|
       |
History The doctrine of Eternal Security (also referred to as "Once Saved, Always Saved") is a doctrine that was taught by a man named John Calvin, who lived from 1509-1564, during the Protestant Reformation. After several centuries of domination by the Catholic Church, people were finally being freed to from their control, able to have a Bible of their own that they may read, and choose what they felt what was truth and what was not. The protestant reformation brought in a great change for all people everywhere. Others who lived before Calvin, such as Augustine, taught this doctrine in earlier years long before Calvin was born. Today much credit has been given to Calvin because of his five points and other writings; thus all who believe as he did may be referred to as “Calvinists”. Those doctrines that were taught by Calvin are known today as the "Five Points of Calvinism", from which Calvinists have drawn their doctrines; one of which is the doctrine of Eternal Security or the Perseverance of the Saints. The five points of Calvinism are Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the Saints (Eternal Security). These are referred to as TULIP, by the first letter of each point. These will all be explained in greater detail in the Chapter “The Five Points of Calvinism”. Because the doctrine of eternal Security came through this well-known man, those who follow it are referred to as "Calvinists", as they will be also in this book. Today, there are many different Calvinists teaching groups; many of which completely reject being called a Calvinist. But because they all hold to the doctrine of Eternal Security just as Calvin did, I will still call all who believe so “Calvinists” for the sake of avoiding the confusion of using different terms for various groups. The focus in this book is mainly on the two subjects that they all agree upon: predestination and Eternal Security. Eternal Security came in strong with the reformation through John Calvin. With his belief in Eternal Security (as those before him), Calvin also denied that human beings were capable of free will, and he strongly enforced a doctrine of predestination: that God elects certain people to salvation, while rejecting others and then consigning them to eternal damnation. Some being predestined to Eternal Life, while all others are predestined to an eternal hell, which is known as Double Predestination. From 1560-1609, right
at the end of Calvin’s life, there also lived a man named Jacobus Arminius,
who spent the last years of his life opposing Calvinism. Therefore those
who oppose the teachings of Calvin and believe that a person can fall
from grace and lose or forfeit their salvation have been referred to as
"Arminians". Arminius’ main argument was that man had free will and that
grace was available to all men, as we will see was in opposition to Calvin’s
teachings. Although all who are called Arminians today refers to those
who believe that salvation may be lost, this was not the main issue Arminius
himself stood for. Because the name “Arminian” has been adopted for all
who believe that salvation may be forfeited I will use this name in this
book as well. Although Arminius did not spend all his time arguing that
salvation may be lost, this does not indicate in any way that he accepted
the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (eternal Security) into
his own theology. In his day and age the issue of the free will of man
was a much bigger argument than it is today, and therefore he gave his
time to this issue mostly in his teachings. But it was actually after
Arminius death with the Remonstrants (Arminius’ follower’s), and then
even later under the teaching of John Wesley and others that this teaching
was most strongly taught. Arminius did mention the possibility of losing
salvation, but focused his argument mostly on the doctrines of Election
and free will. It is evident by what his followers had written (almost
immediately after his death), exactly what Arminius had taught to them.
Many Calvinist teachers today will say that Arminius believed in the perseverance
of the saints because they cannot find where he refuted it. Arminius made
a stand against Calvinistic teachings that would later be taken further
by those after him (who show what he really believed), by opposing the
doctrine of Eternal Security (the perseverance of the saints). Although
Calvin’s five points had not yet been systematized during the life of
Arminius, it would have been Calvin’s points of Limited Atonement (Salvation
only for a few chosen by God) and Unconditional Election (Pre-destination)
that Arminius had focused on refuting. After Arminius' death, his views
were championed and further developed and systematized by two men, Simon
Episcopius, and Jan Uytenbogaert. Under their leadership the followers
of Arminius in 1610 set forth their views in five articles called Arminian
Articles of Remonstrance, (a remonstrance is a reproof, to remonstrate
is to reprove or correct) which gave them the name 'Remonstrants'. In
substance the articles teach as follows:
These articles are the beginning and completion of what today is referred to as Arminianism, and are the teachings represented throughout this book.) Although these are not listed in completion, but are a summary of the articles, these are the main points of each. These articles are listed in Completion at the end of this book in Appendix A. It was actually the Synod of Dort who had complied Calvin’s teachings, systematizing them into the five points of Calvinism. All five points between Calvinists and Arminians differed greatly. The Church at this time was primarily Calvinist (including all the members of the Synod of Dort), since Arminianism was a newer revelation of truth that many could not or refused to see as truth. The protestant Church had not been long freed from the controls of Catholicism, but yet seemed to be very confident that they obtained truth, with no need of any new revelation or change to their present belief system. A synod is the governing assembly of an Episcopal province - a regional or national organization of protestant congregations. It was a Church government that would judge between right and wrong in the Church, deciding what was heresy (false teaching), and who should be banished or imprisoned. The Synod of Dort was made up of men who all had their background under the teachings of Calvinism. This hardly made a fair case for the Remonstrants. The Calvinists were rather heavy-handed in their dealings with their Arminian brethren. For refusing to subscribe to the Canon of Dort, some 200 ministers were deprived of their positions, and eighty were banished from the country. Those who continued to minister were sentenced to life in prison. It was evident that the views of Arminius, especially those of the remonstrance were growing rapidly as many were coming to the knowledge of the truth. But as today, many men refuse to accept such a truth that requires holy living for salvation or any other condition given in the Bible. The Synod of Dort was convened to resolve the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. It lasted from November 1618 to May 1619, seven months. It was the largest and, next to the Westminster Assembly, the most imposing of all synods of the Reformed Churches. Besides representatives from the Netherlands, delegates from England, Scotland, the southern provinces of Germany, and Switzerland shared in its proceedings. Episcopius was the chief spokesman for the Remonstrants; the fire-breathing Gomarus led the charge against Arminianism. The Remonstrants requested an opportunity to discuss their views at the Synod, but were denied the opportunity. They soon realized that what they thought would be an open forum for theological discussion was in fact a hearing, and that they were in effect being tried for heresy. They were required to submit in writing statements in defense of the five articles of Remonstrance and points where they disagreed with the Belgic Confession. Finally, when they refused to go on if not given the opportunity to speak against the convictions of their opponents, the Remonstrants were expelled, and commanded not to leave Dort. Arminianism was unanimously rejected and condemned. Many Calvinist’s today will refer to the Synod of Dort as proof that Arminianism was considered heresy and therefore not of God. But the men that represented the Synod of Dort had the same spirit that Calvin had, and did not appear as men who were seeking truth. The fact that they would not hear these men out and allow them to explain their views hardly proves the Synod of Dort to be correct in their judgment. In all that they did in an effort to bury the teachings of these men, the truth always has a way of making itself back to the surface. God’s truth will always prevail and cannot be destroyed no matter what men might do. Many men of God after Arminius’ death had taken up the mantle and fearlessly preached the truth. Men such as John Wesley, Charles Finney, and many others brought revival in such ways that had never been seen previously, by preaching and teaching this un-compromised truth of God. The truth had really began to set men free once it was once again being taught. It is said that through the ministry of Charles Finney, thousands had gotten saved, in which the majority of his fruit remained. Unlike the thousands of conversions we might here of today that are unaccounted for. The Word of God stands true when it says, “they shall know the truth, and the truth shall make them free”. Although there are many who claim that unconditional Eternal Security goes back to the first century, I still refer to Calvin (since he is the one responsible for the reformation of this doctrine); as I also will refer to Arminius as responsible for the reformation of the doctrine of “conditional” Eternal Security (even though many throughout the centuries also taught it, and those after him were more insistent with it). The views of follower’s from both of these men have changed somewhat over the centuries, but these are the beginnings of these views. Both Calvinists and Arminians will claim that the teaching they believe was taught by first century Christians, and that the other was heresy. Both teachings may very well go back to the first century, and History shows that they most likely do (at least one does for sure!). But if so, then one would have to be heresy! Further research into history reveals what many early Christians did teach, as I will soon show. John Wesley wrote an essay entitled "What is an Arminian?"
In it he raised this question, "How can any man know what Arminius held,
who has never read one page of his writings?" Wesley proceeded to offer
this advice, "Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the
term means." Wesley said Arminianism was usually charged with five errors:
Wesley said that concerning the first two, he pleaded “not guilty”. Concerning justification he also wrote that he thought just as Mr. Calvin did. "In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth." Concerning the third charge there is an undeniable difference between Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists believe absolute predestination; Arminians believe in conditional predestination Wesley explained that Calvinists hold that God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity to save the elect and no others. Christ died for these and none else. Arminians on the other hand hold that God has decreed from all eternity, "He that believeth…shall be saved; But he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:16. In order to make this possible, Christ died for all. 2 Corinthians 5:14,15. Wesley said that the last two points are the natural consequence of the third. Calvinists hold that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it than to resist a stroke of lightning. But if predestination is conditional, then grace is not irresistible. In other words: if a person can only be saved based upon their reaction to the gospel (which is by free will), then they can choose to follow Christ or not to follow Christ. In this free will choice there is not only a condition placed upon their predestination, but also the ability to resist the grace of God. Finally, Calvinists hold that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. Arminians hold, however, that a true believer may make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Not only may he fall into gross sin, but he may fall so as to perish forever. So, Wesley concluded that the three final accusations hinge upon one question, “is predestination absolute or conditional?” Wesley's objection to Calvinism was based upon his objection to their doctrine of predestination (Which is directly linked to the doctrine of Eternal Security). This argument is discussed in the section on “The Five Points of Calvinism”. Throughout their ministry both Arminius and Wesley patiently
denied that they were heretics, but were in agreement with historic Christianity
and the great historical church councils. Arminius declared, "If any
one will point out an error in this my opinion, I will gladly own it:
Because it is possible for me to err, but I am not willing to be a heretic."
Wesley also issued this appeal,
These men were not heretics, but reformers of the first reformation. Their authority was the Word of God. In the last several decades men like Robert Shank, Dale Moody, Clark Pinnock and others, have broken from their Calvinist positions and lived to write about it. There are others from all denominations that have stood firm, armed only with Scripture, and have broke this so-called "unbreakable chain" of Calvinism. Going back to the first centuries of the early Church it should be clear to see that many well known preachers made a clear stand against what is now known as Calvinistic doctrines. Although Calvinists would want to label any such preacher as a heretic, they have little to draw their doctrine from in early Church history. Yet many have taught against what they teach! Irenaeus (120 to 205 CE) was the overseer of the
church at Lyons, France. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a close
associate of the Apostle John. He believed that a person could only be
saved once. If they performed some evil deed, then God would permanently
reject them. A Christian had only one chance to get it right. Irenaeus
explained this very clearly in his book "Against Heresies," Book 4, Chapter
27, Section 2:
Although Irenaeus did have scriptural backing for what he believed (having some truth), he did not have the balance of “grace” in his doctrine, which allows men to receive forgiveness again after falling. For even Jesus said that we should forgive men “Seventy times seven”. How much more is God willing to forgive us through the blood of Jesus? (Matt. 18:22) Although we can see that his teaching was not completely correct in the area of forgiveness, it is also evident that he believed that one could fall away and lose salvation. It is true that if he is guilty of heresy in one area that he could very well be wrong in other areas. But his teaching on falling from salvation was in agreement with what other first and second century Christians taught and believed, only differing in the area of renewed repentance if one would sin. So Irenaeus could also be guilty of heresy (as Calvin was), but to the opposite extreme. Both these men had truth, but neither was able to find the balance that the scriptures give, clearly seen when we rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). But as one who lived shortly after the first century, and had close linking to the teachings of the Apostle John through Polycarp, Irenaeus did understand that sin was a serious thing to God. Eternal Security would have been a ridiculous assumption in his day. Irenaeus’ view is also a safer one, since his message was one of holiness and living apart from sin (as the Apostle John’s was), while Calvin’s doctrine allows the presence of sin in the Christian. Tertullian (140 to 230 CE) was an elder in the
church at Carthage, North Africa. He wrote in his book "On Repentance,"
Chapter 6:
By his statement, it is obvious that he not only believed that a person could lose their salvation, he also had seen many fall from grace throughout his ministry. It is evident that this argument goes all the way back to at least the second century, and it was taught to him by those before him. He mentions that some think that a person is “Once Saved, Always Saved”. He says it in a way that would appear to show that the true Church never believed such a doctrine like this, as if it is something very distant from the theology he had been taught. Cyprian (200 to 258 CE) was a Bishop of the church
in Carthage, North Africa. Referring to Matthew 10:22, he wrote in his
book "Unity of the Church," Sec. 21:
He appears to have believed that an individual only attains salvation at the end of their life. This is what is known as “Final Salvation”. Everything before our death are just steps on the way towards salvation. Each Christian may enjoy the benefits of temporal salvation in this life, but must “endure till the end” in order to have final salvation. In the case of final salvation “Once Saved, Always Saved” would certainly be true! But with temporal salvation one must “endure till the end” to be saved eternally: since one might infer that a saved person could stumble into sin before they died and never attain final salvation. We can reap the benefits of salvation now, but complete salvation will only come as we endure through this life, unto the end. We can certainly do this through the grace of God! Although Irenaeus’ view may not be completely scripturally accurate, he is a man from near first century Christianity. He would obviously deny that Paul, John or Jesus taught Eternal Security in the way the Calvinists do, and is in agreement with the others just mentioned; that salvation may be lost. Calvinists might assume that these were the false teachers of the first centuries that Paul talked about. But their doctrine was very common among the Churches, until the persecution of the Church and establishment of the Roman Catholic Church at the beginning of the fourth century. Tertullian and Cyprian also both clearly state their belief in the Christians possibility of losing their salvation. The teachings of these men and others like them were the most common in Christianity in these early centuries. What is known as Calvinism today would have been clearly understood as false teaching. Paul had to deal with this in the Roman Church, as many would sin and call themselves Christians. Paul condemned such behavior, and brought the understanding that a child of God will not sin, since grace gives the ability to live above sin. John covered the same issue is his letters. (This is covered in more detail in later chapters) It was about a few centuries after these men that Augustine began teaching on the doctrines of election and predestination, from which Calvin also drew his five points. Those who opposed Augustine were labeled as heretics. The fact is, even today many believe the same, when in really it is Augustine who was a heretic, and those who opposed him only sought to see truth revealed and for the people to be taught holiness as the Bible demands of God’s people. Opposition to Calvin’s doctrines, as well as that of Augustine when Pelagius opposed him is bound to arise: since many men cannot avoid the truth. Pelagius was accused of heresy as he saw and opposed certain holes in the doctrines of Augustine, and was correct on his observations. These same holes still exist in the doctrines of Calvin and all those who follow his teachings today. Pelagius has been labeled as a heretic throughout the Centuries and much of what he has been accused of teaching is incorrect. His writings had not been discovered until fairly recently, in which it has been discovered that his opposition to Augustine was correct and he was a preacher of holiness and righteousness; standing against those who called themselves Christians while living in sin. Although he has been accused of taking his belief on living a sin free life to the extreme (that we do not need the grace of God for salvation), recent discoveries of his writings show that he did not teach such. If this is true, then he is of course guilty of heresy, even though other observations were correct. He opposed the teachings of Augustine in what is now known as Eternal Security. But just as Calvinist’s today would like to label Arminians as teaching heresy (As they did during the protestant reformation), so also Augustine and others did to Pelagius, making it law that his writings were not allowed. It appears that Pelagius was a holy man who only wanted to see Christ honored through holy living; and the sin in the Church frustrated him. Augustine on the other hand, who is accepted as a hero of our faith today, taught that man cannot help but to sin, along with many other teachings that have been adopted by Calvinists! Augustine hated the teachings of Pelagius and the fact that he had opposed him, and he had the power to banish his writings, leaving only the opinions and accusations of himself and others in agreement with him to be recorded in history. With more recent discoveries on the writings of Pelagius the truth appears to be revealed about who was the true man of God. The argument between Augustine and Pelagius was very similar to the argument between Calvin and Arminius. In both instances the supporters of Eternal Security prove to be sinful, self-seeking, and haters of truth; while those who opposed it were God-fearing men who loved the truth and were selfless and holy men of God. In reading of these four men’s lives, this evidence should stand out clear to any reader. Martin Luther was known as the man who was responsible for the earliest beginnings of the protestant reformation. He lived from 1483-1546, around the same time that Calvin lived. He taught that, a man is justified by faith alone. Most Calvinist’s say that is by “grace alone”. Charles Stanley states in his book on Eternal Security that salvation is by faith alone. It appears that Calvinists are not sure which one saves alone. But the Bible says that it is “…by grace, through faith…” (Ephesians 2:8) Neither grace nor faith are alone in the receiving of salvation. Both of these work together as Gods provision (grace) meets with mans response to it (faith). The protestant reformation brought a great thing, to come out of the bondage and heresy under the Catholic Church. But there was still need for balance with the doctrines of these men. Many of today’s Calvinists have come a long way in beginning to come away from the five points of Calvinism, but have not changed on their view of Eternal Security. It should be obvious through the study of the scriptures, as well as historical accounts of the Church that these particular teachings of Calvin do not line up with what we read in the scriptures. Peter Baro was a man who was born in France and was admitted to the ministry by John Calvin. But later he had fled to England to escape persecution by the Catholics. There he was elected to the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity chair at Cambridge. Eventually, his opposition to Calvinism earned him several powerful enemies who misrepresented him before Queen Elizabeth I. He had to resign his position at Cambridge, and he retired to London where he lived for 3 or 4 more years. Baro's work is of importance because it preceded the published sentiments of Jacobus (James) Arminius, another one of Calvin’s disciples who left him. Some of Calvin’s own disciples could not accept his teachings. These teachings of Augustine and Calvin have never been without opposition. And their opponents were always the ones labeled as the heretics, just as many other men that opposed the Catholic Church throughout history and were put to death. But it is usually evident in the pages of history by the attitudes of men, who was right (at least in spirit) and who was wrong. Those who believed in the doctrines of Election, predestination and Eternal Security almost always had a hatred towards those who opposed them, while those who opposed them only sought truth to be taught to the people and for God to be honored through holy living. These were the ones who had true love for God, for the souls of men, and a desire for revival. Who do you feel had fulfilled the two greatest commandments? Matthew 22:37-39 “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Who really had true love for both God and men? No event has more influenced history's judgment of John
Calvin than the role he played in the capture and execution of the Spanish
physician and amateur theologian Michael Servetus. On October 27, 1553
John Calvin had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the
stake just outside of Geneva for his so-called doctrinal heresies! The
early Church fathers had enough sense and Godly love to keep from doing
such a thing to those they considered heretics. Calvin had violated the
cry of the Reformation, "Sola Scriptura" (the claim that everything within
Christian teachings related to faith and morals should be rooted in scripture
alone), by murdering a doctrinal heretic without Scriptural justification.
This event was something Calvin had considered long before Servetus was
even captured, for Calvin wrote his friend, Farel, on February 13, 1546
(seven years prior to Servetus' arrest) and went on record as saying:
Evidently, in that day Calvin's authority in Geneva, Switzerland had ultimate weight. This is why some referred to Geneva as the "Rome of Protestantism" and to Calvin as the "Protestant Pope of Geneva." During Servetus' trial, Calvin wrote:
All this reveals a side of John Calvin that is not well known or very appealing to say the least! Obviously, he had a prolonged, murderous hate in his heart and was willing to violate Scripture to put another to death and in a most cruel way. But why did Calvin have a death wish for Servetus? Can a Christian murder a brother in Christ and be saved? Calvin had thus murdered his enemies, and there is nothing to suggest that he ever repented of his crime. The next year he published a defense in which further insults were heaped upon his former adversary in most vindictive and intemperate language. In five years, 1542-46, Geneva, with 16,000 inhabitants, had fifty-seven executions and seventy-six banishments. Calvin sanctioned all these sentences. These events have overshadowed everything else Calvin accomplished. What would you think of such a person, especially if he afterwards showed no remorse? Would you want him to interpret the Bible for you? Like it or not, we can only conclude from this evidence that John Calvin's heart was darkened, and not enlightened, as a result of his murderous hate for Servetus and others like him. At best, Calvin was spiritually blinded by this hate and therefore, spiritually hindered from rightly dividing the word of truth. At worst, which was apparently the case, John Calvin himself was unsaved, according to Scripture. And even according to Calvin’s own teachings, if he was a murderer, then he must not have been saved to begin with. “Once Saved, Always Saved” is a convenient doctrine for such a person. With this doctrine he could act out his hatred and still be saved. But according to the Bible this is not possible! Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving,
the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic
arts, the idolaters and all liars -- their place will be in the fiery
lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death". John Calvin was a murderer! History shows that Augustine and Jerome had this same heart towards Pelagius, and if they could have had him put to death they would have. To have the desire to kill a brother is the same as doing the act. Charles Haddon Spurgeon shockingly declared Calvinism
is “the gospel” and Arminianism is heresy in this statement:
Spurgeon obviously did not understand the righteous judgment of God, His demand of holiness, mans free will to choose, and many other things that I will cover in this book. Augustine believed in Purgatory and promoted Mary worship. This was the real, unvarnished Augustine from whom John Calvin drew his doctrines and who Spurgeon shockingly exalts as the intermediate link to the Apostle Paul! The truth should not be drawn from men such as these, but from the Word of God alone. Sola Scriptura! In his book on eternal security Charles Stanley said, “The very foundations of Christianity begin to crumble once we begin tampering with the eternal security of the believer”. This is quite an assumption by Stanley! He equates Eternal Security with the gospel! This is the farthest thing from the truth! The gospel is not that a person cannot lose their salvation. The gospel is that all men have the opportunity to be saved from the penalty of sin, if they will receive it and continue in it. This is what makes this book a critical defense of the truth; because Calvinists believe and teach that this doctrine of Eternal Security is the gospel itself. But the fruit of this doctrine proves to be very dangerous to the eternal destiny of men. When reformation came, Calvinists refused to accept truth as it was continuing to be revealed to the revived Church of Christ. They did well to step out and away from the Catholic Church, but fell short when they opposed other Biblical truths. It is when men refuse to receive the truth and change their own religious ways that the foundations of Christianity begins to crumble, (Not when Eternal Security is not taught as mentioned by Stanley). Calvin, Spurgeon, and many others have failed to receive such truth, loving their own doctrine more than pure truth given in the scriptures. Arminius on the other hand was a man of integrity and humility, who had a great love for people and their eternal souls. He was not afraid to stand against the Calvinist doctrines. He was marked as a preacher of heresy because he believed and taught that a person had free will, as opposed to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. In reading of his life there is evidence of true Christianity by the love and grace he had for his followers and all people. Calvinists say that Arminians take away from the grace of God by teaching a person could lose their salvation. They say that if a person could lose their salvation then the righteousness and the grace of God would fail. But it is the opposite that is true. If God would let a sinner into heaven, then his righteousness would fail. And this would not be the grace the Bible teaches. Otherwise, we would have to say that God should allow every sinner into heaven, since He is a God of grace and love. Receiving such grace is dependant upon continuing in what first got us to grace, which was the drawing by the Holy Spirit, repentance, acceptance of Gods ways, and walking in His righteousness. Grace does not have an automatic eternal effect on any person, but is abiding only in those who continue in Christ. His grace is always available through what Christ did for us on the cross, but each individual must always receive it as they walk in righteousness. Sin will separate man from such grace. But if men will turn to Christ, then grace will separate sin from men. It is up to each person to walk in His grace or to be separate from it. Arminius was concerned about the eternal souls of men, and the offer of salvation to all men; so therefore he taught against Calvin’s teachings continually. The Remonstrants took the views of Arminius a step further with the concern for those who would believe they are saved in their sins, as opposed to being saved from their sins. They had opposed Eternal Security at a new level in their day, as did men of the first centuries. We can see in history that God’s grace was taught more through the life of Arminius than it was through Calvin. Calvin taught that only the elect could be saved, while Arminius sought for all men to be saved, as the scripture declares in Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Calvin murdered those who disagreed with him (if the opportunity arose). Arminius sought to reason through the scriptures. Calvin taught that even babies who were not part of God’s elect went to hell if they were to die. Arminius never taught such, but believed that God’s grace was extended to all who would receive, babies being innocent of willful and rebellious sin. The Remonstants followed the same spirit of Arminius in their debates with Calvinists and the Synod of Dort, while being refused a proper defense and explanation through the scriptures. So, who really taught more about grace? If one must be a heretic, then you be the judge of who were really the heretics. Lord Jesus, help us that we may see, know, and receive the truth that will make us free. I pray that through the remainder of this book that eyes may be opened to see the truth. That every hard heart may be softened! Amen! 
|
 FEATURED CHAPTERS -Table
of Contents |
Calvinism