we all present a false gospel to some degree.

Father, forgive me for the thoughts of you that are incorrect.

 

[Carbon]

I believe all three, without realizing it, present heresy by logical implication. Not by intention.

I agree

However, the marks are there -- The worldview of self-determinism, the importance of man's worth and ability to decide, the notion of God's promises that implies that God owes us something when we do right. Can't help but wonder, sometimes.

 

[Carbon]

They are not all the same and some are worse than others, Finney's being the most heretical, and Jacobus Arminius and Wesley would likely not recognize his system as theirs.

Agreed. But I would say Finney was a heretic.

 

[Carbon]

To be fair, we all present a false gospel to some degree.

And of course God knew and realizes this, yet we are told to study the word and proclaim the gospel. So this is speaking on a whole different level. I would think anyway.

Father, forgive me for the thoughts of you that are incorrect.

It's not so simple to just say, forgive for incorrect thoughts. I believe Finneyism goes way beyond bad and incorrect thoughts.

 

[Arial]

Agreed. But I would say Finney was a heretic.

I completely agree. Here is a synopsis of Finney's position from Chat GPT. (Saves me a lot of typing.)

• Denial of original sin
  Sin is voluntary choice only.
• Rejection of imputed guilt
  Adam’s sin affects example, not nature.
• No need for prevenient grace
  Humans already have full moral ability.
• Faith as a natural human act
  Not a supernatural gift.
• Atonement as moral influence / governmental
  Not substitutionary in the classic sense.
• Regeneration = decision of the will
  Not a monergistic act of God.

Key point​

Finney believed revival could be produced by correct techniques, because sinners already possess the ability to repent.

 

[Carbon]

I completely agree. Here is a synopsis of Finney's position from Chat GPT. (Saves me a lot of typing.)

• Denial of original sin
  Sin is voluntary choice only.
• Rejection of imputed guilt
  Adam’s sin affects example, not nature.
• No need for prevenient grace
  Humans already have full moral ability.
• Faith as a natural human act
  Not a supernatural gift.
• Atonement as moral influence / governmental
  Not substitutionary in the classic sense.
• Regeneration = decision of the will
  Not a monergistic act of God.

Key point​

Finney believed revival could be produced by correct techniques, because sinners already possess the ability to repent.

Yes, and very sad.

 

[brightfame52]

Does Arminianism present a false gospel?

Yes indeed.

 

[brightfame52]

To be fair, we all present a false gospel to some degree.

Not in foundational Truth, that has to be correct. 1 Cor 3

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now we may build upon that foundation some error at times, but even that God will deliver from sooner or later

 

[fastfredy0]

Not in foundational Truth, that has to be correct. 1 Cor 3

Depends on the definition of "Foundational Truth" and what the error(s) are.

 

[brightfame52]

Depends on the definition of "Foundational Truth" and what the error(s) are.

What does 1 Cor 3 11 say ? Its Jesus Christ, all the truths in scripture that establish who Christ is, and what has He done and for who. His success in doing it. How salvation and its blessings were completely conditioned on Him. For instance, one foundational truth is how Jesus has come to save His People from their sins, Matt 1:21 and He was successful. Jn 19 30

30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. Thats good news

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, and very sad.

That theology though would be acceptable in many local churches today, as the concepts of Original sin and true depravity seem to going way of the Dodo bird