Is Arminianism is Just Another Form of Diet Roman Catholicism?
Why do I say that the Arminian is a diet Roman Catholic? It is because even if they are not of Rome, they adhere to the Papist heresy of conditional security which was set by the rules of mortal sin and venial sin. Since
From Got Questions, here's a definition of mortal sin and venial sin:
The problem in today's Protestant circles itself is not the rejection of Calvinism but the acceptance of Arminianism. I can always accept a non-Calvinist as family in Christ if he or she shows signs of truly knowing Christ. I can embrace some staunch non-Calvinists like David W. Cloud - even if he rejects Calvinism as "serious error", he rejects Arminianism and he has shown fruits of genuine Christian living and emphasis on true and false conversion. John F. Macarthur though he is a staunch Calvinist and promoter of Reformed Theology quoted from Harry Allen Ironside, a non-Calvinist Protestant. Although I am in the process of becoming more of Calvinist and Reformed, I can still embrace those truly saved believers who refuse to accept Calvinism because they show signs that they are indeed truly converts in Christ. I could embrace these non-Calvinists who are not Arminians but I cannot embrace Arminians who claim to be Christians.
Even if the Arminian might be an anti-Roman Catholic but such a person is still adhering to the common heresy of conditional security. It's so ironic how Arminians can claim to be conservative Protestants but adhere to the same heresy of conditional security. They may say, "We are not of Rome, we do not have the Rosary beads, we do not have the graven images, we have none of such Romish rituals and we have long left Roman Catholicism." But alas, the poor and self-deceived Arminian may not necessarily be an agent of Rome nor working for the dreaded Jesuits in black but he or she adheres to such a dangerous heresy and their doctrine is Roman Catholicism minus the sacraments and the Vatican. Like every anti-Catholic so-called Christian organization, they are only diet Catholics and not truly born again Christians. Other organizations like Iglesia ni Manalo or the Ang Dating Daan while they oppose Roman Catholicism, they are however are still straight from the pits of Hell and a road to Hellfire.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon said this from "A Defense of Calvinism":
What amazes me me is the irony that follows the Arminians. For they say, "You sir preach a license to sin." but I find a lot of them living like they have a license to sin. It amazed me to think how many Arminian pastors are indeed charlatans that after they declared the conditional security of the believer were caught in offenses like adultery, financial frauds and being false accusers of just everyone and like many Roman Catholics I know, they were in fact living life like they had a license to sin. But just a note to close, just because a person rejects Calvinism does not make them an Arminian. To be an true Arminian, one must reject the eternal security of the believer and add works to salvation. I can surely accept non-Calvinist Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can see some non-Reformed who have shown fruits of genuine Christianity.
See also:
Arminianism and Antinomianism are Enemies of Biblical Preaching
Does Calvinism or Reformed Theology Teach a License to Sin?
The Doctrine of Conditional Security Breeds Arrogance
The Incredible Irony Behind Religious Roman Catholics and Their Lifestyles
From Got Questions, here's a definition of mortal sin and venial sin:
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church is found this description of mortal sin: "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: 'Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.'" According to the Catechism, "Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments." The Catechism further states that mortal sin "results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell."
Regarding venial sin, the Catechism states the following: "One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of virtues and practice of moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. 'Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.'"
In summary, mortal sin is an intentional violation of the Ten Commandments (in thought, word or deed), committed in full knowledge of the gravity of the matter, and it results in the loss of salvation. Salvation may be regained through repentance and God’s forgiveness. Venial sin may be a violation of the Ten Commandments or a sin of a lesser nature, but it is committed unintentionally and/or without full consent. Although damaging to one’s relationship with God, venial sin does not result in loss of eternal life.
The heretic Jacobus Arminius had also adhered (in his own way) to the same error of mortal sin and venial sin. His heresy taught that David had lost salvation at the very moment he committed the very act of adultery. Many Arminians today teach the very heresy that you can lose your salvation every time you commit certain sins by citing certain verses out of their context. For example, they cite 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 unaware of the word "unrighteous" is in there, that is the state prior to salvation or those were the lifestyle of the unsaved. A Christian may fall into sin but not into a sinful lifestyle by the grace of God. The heresy of Arminius is conditional security minus the Vatican's other teachings such as salvation by Mary and rituals. In their teaching, it's you who must endure to keep your salvation in contrast to the Bible's teaching that your perseverance is by the grace of God.
Some Arminians may claim to be enemies of the Jesuits but listen to what Augustus Toplady had to say about Arminianism and Jesuitism:
The Jesuits and Predestination
If the joint verdict of Arminius himself, and of his English proselyte Hoord, will not turn the scale, let us add the testimony of a professed Jesuit, by way of making up full weight. When archbishop Laud's papers were examined, a letter was found among them, thus endorsed with that prelate's own hand: "March, 1628. A Jesuit's Letter, sent to the Rector at Bruxels, about the ensuing Parliament." The design of this letter was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels, an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England; an extract from it I shall here subjoin: "Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme (sovereign drug of Arminianism), which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresies; and it flourisheth and bears fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritans, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's (of Buckingham) ears; and we have those of our own religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and careful in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:--OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISM. The Arminians and projectors, as it appears in the premises, affect mutation. This we second and enforce by probable arguments."
The Sovereign Drug, Arminianism
The "Sovereign drug, Arminianism," which said the Jesuit, "we (i.e. we Papists) have planted" in England, did indeed bid fair "to purge our Protestant Church effectually. How merrily Popery and Arminianism, at that time, danced hand in hand, may be learned from Tindal: "The churches were adorned with paintings, images, altar-pieces, & etc. and, instead of communion tables, altars were set up, and bowing to them and the sacramental elements enjoined. The predestinarian doctrines were forbidden, not only to be preached, but to be printed; and the Arminian sense of the Articles was encouraged and propagated." The Jesuit, therefore, did not exult without cause. The "sovereign drug," so lately "planted," did indeed take deep root downward, and bring forth fruit upward, under the cherishing auspices of Charles and Laud. Heylyn, too, acknowledges, that the state of things was truly described by another Jesuit of that age, who wrote: "Protestantism waxeth weary of itself. The doctrine (by the Arminians, who then sat at the helm) is altered in many things, for which their progenitors forsook the Church of Rome: as limbus patrum; prayer for the dead, and possibility of keeping God's commandments; and the accounting of Calvinism to be heresy at least, if not treason."
The problem in today's Protestant circles itself is not the rejection of Calvinism but the acceptance of Arminianism. I can always accept a non-Calvinist as family in Christ if he or she shows signs of truly knowing Christ. I can embrace some staunch non-Calvinists like David W. Cloud - even if he rejects Calvinism as "serious error", he rejects Arminianism and he has shown fruits of genuine Christian living and emphasis on true and false conversion. John F. Macarthur though he is a staunch Calvinist and promoter of Reformed Theology quoted from Harry Allen Ironside, a non-Calvinist Protestant. Although I am in the process of becoming more of Calvinist and Reformed, I can still embrace those truly saved believers who refuse to accept Calvinism because they show signs that they are indeed truly converts in Christ. I could embrace these non-Calvinists who are not Arminians but I cannot embrace Arminians who claim to be Christians.
Even if the Arminian might be an anti-Roman Catholic but such a person is still adhering to the common heresy of conditional security. It's so ironic how Arminians can claim to be conservative Protestants but adhere to the same heresy of conditional security. They may say, "We are not of Rome, we do not have the Rosary beads, we do not have the graven images, we have none of such Romish rituals and we have long left Roman Catholicism." But alas, the poor and self-deceived Arminian may not necessarily be an agent of Rome nor working for the dreaded Jesuits in black but he or she adheres to such a dangerous heresy and their doctrine is Roman Catholicism minus the sacraments and the Vatican. Like every anti-Catholic so-called Christian organization, they are only diet Catholics and not truly born again Christians. Other organizations like Iglesia ni Manalo or the Ang Dating Daan while they oppose Roman Catholicism, they are however are still straight from the pits of Hell and a road to Hellfire.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon said this from "A Defense of Calvinism":
"What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."
What amazes me me is the irony that follows the Arminians. For they say, "You sir preach a license to sin." but I find a lot of them living like they have a license to sin. It amazed me to think how many Arminian pastors are indeed charlatans that after they declared the conditional security of the believer were caught in offenses like adultery, financial frauds and being false accusers of just everyone and like many Roman Catholics I know, they were in fact living life like they had a license to sin. But just a note to close, just because a person rejects Calvinism does not make them an Arminian. To be an true Arminian, one must reject the eternal security of the believer and add works to salvation. I can surely accept non-Calvinist Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can see some non-Reformed who have shown fruits of genuine Christianity.
See also:
Arminianism and Antinomianism are Enemies of Biblical Preaching
Does Calvinism or Reformed Theology Teach a License to Sin?
The Doctrine of Conditional Security Breeds Arrogance
The Incredible Irony Behind Religious Roman Catholics and Their Lifestyles