Augustianism/Calvinism Versus Arminianism/Molinism

For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. (Acts 20:27 KJV)

[The following exchange took place after I contacted the Society of Evangelical Arminians regarding their article satirizing "Stuff Young Calvinists Like." I am at a loss as to how this satirical piece is supposed to demonstrate "love" and an "irenic" spirit as the contact person proposes is the express the purpose of the SEA.]

Ron,

Three things.

1) Dordt and Westminster are not Scripture is absolutely correct. But it also follows from that Arminianism is not Scripture EITHER. It is an "interpretation" of Scripture and therefore fallible. Likewise no visible church on earth is infallible or inerrant. So by your reasoning no doctrine is binding because they are all fallible interpretations of Scripture. That is at least implied in your statement.

That being said, however, the church does have authority to interpret Scripture because it is established by God himself in the very Scriptures you mention. (See 1 Timothy 3:15-16). The church, according to the principles of the Protestant Reformation, should always be reforming itself and thus a common understanding of Scripture must be agreed upon. The principle of sola scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture applies here.

Since the Dutch "Three Forms of Unity" (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt) and the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession, Westminster Larger Catechism, Westminster Shorter Catechism) are summaries of what the church believes the Scriptures infallibly teach, then it follows that they are infallible wherever they are faithful to the infallible Scriptures. Confessional standards are simply more detailed "creeds" which express what Christians "believe." The creeds are prefaced with the words, "I believe..."

Regarding the Synod of Dordt, the Remonstrandts first created the controversy by formulating 5 points of Remonstrance and by attacking the Calvinist doctrines which were at that time binding doctrine in all the Dutch churches. It is a bit silly for Arminians to cry over the Synod of Dordt when in fact the Arminians were in rebellion against biblical doctrine as it had been understood since the Reformation in the Dutch Calvinist churches. The Arminians were in fact challenging the Belgic Confession, which was a binding confession of faith. Confessions of faith are not in and of themselves infallible but they are binding upon the conscience of all members of a local, regional, universal church unless and until it can be proven that the document is unfaithful to Scripture. On this point the Arminians have not proven their case one whit.

"Episcopius was their chief speaker; and with great art and address did he manage their cause. He insisted on being permitted to begin with a refutation of the Calvinistic doctrines, especially that of reprobation, hoping that, by placing his objections to this doctrine in front of all the rest, he might excite such prejudice against the other articles of the system, as to secure the popular voice in his favor. The Synod, however, very properly, reminded him, that they had not convened for the purpose of trying the Confession of Faith of the Belgic Churches, which had been long established and well known; but that, as the Remonstrants were accused of departing from the Reformed faith, they were bound first to justify themselves, by giving Scriptural proof in support of their opinions. The Arminians would not submit to this plan of procedure because it destroyed their whole scheme of argument. However, the Synod firmly refused to make any concessions on this point of order. Day after day they were reasoned with and urged to come and scripturally defend their published doctrines. . . The Arminians would not submit to this course and were thus compelled to withdraw. Upon their departure, the Synod proceeded without them."

Synod of Dort

2) Molinism cannot be deistic? Molinism is essentially a more philosophically complex form of Arminianism proposing God's natural knowledge, middle knowledge, and free knowledge. However, sophisticated restatements of Arminianism do not solve the problems Molinism claims to solve. In fact, Molinism reinforces the sovereignty of God argument for Calvinists and Augustinians. If Molinism is true, then the Creator God is somehow dependent upon His creation in order to make what is actually existent occur. Thus, Molinism denies the Scriptural truth that God is self-existent and absolutely omnipotent. Any scheme which makes God dependent on creation is therefore either deistic or a capitulation to the open view of theism. (See

Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique Travis James Campbell).

3) I did not declare you a heretic. The Synod of Dort declared you and all Arminians as heretics from the Reformed faith and that was an almost unanimous decision of Calvinists all over the world at that time, including those invited to attend from the English church and the Swiss churches. While you may find the term "heretic" uncomfortable, the historical facts stand as they have occurred. We might debate regarding the level of heresy or class of heresy into which Arminianism falls. Are you a primary level heretic on the level of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Or are you a secondary heretic in which you remain within the Protestant visible church but with a deficient understanding of the Scriptures and the law and Gospel? I would contend that it is debatable but the evidence toward the primary level of heresy is gaining ground in some Reformed circles.

Confessions of faith are absolutely necessary in determining who is in fellowship or communion within the visible local/regional/universal churches. Otherwise, we would be in communion with everyone in the world who makes any illicit claim to being "Christian." We both know that is not the case. As Paul himself said:

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty." " (2 Corinthians 6:14-18, ESV)

As I said earlier in this discussion, Arminianism exalts man above God and is a move back toward the semi-pelagianism of the Roman Catholic system and the Eastern Orthodox system. While some Calvinists have argued that Arminianism is "semi-augustinian" and is faithful to the principles of the Synod of Orange, I would strongly disagree. At best Arminianism is semi-pelagian precisely because it claims that prevenient grace neutralizes total depravity/inability to one degree or another. In short, Arminianism leaves salvation up to capricious and sinful human beings and makes grace of no effect for the vast majority of mankind. A defective grace is pragmatically no different from withholding effectual grace, for the end result is the same. The road to hell is broad, and the way to salvation is narrow. I prefer to stand with the Scriptures in upholding the absolute sovereignty of God even over the free choices of sinful men. God is God and we are merely His creatures. (Romans 3:5-8; Romans 9:18-23).

The weight of Scripture, church history is against the Arminian view no matter how "popular" it may be. Sin is popular as well, but that does not make sin desirable or true. I reiterate that the Protestant Reformation was an Augustinian movement and in no wise was it semi-pelagian or even semi-augustinian. Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, Zwingli, Cranmer and a host of other Reformers were all Augustinians. Surely this too bears heavily against Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Tractarianism/Anglo-Catholicism and a host of other divisive doctrines creating confusion and discord within the visible churches.

I am not nearly so "tolerant" as others since I believe biblical truth is more important than any principle of "tolerance" or "love." In closing, I might point out as well that even William Lane Craig concedes that middle knowledge is not biblical:

Since Scripture does not reflect upon this question, no amount of proof-texting can prove that God's counterfactual knowledge is possessed logically prior to his creative decree. This is a matter for theological-philosophical reflection, not biblical exegesis. Thus, while it is clearly unbiblical to deny that God has simple foreknowledge and even counterfactual knowledge, those who deny middle knowledge cannot be accused of being unbiblical. [Ibid., quoted on page 23].

While you claim that you base your view on exegesis, clearly William Lane Craig says otherwise. The theory of middle knowledge is a philosophical interpolation and not a scriptural argument. Calvinism/Augustinianism, on the other hand, simply takes the Bible as God's word on the matter. Scripture clearly teaches both God's sovereignty and sinful man's accountability for his actions as a free moral agent. While this makes those with a selective reading of Scripture uncomfortable, the bottom line is that Calvinism/Augustinianism/Thomism has the more plain understanding of the entire Bible and is a more complete and systematic exegesis of problem texts for both positions. Your position may make more "common sense" to those who are biblically illiterate in the pews, but for anyone willing to read the Bible from cover to cover, the implications are unequivocally Augustinian/Thomist and, by implication, Calvinist.

Any departure from the law and the Gospel is serious whether it be on the secondary level or on the primary level. Obviously, departures from the very Gospel itself are the most serious. (John 3:18, 36).

The 39 Articles of Religion, which is the "confession of faith" for the Anglican churches clearly sides with Augustinianism over against pelagianism and semi-pelagian views:

Article IX

Of Original or Birth Sin

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.

Article X

Of Free Will

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.

It is indeed unfortunate that you do not wish to correspond further. However, I know that God's will shall be done with or without me. I am merely a creature who is temporarily passing through this world. Nothing can thwart God's eternal plans and decrees, of that I am most certain. (See Job 36:23; Isaiah 10:20-23).

Charlie

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:26-31, ESV)

----- Original Message -----

From: Ron Fay

To: cranmer1959@gmail.com

Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:05 AM

Subject: RE: [Contact Us] Reasonable Christian

Charlie,

Three things.

1) Dordt and Westminster are not Scripture. Dordt was a horrible parody of a council in which no Arminians were allowed to speak and only 3 were allowed to attend. It compares to the fruitless ecumenical councils that excluded Trinitarians during the days of Constantius. Westminster is a confession and holds no authority either. Both are worthless in conversations.

2) Molinism cannot be deism in any sense since God perfectly and absolutely practices meticulous sovereignty at every step. How is that deism if He is constantly involved at every moment?

3) You declared me a heretic and showed once again that for a Calvinist, or at least you, theology is the gospel instead of Christ crucified. Nowhere in Scripture is your theology called the gospel. I would be very careful about declaring others unsaved. Unless you amend that statement, I will not be further responding to you.

God bless,

- Ron

________________________________________________
Ron C. Fay, PhD
Associate Pastor of Administration and Teaching
Cornerstone Community Church
Wadsworth, IL
roncfay@hotmail.com

---