In this video we see John McArthur display his ignorance of Arminian theology. We'll go through it in a minute, but it is quite clear to anyone that has actually picked up, say Arminias' declaration of sentiments, that McArthur is way off. Other Calvinists like R.A Muller for example, actually study these things and know that McArthur is wrong.
There are two possibilities why he is way off in his assessment - either he has never read Arminias, and is taking what he truly believes to be Arminian theology from some other (likely Calvinist source), or he is deliberately slandering his brothers and sisters in Christ. I'll go with the former, out of charity, however this still makes him a lazy thinker and casts doubt on anything else he says.
There are two possibilities why he is way off in his assessment - either he has never read Arminias, and is taking what he truly believes to be Arminian theology from some other (likely Calvinist source), or he is deliberately slandering his brothers and sisters in Christ. I'll go with the former, out of charity, however this still makes him a lazy thinker and casts doubt on anything else he says.
Firstly, the Armenian church is Eastern Orthodox, and their soteriology is, in keeping with the early church, far closer to Arminias than Calvin. So half points on at least being able to differentiate between the state and a theology.
"Arminias was an ancient theologian who believed that salvation was in the hands of the sinner and not God"
Nonsense. Arminias was no more ancient than Calvin, and believed no such thing. Being a reformer,
Nonsense. Arminias was no more ancient than Calvin, and believed no such thing. Being a reformer,
Arminias was quite comfortable with Sola Fide.
"Arminias taught that salvation is by the will of man."
I challenge anyone to go through Arminias' works and come to that conclusion or find a statement like that. It is simply false.
"...Man has the ability to believe on his own... there is enough grace.."
Well, which is it McArthur? If it is grace, it is not man on his own. If it is man on his own, then there is no grace. You're not even making sense at this point.
Well, which is it McArthur? If it is grace, it is not man on his own. If it is man on his own, then there is no grace. You're not even making sense at this point.
"..but you do know perhaps about Charles Finney..."
Aha! Now we see where you get this nonsense from. Charles Finney is not in agreement with Arminias or Wesley. He is not a source for Arminianism. Arminias is. If you can be bothered to go read about an Presbytarian Semi-Pelegian but not the actual source of the theology, there is something deeply wrong about your approach.
Pelegias and Arminias did not teach the same thing. Else, Dort was a gigantic waste of time. It makes no sense to go to all that trouble to have your little local church council to declare Arminias apostate if he was already declared so with Pelegias. Sloppy thinking.
Aha! Now we see where you get this nonsense from. Charles Finney is not in agreement with Arminias or Wesley. He is not a source for Arminianism. Arminias is. If you can be bothered to go read about an Presbytarian Semi-Pelegian but not the actual source of the theology, there is something deeply wrong about your approach.
Pelegias and Arminias did not teach the same thing. Else, Dort was a gigantic waste of time. It makes no sense to go to all that trouble to have your little local church council to declare Arminias apostate if he was already declared so with Pelegias. Sloppy thinking.
"..while we would agree that arminias taught a wrong view.. a heretical view.."
Ummm. No, he did not. Unless you belong to the Dutch Reformed Church (the only church Dort has authority over), Arminias' view is not Heretical and in fact has never been declared such by the catholic (small c - meaning universal, not RCC) church, then no, you have no basis for calling his view heretical. Finney, yes. Arminias no. It would be surprising if Arminias' view was ever declared heresy given that it was the predominant view of the church fathers, with the lone exception of Augustine, who likely would not have embraced McArthur's calvinism.
Ummm. No, he did not. Unless you belong to the Dutch Reformed Church (the only church Dort has authority over), Arminias' view is not Heretical and in fact has never been declared such by the catholic (small c - meaning universal, not RCC) church, then no, you have no basis for calling his view heretical. Finney, yes. Arminias no. It would be surprising if Arminias' view was ever declared heresy given that it was the predominant view of the church fathers, with the lone exception of Augustine, who likely would not have embraced McArthur's calvinism.
No, McArthur, Arminians understand depravity. We agree with you on it. That is what differentiates us from Finney and Pelegius.
There is no call or excuse for someone with the popularity of John McArthur to blatantly misrepresent and slander (whether our of ignorance or not) his brothers and sisters in Christ.
There is no call or excuse for someone with the popularity of John McArthur to blatantly misrepresent and slander (whether our of ignorance or not) his brothers and sisters in Christ.
