The following except is taken from Thomas Brook's Heaven On Earth, (First Published 1654).
Thomas Brooks wrote:
Arminians are not ashamed to say, that God may crown a man one hour, and uncrown him in the next; they blush not to say that a man may be happy and miserable, under love and under wrath, an heir of heaven and a firebrand of hell, a child of light and a child of darkness—and all in an hour. Oh what miserable comforters are these! What is this but to torment the weary soul? to dispirit the wounded spirit, and to make them most sad whom God would have most glad? Ah! how sad is it for men to affirm, that wounded spirits may know "that the Sun of righteousness has healing in his wings," Mal 4:2; but they cannot be assured that they shall be healed. The hungry soul may know that there is bread enough in his Father's house—but cannot know that he shall taste of that bread, Luke 15:17. The naked soul may know that Christ has robes of righteousness to cover all spots, sores, defects, and deformities of it—but may not presume to know that Christ will put these royal robes upon it, Rev 3:18. The impoverished soul may know that there be unsearchable riches in Christ—but cannot be assured that ever it shall partake of those riches, Eph 3:8. All that these men allow poor souls, is guesses and conjectures that it may be well with them. They will not allow souls to say with Thomas, "My Lord, and my God," John 20:18; nor with Job to say, "My Redeemer lives," Job 19:25; nor with the church, "I am my beloved's, and his desire is towards me," Song 7:10. And so they leave souls in a cloudy, questioning, doubting, hovering condition, hanging, like Mahomet's tomb at Mecca, between two loadstones; or like Erasmus, as the papists paint him, hanging between heaven and hell. They make the poor soul a terror to itself.
What more uncomfortable doctrine than this? What more soul-disquieting, and soul-unsettling doctrine than this? You are this moment in a state of spiritual life—you may the next moment be in a state of spiritual death; you are now gracious—you may the next hour be graceless; you are now in the promised land—yet you may die in the wilderness; you are today a habitation for God—you may tomorrow be a synagogue of Satan; you have today received the white stone of absolution—you may tomorrow receive the black stone of condemnation; you are now in your Savior's arms—you may tomorrow be in Satan's paws; you are now Christ's freeman—you may tomorrow be Satan's bondman; you are now a vessel of honor—you may suddenly become a vessel of wrath; you are now greatly beloved, you may soon be as greatly loathed; this day your name is fairly written in the book of life—tomorrow the book may be crossed out, and your name blotted out forever. This is the Arminians' doctrine, and if this be not to keep souls in a doubting and trembling, and shivering condition, what is it?
The Calvinist flower is TULIP, this quote shows why the Arminian flower is the Daisy.
"He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me not..." _________________ Sterling A. Harmon, Jr.
Deacon
Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Reformed Theology Institute
Owner/Admin
"No learning is commendable which is not dipped in the love of God." --John Calvin
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." --John Calvin
The Calvinist position is not all that comforting and secure, however, since it just puts the question one step back: "Was I TRULY converted in the first place?"
Jonathan Edwards, in particular, troubles me, since he maintains that one must love God for His excellencies, not for what He does for us. True, that is the ideal, but is there then no grace for those who love God for less noble reasons? Even the psalmist said, "I love the Lord because He hears my cry and my supplication." _________________ Leslie aka Mary
Kale Heywott Church
Soddo-Wolaitta, Ethiopia
Arminians tell me that they are secure in their salvation if they demonstrate fruits of faith and repentance, and it's only through complete denial where salvation is lost. I know, I think it's deeply flawed, but it's usually not like the Catholic doctrine where if they commit a major sin, they have to confess to a priest, or else it won't be forgiven of them.
In that sense, Arminians have assurance of their salvation the same way Calvinists have of their salvation -- through the fruits of salvation.
I think what is far more dangerous are those who believe that salvation cannot be lost, but think that a person can fall away or not even show fruits of repentance, yet they are saved because they "believed" once. That is false assurance, and much more insidious than straight out Arminianism.
I think Arminianism is in error, but I generally don't find those kinds of expositions (also, the daisy analogy, and the "Arminian prayer") edifying. It inevitably leans towards mocking the theological positions of fellow believers in Christ and putting words in their mouths that they would not say. If we are to address it, shouldn't we address them with compassion as fellow joint heirs in Christ deserve? Would we approve of Arminians mocking us among themselves about how we have no assurance orf our salvation because can't know if we are elect? Or that our God ignores our desires and simply controls us like puppets?
I think Arminianism is in error, but I generally don't find those kinds of expositions (also, the daisy analogy, and the "Arminian prayer") edifying. It inevitably leans towards mocking the theological positions of fellow believers in Christ and putting words in their mouths that they would not say. If we are to address it, shouldn't we address them with compassion as fellow joint heirs in Christ deserve? Would we approve of Arminians mocking us among themselves about how we have no assurance orf our salvation because can't know if we are elect? Or that our God ignores our desires and simply controls us like puppets?
Of course you are correct, elnwood. I don't think the quoted piece above is mocking in its tone. It is a polemic against Arminianism. Now with respect to the daisy flower, we all know as a bit of humor poking fun at Arminians and probably belongs in the Fellowship forum in a thread related to religious humor. You should hear some of my jokes related to Calvinism!
For years as a Christian I had never heard the terms "Arminianism" or "Calvinism" I just knew that Jesus saved me from myself. As I read my Bible more and more I learnt about original sin and the wrath of God but my experience was always based on His ability and not mine. _________________ Rhonda
But seriously. Would Spurgeon be charged with being mean for his many harsh comments about Arminianism, and he is well known for being fairly mild!
Don't get me started upon by quoting Owen, Gill, Calvin, Luther, Toplady, Knox, Turretin, Bunyan and a whole host of others.
Then there was this comment,
Quote:
In that sense, Arminians have assurance of their salvation the same way Calvinists have of their salvation -- through the fruits of salvation.
Not so. As a Calvinist, I take assurance upon the abilities of God to keep me in the faith and to believe that He who has begun a good work shall complete it.
I would despair if my focus was upon the subjective opinion of my fruits. No thank you.
And whilst others are judging me by my fruits, I will still cling to Christ and His righteousness.
We need to get back to the heart attitude of men like Bunyan who preached as a dying man to dying men.
The older I get, and the more I think I am learning something, the more I feel my own corruption and hardly know anything.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Interesting RTI Poll
Who is "the seed" of the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15
