Why is Arminianism so dangerous?

In a time where unity trumps truth and acceptance trumps discernment and immorality is seen as more wicked that false teaching, we must recover the importance of the gospel. It is not good enough that someone has come to a sincere and thought out position. We must be ever reforming to the word of God especially when it comes to the harder truths of the gospel. St Augustine said that "If you believe what you like in the gospel and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” The bible places false teaching as the most grievous of sins. As Detrich Bonhoffer puts it “ False doctrine corrupts the life of the church at its source, and that is why doctrinal sin is more serious than moral. Those who rob the Church of the gospel deserve the ultimate penalty, wheras those who fail in morality have the gospel there to help them.”(the cost of discipleship.) Let us examine, therefore, the seriousness of the error of Arminianism, that it might not undermine the very gospel we have been charged to guard and to proclaim.


The 9 points I want to raise as to the dangerousness of Arminianism are:

1. It disunites the trinity
2. It makes salvation a work man accomplishes
3. It empties the cross of its effect
4. It destroys the doctrine of total depravity 
5. It diminishes the sovereign power of God making God's grace ineffectal
6. it diminishes God's omniscience particularly His knowledge of the future
7. It destroys and undermines the unity of scritpture
8. It strips Christians of their assurance and hope
9. It undermines justification by faith alone

1. It disunites the trinity

The essence of all Reformed theology is this: "Salvation belongs to the Lord." (Jonah 2:9). R.C.Sproul said of salvation that "It is designed and ordained by the Father, accomplished by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. All three persons of the Trinity are in eternal agreement on the plan of redemption and its execution." (What is reformed theology, 1997, p 163) If one was to argue for the arminian doctrine of unlimited atonement they must argue likewise for the disunity for the trinity as the implication is that, though the Father has chosen some to be saved, the Son sheds his blood for a different group to those the father sent him to save, with the Spirit again working in another group, though not effectualy calling. Rather we find that the trinity is united. They are one in mission and purpose in election. Those the father predestined from all eternity, the son was obedient in his mission to atone for, and the spirit worked with the Father and the Son to apply Jesus death and words savingly and effectually. Just as Jesus said in John 10 “I am the good shepherd.I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.... you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:14, 26-30)

2. It makes salvation a work man accomplishes

Though many arminians would outright deny that salvation is in any way a work of man, through their denial of man's radical corruption and of the monergistic (one working) grace of God, they produce a God who leaves the final say in salvation up to man himself. The role of the father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit being given to mankind in salvation in Arminian theology, leaves J I Packer to conclude of the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology that:

"The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind - election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit - as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man.." (J I Packer, "Introductory essay," in John Owen, the death of death in the death of Christ: A treatise in which the whole controversy about universal redemption is fully discussed (1852, reprint 1959) p 4)

So important to the Reformers was the issue of our total dependency on grace for salvation that they saw all forms of arminiansm as serious threats to the gospel. Louise Berkhof observes, “ The Arminians revealed a Romanizing tendency when they conceived of faith as a meritorious work of man, on the basis of which he is accepted in favor by God.” (Systematic Theology, 497) Packer and Johnston echo the seriousness of this implication:

"Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man's utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Paelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome ( because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformers' thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christiantiy in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-christian and anti-Christian as the other."(Packer and Johnston, "Historical and Theological Introduction", p 59)

3. It empties the cross of its effect

Arminians believe in a Universal Atonement, that Christ died for all and every man alike, for Judas as well as for Peter.

"According to those who follow the objections of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1909), known as Arminians, Christ’s atonement was unlimited in its scope - that is, it affects all persons equally - but limited in its effect - it falls short of actually achieving salvation. This is the view known as general redemption, that Christ's atoning work had a redeeming effect on all persons generally but actually redeeming none. The classic Reformed response, known as particular redemption, or limited atonement, asserts that Christ's atonement was limited in scope - that is, its primary effects pertain only to the elect - but unlimited in effect - the atonement effectually saves those for whom it was intended. " (Richard D phillips- What is the atonement , 2010, pp 30-31)

J I Packer says the Arminian concept, as debated at the Synod of Dort in 1618, declares that "Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe." (J I Packer, "Introductory essay," in John Owen, the death of death in the death of Christ: A treatise in which the whole controversy about universal redemption is fully discussed (1852, reprint 1959) p 4)

Charles finney, American Arminian revivalist of the nineteenth century believed that Christ’s work on the cross could not have paid our debt, but could only serve as a moral example and influence to persuade us to repent. “ If he has obeyed the law as our substitiute, then why should ur own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?” (Finney, Systamatic Theology, 206) The atonement is simply “ an incentive to virtue.” (Ibid, 209),. Finney can only concede, “it is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one.” (Finney Ibid.)

The assumptions of the Arminian theology of the atonement are:

1. a denial of God's wrath and the necessity of his justice being fully satisfied by Christ's death,
2. a rejection of the principle of substitution in this relationship between God and sinners
3. an emphasis on the exemplary character if Christ's death as inciting human love and obedience rather than on its expiatory character as providing the sole basis for our acceptance before God.

This leads us to the quesion “Did Christ die to atone for the sins of every human being or did he die to atone for the sins of the elect only? Is Christ a real Saviour or merely a "potential" saviour? " Historic Arminianism embraces unlimited atonement, that Christ died for all, but embraces particularism: not all people are saved, only a particular number of them, who respond to the gospel with faith. The person who fails to embrace the saving work of Christ with faith is ultimately left without the expiation and washing away of their sins, the propitiation of the cross where God's wrath was satisfied and the satisfaction of God's justice. R C Sproul says: 

"In this view faith is not only a condition for redemption but also one of the very grounds of redemption. If the atonement is not efficacious apart from faith, then faith must be necessary for the satisfaction of divine justice. Here faith becomes a work with a vengeance because its presence or absence in a sinner determines the efficacy of Christ's work of satisfaction for this person." (What is reformed theology, 1997, p 165)

Arminians would protest this conclusion that human faith adds any "value" to the finished work of Christ. Both reformed theologians and Arminians believe that Christ's atonement is unlimited and sufficient to cover the sins of the whole fallen race however reformed theologians believe that the atonement is efficient only for some, an idea that is integral to the doctrine of limited atonement.

"When we speak of the sufficiency of the atonement, however, we must ask the question, is it a sufficient satisfaction of divine justice? If it is sufficient to satisfy the demands of God's justice, then no one needs to worry about future punishment. If God accepts payment of one person's moral debt from another, will he then exact payment of the same debt later by the person himself? The answer is obviously no. This means that if Christ really, objectively satisfied the demands of God’s justice for everyone, then everyone will be saved. It is one thing to agree that faith is a necessary condition for the appropriation of the benefits of Christ's atoning work, for justification and its fruits. It is quite another to say that faith is a necessary condition for the satisfaction of divine justice. If faith is a condition for God's justice to be satisfied, then the atonement, in itself, is not "sufficient" for anyone, let alone for all. Full satisfaction is not rendered until or unless a person adds to the atonement his faith. Again Arminians will protest that they do not, in fact make faith a work of satisfaction. Faith is a necessary condition, they say, not a work of satisfaction. But the question remains, is divine satisfaction effected without faith? If so, then faith is clearly an element necessary for satisfaction, an element that we supply." (R C Sproul, What is reformed theology, 1997, pp165-166)

This leads John Stott to remark that “Any notion of penal substitution in which three independent actors play a role – the guilty party, the punitive judge and the innocent victim - is to be repudiated with the utmost vehemence.” (John stott, the cross of Christ, 1986 pp 158) The purpose of substitutionary atonement is that "we have been justified by his blood [and]... saved by him from the wrath of God" (Rom. 5:9). The basis of the texts that set out the cause of the atonement lies not in our "free will" but rather in God's own pleasure (Isa. 53:10) purpose ( Eph. 1:5, 9, 11) and love (John 3:16) to the praise of His glorious grace (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). The cross not only demonstrates God's justice but filfills God's justice as opposed to a horribly cruel object lesson (Rom. 3:25-26)

The great Puritan theologian John Owen said this:
"First, if the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extend of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts? Secondly, if the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all suits against such as have their debts so paid, whence is it that his wrath smokes against some to all eternity? let none tell me that it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy is part of the debt which is fully paid, for (as it is in the third inference) the debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and required satisfaction of them for whome, by his own acknowledgement, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient."

R C Sproul goes on to show the illogical nature of the Arminian's theology:

"Let me consider the benefit of Christ's atonement for me. I am presently a believer in Christ. Today I enjoy the benefit of an atonement made for me centuries ago. Did that atonement satisfy the demands of God’s justice on all of my sins? If it did, then it satisfied the penalty for the sin of my previous unbelief. Was that sin paid for before I believed? Or was Christ's atonement not complete until I came to faith? Did his death cover my unbelief or not? If it did, why then does his atonement not cover the unbelief of unbelievers? It covers my former unbelief but not the present unbelief of unbelievers. Advocates of unlimited atonement say the sin of unbelief is not covered unless the condition of faith is met. My faith then makes Christ's atonement efficacious for me. If faith is necessary to the atonement, then Christ's work was indeed a mere potentiality. In itself it saves no one. It merely makes salvation possible. Theoretically we must ask the obvious question, What would have happened to the work of Christ if nobody believed in it? That had to be a theoretical possibility. In this case Christ would have died in vain. He would have been a potential Saviour of all, but an actual Saviour of none. "That is pure speculation, the Arminian replies." The reality "is that many have and do embrace Christ in faith. Christ is a bona fide Saviour. People truly are saved by his work. Besides, when our omniscient God sent Christ into the world to make an atonement, he knew this would be no exercise in futility. The Father knew that not only he would be satisfied by the work of his Son but the Son himself would see the travail of his own would and be satisfied. This divine satisfaction, however, would be limited. If God sent Christ to save everyone, then he must remain eternally dissatisfied with the results. Though the Son may receive satisfaction from knowing that some have availed themselves of his atonement, his satisfaction must be partial because so many have not. This raises the cardinal point in the doctrine of limited atonement. The ultimate question has to do not so much with the sufficiency or efficiency of the atonement, but with its design. What was God's original purpose or intent in sending his Son into the world? Was his divine plan to make redemption possible or to make it certain? If God planned to redeem all men, did his plan fail? Did God know in advance who would believe and who would not? Was the faith of believer’s part of his plan? Our answers to these questions of all depend on our understanding of God's character, of his sovereignty and omniscience." (What is reformed theology, 1997, pp 167-168)

4. It destroys the doctrine of total depravity 

If atonement is unlimited, and therefore intended for all, then it logically flows that some resist the grace of God extended through the offer of atonement. If grace is resistible, this nullifies the effectual nature of God's irresistible grace. If Grace can be resisted it means that we are not totally depraved but have some faculty, some island of righteousness from which we can choose or reject God.

In the judgment of the magisterial reformers themselves, one's view of the will and its state of bondage is absolutely vital to one's understanding of the entire Christian faith. Luther himself said:

"...this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability "free will" has, in what respect it is the subject of divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsover of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth! He who dissents from that statement should acknowledge that he is no Christian' and he who ridicules or derides it should realize that he is the Christian's chief foe. For if I am ignorant of the nature, extent and limits of what I can and must do with reference to God, I shall be equally ignorant and uncertain of the nature, extend and limits of what God can and will do in me- though God, in fact, works all in all (cf. 1 Cor. 12:6). Now, if I am ignorant of God's works and power, I am ignorant of God himself and if i do not know God, I cannot worship, praise, give thanks or serve Him, for I do not know how much I should attribute to myself and how much to Him. We need, therefore, to have in mind a clear-cut distinction between God's power and ours, and God’s work and ours, if we would live a godly life." (Luther, the bondage of the will, p 78)

5. It diminishes the sovereign power of God making God's grace ineffectal

The Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace is defined as follows by "Wesley's Order of Salvation" as:

"Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as "Prevenient Grace." Prevenient Grace doesn't save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us WANT to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God."

This doctrine undermines the very heart of the reformation. It is often assumed that the chief issue of the Reformation was the issue of justification. Together the Reformers clearly saw the link between the doctrine of justification and the primacy of grace throwing their thunderbolts at every form of human merit.

"The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration - the doctrine, that is, that he faith which receives Christ for justificaton is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowed by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was a the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they came to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith." (Packer and Johnston, "Historical and Theological Introduction", pp 58-59)

In Arminianism grace is not only helpful for salvation but necessary for it. Grace is necessary to assist the sinner in responding positively to God. Grace is necessary, but not necessarily effectual Grace- may be resisted... The problem is this: If grace is necessary but not effectual, what makes it work? R C Sproul reveals that even in Arminiams/ semi pelagianism, it ultimately comes down to man's work or God's grace:

"Obviously it is the positive response of the sinner, who is still in the flesh. Why does one sinner respond to the offer of grace positively and the other negatively? is the difference in respond found in the power of the huma will or in some added measure of grace? Does grace assist the sinner in cooperating with grace, or does the sinner cooperate by the power of the flesh alone? If the latter, it is unvarnished Pelagianism. If the former, it is still pelagianism in that grace merely facilitates regenreation and salvation. "No, no, no" cries the semi pelagian. "Sproul has missed the point entirely. Semi Pelagianism rejects pure pelagisnism at the point of saying that grace is necessary for salvation, not merely helpful." We know this is what semi- pelagians say, but how in fact does this work out in their understanding of regeneration? If the flesh can, by itself, incline itself to grace, where is the need of grace? If the grace of regeneration is merely offered and its efficiency depends on the sinner's response, what does grace accomplish that is not already present in the power of the flesh? What the unregenerate person desperately needs in order to come to faith is regeneration.. unless God changes the disposition of my sinful heart, I will never choose to cooperate with grace of embrace Christ in faith. These are the very thing to which the flesh is indisposed. If God merely offers to change my heart, what will that accomplish for me as long as my heart remains opposed to him? If he offers me grace while I am a slave to sin and still in the flesh, what good is the offer? Saving grace does not offer liberation, it liberates. Saving grace does not merely offer regeneration, it regenerates. This is what makes grace so gracious: God unilaterally and mongergistically does for us what we cannot do for ourselves."  (What is reformed theology, 1997, pp 187-88)

On this matter Calvin quotes Augustine saying: "This grace, which is secretly imparted to the hearts of men, is not received by any hard heart; for the reason for which it is given is, that the hardness of the heart may first be taken away. Hence, when the father is heart within, he takes away the stony heart, and gives a heart of flesh. thus he makes them sons of promise and vessels of mercy, which he has prepared for glory."

6. It diminishes God's omniscience particularly His knowledge of the future

Arminians detest the doctrine of predestination as presented by Calvinists. Since the word itself is Biblical, Arminians are forced to define the term in a manner that complements free will. In order to do that, they must recast the traditional doctrines related to God's knowledge. Most of us have no problem saying that God knows all things; but this has vexed most Arminians

They, the Arminians who are Freewill Theists, are not willing to concede that God knows all things, at least not in the traditional sense. For example, Clark Pinnock argues that "omniscience need not mean exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. if that were its meaning, the future would be fixed and determined, as is the past." (Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God, 121. ) "In some respects the future is knowable, in others it is not....All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur." (Richard Rice, 'Divine Foreknowledge and Free-Will Theism' in A Case for Arminianism, 134.)

However, as Mark Herzer says "In order for God to know even two seconds into the future, God must know the decisions of the first second which He is not permitted to know (or, as they argue, He chose not to know). If He does not know it, then how can He know His own future actions when they are dependent upon the free acts of man? Thus God in fact does not know the future at all because He does not know our decisions nor His responses to them."

Rice is even more adamant in another book: "Not even God knows the future in all its details. Some parts remain indefinite until they actually occur, and so they can't be known in advance."(Richard Rice, God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will ).

It logically follows that God takes risks with his plan of salvation. John Sanders's explains that when God created the world, He had a "great chance of success and little possibility of failure while concomitantly having a ... high amount of risk in the sense that it matters deeply to God how things go....In essence, his view could be summed up by these words: "But God sovereignly decides not to control each and every event, and some things go contrary to what God intends and may not turn out completely as God desires. Hence, God takes risks in creating this sort of world."" (J. Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1998) 169. )

In God not knowing the future, the Arminians imply that God has left himself open to the most dire of consequences - Christ's death coming to nothing if no one trusted in Him, the falling away of the saints, a revisit of the fall in heaven and the victory of Satan over God.

7. It destroys and undermines the unity of scritpture

Arminianism fosters theological confusion. How do we make sense of those versus which clearly say that God is in control, that saints can never fall away, that Christ saves his sheep, that God has saved us by his grace alone when we were dead in sin, that faith comes through hearing the Word of God, and that God's desire for the lost is different to his plan to save the lost? We cannot, but rather sacrifice what God has made clear at the alter of "free will" and the realm of "mystery".

"Spurgeon held that Arminianism does not merely affect a few doctrines which can be separated from the gospel, rather it involves the whole unity of Biblical revelation and it affects our view of the whole plan of redemption at almost every point. He regarded ignorance of the full content of the gospel as a major cause of Arminianism, and the errors of that system then prevent men from grasping the whole divine unity of Scriptural truths and from perceiving them in their true relationships and in their right order. Arminianism truncates Scripture and it militates against that wholeness of view which is necessary for the glory of God, the exaltation of Christ and the stability of the believer. Anything which thus inclines Christians to rest short of this fullness of vision is therefore a serious matter which needs to be opposed." (Ian Murray)

8. It strips Christians of their assurance and hope

The fifth point of the Remonstrant (arminian) articles reads as follows: “That they who are united to Christ by faith are thereby furnished with abundant strength and succor sufficient to enable them to triumph over the desuctions of Satan, and the allurements of sin; nevertheless they may, by the neglect of these succors, fall from grace, and, dying in such a state, may finally perish. This point was started at first doubtfully, but afterward positively as a settled doctrine.” (Quoted in H Orton Wiley, Christian theology, 1841, 3:351)

Arminianism imposes the culturally determined assumption of secularist individualism upon the text of the bible and rather presents us with a God who is left without the power to govern his universe let alone the power to save, stripping us of our hope of the future and inflicting us with a guilty conscience that is forever in anxiety about its spiritual performance.

"Taking an Arminian view how can evil exist if God did not want it? If evil happens in spite of the fact that God does not want it to happen, this seems to deny God's omnipotence: He wanted to prevent evil, but he was unable to do so. The common Arminian response is to say that God was able to prevent evil but he chose to allow for the possibility of evil in order to guarantee that angels and humans would have the freedom necessary for meaningful choices. But this is not a satisfactory response, for if choices must include the possibility of sinful choices in order to be real, this implies that God will have to allow for the possibility of sinful choices in heaven eternally (assuming that we will have genuine choices in heaven). More troubling than this, however, is the issue of God's choices. Either God's choices are not real, since he cannot do evil or God's choices are real, and the possibility exists that he might someday choose to do evil. Both implications are incorrect, and they therefore provide good reason for rejecting the Arminian position that real choices must allow the possibility of choosing eivl. But this puts us back to the earlier question for which there does not seem to be a satisfactory answer from the arminian position: How can evil exist if God did not want it to exist? Taking an Arminian view, how can we know that God will triumph over evil? If all the evil now in the world came into the world even though God did not want it, how can we be sure that God will triumph over evil in the end? Of course, God says in of course, God says in Scripture that he will triumph over evil. But if he was unable to keep it out of his universe in the first place and it came in against his will, and if he is unable to predict the outcome of any future events that involve free choices, how then can we be sure that God's declaration that he will triumph over all evil is in itself true?" (Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 1999, p 155)

Both of these last two objections regarding evil make us realize that, while we may have difficulties in thinking about the Reformed view of evil as ordained by God and completely under the control of God, there are far more serious difficulties with the Arminian view of evil as not ordained or even willed by God and therefore not assuredly under the control of God.

The difference between the two is in the unanswered questions. Since we are finite in our understanding, we inevitably will have some unanswered questions about every biblical doctrine. Yet on this issue the questions that Calvinists and Arminians must leave unanswered are quite different.

"On the one hand, Calvinists must say that they do not know the answer to the following questions: (1) exatly how God can ordain that we do evil willingly, and yet God not be blamed for evil, and (2) exactlye how God can cause us to choose something willingly. To both, Calvinists would say that the answer is somehow to be found in an awareness of God's infinite greatness, in t he knowledge of the fact that he can do far more than we could ever think possible. So the effect of these unanswered questions is to increase our appreciation of the greatness of God. On the other hand, Arminians must leave unanswered questions regarding God's knowledge of the future, why he would allow evil when it is against his will, and whether he will certainly trumph over evil. Their failure to resolve these questions and the obsolute reliability of his promises for the future. And these unanswered questions tend to exalt the greatness of man ( his freedom to do what God does not want) and the power of evil ( it comes and remains in the universe even thoug God does not want it). Moreover, by denying that God can make creatures who have real choices that are nevertheless caused by him, the Arminian position seems to diminish the wisdom and skill of God the Creator." (Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 1999, pp 155-156)

9. It undermines justification by faith alone

Whilst Luther said that “justification by faith alone is the article upon which the church stands or falls” for some arminians justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness not only is “absurd,” said evangelist Chrales Finney, but undermines all motivation for person holiness. Christians can perfectly obey God in this life if they choose, and only in this way are they justified. In fact, “full present obedience is a condition of justification.” No one can be justified “while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him.” (Charles G Finney, Systematic Theology, 1846, p 46) Finney declared concering the Reformation formula, “simultaneously justified and sinful,” “This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world. “ For, “whenever a Christian sins, he comes under condemnation and must repent and do his first works or be lost.” (Charles G Finney, Systematic Theology, 1846, p 57) The basis of justification is perfect obedience, but that of the believer rather than Christ:

“As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but ipon the ground of universal, perfrect, and uninterrupted obedience to law… The doctrine of an imptuted righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption, for Christ’s righteousness could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imptuited to us… It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf. Representing the atonement as the ground of the sinner’s justification has been a sad occasion of stimling to many.” (Charles G Finney, Systematic Theology, 1846, pp 321-22)

Summary

It would seem that Arminianism leaves no rock the apostles had put in place left standing but rather seeks to destroy the cross of its significance, the gospel of its power and God of his glory. In a time where unity trumps truth and acceptance trumps discernment and immorality is seen as more wicked that false teaching, we must recover the importance of the gospel. It is not good enough that someone has come to a sincere and thought out position. The bible demands that we unite around the truths of the gospel, and that we refute false teaching, having nothing to do with it. Therefore we must pray to God and examine ourselves in light of Paul taking upon us the challenge of Paul:

"Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. But we pray to God that you may not do wrong—not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. " (2 Corinthians 13:5-8)