My Letter to Dave Hunt and T. McMahon [Archive]

Churchwork

08-11-2009, 06:34 AM

Ed apparently takes replies at the Berean Call for Dave Hunt and T. McMahon.

Regarding Jacob Arminius, we have to honestly admit that the did believe in the security of the believer. Objective research reveals no other conclusion. The problem is not that we misunderstand, but rather that we understand all too well. We have seen a continual pattern of interpreting Scriptures from a preconceived idea and it seems increasingly evident that history may not be exempt from this approach.

Is it praiseworthy that you term anyone who tells the truth about Arminius as bearing false witness, particularly since a little research will reveal that Arminius’s teaching concerning Eternal Security is something which has not escaped the notice of others?
What? That doesn't make any sense what you said. You said, "anyone who tells the truth about Arminius as bearing false witness"!? I thought telling the truth about someone was bearing true witness.

Remember that, for both Calvin and Arminius, their followers continued to develop (and in some cases alter) their original views. Present day Calvinists and Arminians are much further apart than Calvin and Arminius were… (Leigh, “Calvin and Arminius,” 1995, p. 7).
I don't buy that, since the 5 points of OSAS Arminian and 5 points of Calvinism have not changed, nor could they. They remain an eternal constant. The division then is no less than today.

Further, if we are in full possession of the facts, have accurately presented them, and trusted the result to the Lord, such worldly tactics are unnecessary and indeed detract from what we hope to present.
What specific worldly tactics were you referring to? if not your own.

As someone who has pastored, and who continues to minister from the pulpit, I have had occasion to realize that some of my firmly held convictions were in error. In these situations, the Lord has graciously allowed me to encounter His provision where “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17). May this letter be a blessing to you as we address your misunderstanding and consequent misrepresentation of Arminius.

I have never had false teachings on these points like you flipped around back and forth. God has graced me with solid teaching at the outset in part with the help of Watchman Nee's writings, but especially because of abiding in the leading of the Holy Spirit in agreement with the word of God, so when you accuse of some misunderstanding as yet undisclosed, I immediately know you harbor some false teaching.

First of all, understanding the original meaning of a translation from another language is difficult enough, but especially so when written in a formal and now archaic style.

Of course. But however difficult, when reading Arminius, there are no excuses for defending those who misrepresent him.

Secondly, as someone writing from a contemporary Arminian viewpoint, one may encounter a problem similar to that which a Calvinist faces with the writings of Spurgeon. Someone would like Arminius’ doctrine to agree with theirs. It does not. But if you doubt that Arminius meant what he said, consider the following passage:
Spurgeon truly taught Total depravity which is a false teaching. Arminians would not have this problem, because we do not have this false teaching.

V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies -- yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention [or Synod], to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.

Arminius said, "Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention [or Synod], to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual."

Arminius is expressing his difficulty with some passages where it appears a person can lose salvation, not realizing those verses pertain to the millennial loss of rewards. He is abiding in his own conscience with this inquiry. Furthermore, "to cleave again" and "to decline" do not indicate a loss of eternal life, but certainly, loss of rewards. It helps to realize there are carnal or fleshly Christians and spiritual or matured Christians to explain such verses, for there are consequences and accountability for believers also.

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration. (Works of James Arminius, p. 254, emphasis mine).
As was previously stated, Arminius is having troubles in his own understanding how to explain away some verses, not realizing that those verses pertain to loss of rewards. Even so, he held his ground, "Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration" since he is an OSASer.

This second witness agrees with the previous quotation from Arminius. In no uncertain terms it very clearly states that he never taught that a believer can lose their salvation, fully supporting the point made in Mr. Hunt’s book. To help us understand his thought process, Arminius explains that there are passages of scripture which seem to teach loss of salvation and which have not been resolved to his satisfaction. Further, he notes that there are other scriptures indicating that a true believer cannot lose his salvation and which “are worthy of much consideration.” For this cause, the above first paragraph suggests a “diligent inquiry from the Scriptures” to determine the truth. I have no problem with a man who acknowledges that some scriptures seem to lend support to either side of an issue. Many of the passages you cite come from Arminius’ wrestling with this issue. But the fact remains that he states—not just once—that he never taught that a true believer can lose his salvation.
Exactly, therefore, anyone who claims Arminius taught non-OSAS would be bearing false witness against him, but you said, oddly enough, "anyone who tells the truth about Arminius as bearing false witness"!? I thought that was a very strange thing to say. Your spirit does not seem right when you said that.

What about other passages which on the surface appear to contradict Arminius’s declaration?

I know of no such passages on the surface or under the surface, nor do the ones you provide indicate any such thing that "other passages...appear to contradict Arminius' declaration". Understand Arminius was being humble, admittedly willing to accept he did not know how to explain some passages, but he held firmly to OSAS always and forever. Therefore, it is a great sin to bear false witness against him. Don't misconstrue his inability to explain some verses as suggesting a contradiction. Remonstrants may make that mistake, but it is unjustified.

Written in response to the teachings of Calvin, the writings of Arminius contain hypotheses, as stated numerous times within the body of the text. According to the dictionary, a hypothesis is:

1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences, and–

HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

To our twenty-first century ears, Arminius uses rather formal and complicated language to state the issues. Our task is not to confuse his hypotheses with his clear statements of position. Here is the source of many an error.
I think your hypothesis Arminius had an hypothesis against Calvinism is misguided on your part, for Arminius clearly laid out verses that taught preservation of the saints. Arminius was firmly grounded against all 5 points of Calvinism. That he does not know how to explain some other verses does not take away from that fact, but would merely expound on the proven fact once he gathered additional information and received further revelation from the Holy Spirit as I have, for example, by simply saying, those passages refer to loss of rewards or in other instances, coming so close to God but "draw back unto perdition" (Heb. 10.39). You have provided no basis for your hypothesis. You are trying to be cute with your words which is a coy spirit.

To recap, more than once in clear, unambiguous language he states that he had not taught that Christians can totally or finally fall away from the faith and perish. That’s the point and until words change their meanings, it still stands. The only misrepresentation is that generated by preconceptions.

That's right, many people sin bearing false witness against Arminius, claiming he taught non-OSAS; some even try to claim he taught Total depravity. He did not!

That Arminius apparently held this position to the very end of his life is demonstrated by an address he delivered February 8, 1606, three years prior to his death. In speaking of those who were teaching false doctrine, he said:

"It is possible that they who entertain these mistaken sentiments, are of the number of the elect, whom God, it is true, may have permitted to fall, but only with this design, that he may raise them up with the greater glory. How then can we indulge ourselves in any harsh or unmerciful resolutions against these persons, who have been destined to possess the heavenly inheritance, who are our brethren, the members of Christ, and not only the servants but the sons of the Lord Most High?"
Here I would disagree with Arminius by saying that he is presuming too much. He is, though holding to his position of OSAS, grants those who believe in non-OSAS salvation, but I would say it is more likely such individuals were never born-again to begin with since they don't know a salvation in which is eternal and can never be lost. Arminius may be making excuses for many Roman Catholics, but I am certain most were never saved and others holding to non-OSAS, e.g. William Lane Craig. The reason being it is a salvation by works, not by faith, since according to them they can lose salvation tomorrow by works then would have to regain it again by works. What love is this? Only the best workers would be saved. To know not eternal life is eternal and the Holy Spirit permanently indwells the believer no matter how much he backslides (within limits, otherwise the person was never born-again to begin with) is not to have a relationship with Christ. Eternal life is an ability to know God through regeneration by quickening of one's spirit with God's life.

As we have noted, more than one historian has pointed out that those who professed to follow You are clearly in error regarding Arminius. As a servant of the Living God, what do you think your own response should be?

Ed
As we have seen, your view on Arminius is clearly false as you are supporting ambiguity. If you are a child of God will you now repent of your false teaching of bearing false witness against Arminius? Though you correctly teach Arminius taught OSAS, you are bearing false witness against him that he was ambiguous then contradicting yourself claiming he was clear in what he said. You're giving ground to others who bearing false witness against Arminius.

If Arminius clearly says a person can't lose salvation once born-again, then accept it! Why try to make excuses for others in their bearing false witness against Arminius who claim he taught non-OSAS? The mistake you are making is thinking that since Arminius allows for some non-OSASers to be saved because they are only deceived, this implies some contradiction. In no way does this mean he believed non-OSAS is true or could be true. Clearly, the only reading one may have from his writings is that of humility. Anything other is to assume too much. I even believe some non-OSASers could be saved, but most are not. A Christian can be deceived. Most non-OSASers are not saved, but even a far greater percentage of Calvinists are not saved.

You are sinning by making excuses for people who bear false witness against Arminius. You even said Arminius was clear ("clearly states") in his writings, but then you said his was only a "hypothesis" against Calvin, so you are trying to be ambiguous with your doubletalk: e.g. you said, "What about other passages which on the surface appear to contradict Arminius’s declaration?" The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. When you contradict yourself, you get yourself into trouble.

Praise the Lord for this discernment!

You didn't address any of the other points. I hope you respond to them as well for your own benefit:

> Troy Brooks sent a message using the contact form at
> http://www.thebereancall.org/contact/E-mail+Questions.

> My prayer for you Dave Hunt and T. M. McMahon is to teach correctly because
> you do teach correctly so much, so why not go all the way:
>
> 1) partial rapture
> http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Partial_rapture.htm
> 2) Scriptural locality
> http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/whichchurch.htm
> 3) gap restoration (and evolution does not conflict with creation)
> http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mystery.htm
> 4) our being tripartite
> http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm
> 5) osas arminian
> http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/neeosasarminian.htm
> http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/1Tim4.htm.
>
> You are one of the few people that don't bear false witness against Jacob
> Arminius that he was OSAS. I know you don't understand these things I am
> saying, but realize Watchman Nee is someone who is ahead of you
> spiritually. If you come to these proofs with humility, you will accept
> them. All one needs do is compare his words with your words to see on
> these points who is agreeing with Scripture and that you are not right on
> these points. Please understand what I am saying. It is for your benefit
> and for others who listen to your words. It's important that you
> communicate these truths to people. This is God's mind, His conscience for
> us to know these facts for the soon return of Christ. I know Hunt is
> getting old and doesn't have much time left to give, but these are the
> issues of the day and whatever energy he can muster, may he address these
> points for they are the premier points for spiritual Christians. Nee
> agrees with you on much, but you need to agree with him because these
> truths are proven in Scripture.
> I have added these links so you can begin learning. It's like you are
> still a babe in Christ that you don't know these things after all these
> years.