This is going to be my take directly on the controversial article espousing Arminians as being not Christian. I am going to detail what I agree and disagree with. I do agree with some of it and disagree with other parts of it.
Arminianism teaches that human beings are not totally depraved because they can exercise their frail and fickle free will to save themselves. This is contrary to Holy Scripture––which teaches that sinners are conceived in sin, dead in sin, slaves to sin, and are servants of sin––that are totally polluted in all faculties and parts of the body and soul. To argue that a sinner can come to Christ by exercising their free will is to falsely assume that they have the “desire” to do this, which is clearly antithetical to the teachings of Paul (Rom. 3:10-18).
Yes, Classical Arminianism as put forward by the Ramonstrants leads to the above heretical false teaching. Agreed that classical Arminianism as espoused by the Ramonstrants is false teaching and a False Gospel. However, there are many varieties of Arminianisms.
If the Arminian is preaching/teaching people Open Theism, Provisionism, or actual Pelagianism they are truly espousing a different Gospel. One espousing views such as the denial of Original Sin would indeed be lost and outside the Kingdom.
There is a major difference in eschewing the title of Brother or Sister from a person espousing truly false teachings and what a majority of Arminianists believe in. One should not eschew the Brethern whom is the average modified modern day Arminian. John Wesleyan Arminianism comes to mind for example as truly Evangelical, yet, confused/blessedly inconsistent Christian brethren.
If God has to foresee whether a sinner will either accept or deny Him––this would mean that God would have to see something in the sinner that He must laud, and not loathe. God sees absolutely nothing in anyone that He must praise, since our best works do not merit His favor, but His wrath. Also, if God must foresee whether the sinner will either accept or deny him, then God is not transcendent. The all-knowing God does not need to foresee; He already knows from all eternity, and that is so because He has ordained everything that comes to pass.
Arminianism is diabolical because it teaches that the vicarious and atoning death of Christ was made universally for all, even to include those whom the Father has consigned to everlasting torment in hell. Does this mean that Christ actually redeemed or just made sinners redeemable? If Christ died for all––this would mean that Christ only made sinners redeemable. Therefore, because the application of His death is contingent upon the mere will of men to either accept or deny Him, this cannot be the glorious gospel of grace.
Arminianism distorts the teachings of God’s free grace. If God’s grace is contingent upon man’s decision, then God's grace is not free, and salvation would have to be ascribed to man and not God. Also, if the will of man precedes the will of God, or if the power of God in the gospel is only possible if men cooperate, then Paul would be a liar because he said that “it is God that works in us to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13), and he called the gospel the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). This is why advocates of semi-Pelagian popery are teachers of their own righteousness, and despisers of free grace.
Arminianism will contradictorily teach that regenerate saints can fall from the faith that they once previously accepted. Unlettered men or women will denounce this necessary conclusion, and will posit that not all Arminians will agree with this notion. Despite these conjectures or opinions of men or women, Arminians can never have assurance of their salvation because if they have the free will to be saved, then to be logically consistent, they will have the ability to lose it also. On the contrary, regenerate Christians can have assurance of their salvation, since God’s decree is unchangeable, eternal, and absolute.
Arminians are inconsistent and thankfully do not tend to take their views from the Classic Dutch Arminian views of the Ramonstrants detailed above.
However, it is correct to say that all Arminianists, even saved ones believe in an incoherent and subiblical/Unbiblical view known as Unlimited or Universal Atonement. Which says Jesus died even for those whom would end up in hell by not becoming a Christian. I agree that it is a subblical/Unbiblical view and it is due to blessed inconsistencies that they are saved despite this view. I also agree that the Arminianism view of losing your salvation is also Unbiblical.
I disagree that due to Classical Arminianism being a complete heretical false teaching that tends from serious errors to outright False Gospels one should paint all Arminianism with the same brush. Most Arminianists do not even know the history related to the Canons of Dort let alone follow all 5 points of the Ramonstrants. We do have legitimate Arminian Brothers and Sisters because Election to Salvation is all of God and none of us. Just because a Brother or Sister gets saved despite inconsistent or incorrect Theology does not give Calvinists the right to deem them as not being saved by God.
If the Arminianism espoused by someone is the same as the Arminianism described in this article one would have serious concerns for them. However, the majority of Arminianisms are not this kind of Arminian thankfully.
Does The Gospel come filled with Calvinist freight? Yes, of course I agree with C.H. Spurgeon whom said that, "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
If one fully understands the gospel, then it inevitably leads to Calvinism. However, non-Calvinists can be (and are) saved. C.H. Spurgeon famously praised his Evangelical Arminianism Brothers like John Wesley in his, "A Defense of Calvinism."
In the words of J.I. Packer on the matter of Arminianisms.
"A more discerning approach, however, is that exemplified by William Ames, one of the periti of Dort, who wrote: “The view of the Remonstrants, as it is taken by the mass of their supporters, is not strictly a heresy [that is, a major lapse from the gospel], but a dangerous error tending toward heresy. As maintained by some of them, however, it is the Pelagian heresy: because they deny that the effective operation of inward grace is necessary for conversion.”18 Ames’s words alert us to the fact that Arminianism varies, so that blanket judgments are not in order: each version of post-Reformation semi-Pelagianism must be judged on its own merits. Ames is right.
Thus, it is surely proper to be less hard on Wesleyanism than on any form of Dutch Arminianism, just because (to the loss of clarity and consistency, yet to the furtherance of the gospel) Wesley’s teaching included so much Reformation truth about the nature of faith, the witness of the Spirit, and effectual calling. Wesley’s Arminianism, we might say, contained a good deal of its own antidote! Its evangelical and religious motivation, also, puts it in a different class from the Remonstrant position.
But why should Arminianisms vary in this way? The final answer is: not because Arminians are personally erratic, but because all Arminian positions are intrinsically and in principle unstable. Arminianism is a slippery slope, and it is always arbitrary where one stops on the slide down. All Arminianisms start from a rationalistic hermeneutic which reads into the Bible at every point the philosophic axiom that to be responsible before God man’s acts must be contingent in relation to him. All Arminianisms involve a rationalistic restriction of the sovereignty of God and the efficacy of the cross, a restriction which Scripture seems directly to contradict. All Arminianisms involve a measure of synergism, if not strong (God helps me to save myself) then weak (I help God to save me). All Arminianisms imply the non-necessity of hearing the gospel, inasmuch as they affirm that every man can be saved by responding to what he knows of God here and now. The right way to analyze the difference between Arminianisms is to ask how far they go in working out these principles, and how far they allow evangelical checks and balances to restrain them.
On all this, we have just two comments to make.
First, the Bible forbids us to take a single step along the Arminian road. It clearly affirms the positions which Dort highlighted: God’s absolute sovereignty; human responsibility without any measure of contingency or indeterminacy (look at Acts 2:24!); and a direct connection between the work of Christ in obtaining and applying redemption. The very name of Jesus is itself an announcement that “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). It does not tell us that He will make all men savable, but that He will actually save those who are His. And it is in these terms that the Bible speaks throughout.19
Second, if we travel the Arminian road, there are three precious things that we necessarily lose. These are: the clear knowledge of God’s sovereignty in our salvation, the clear sight of Christ’s glory as the Savior of His people, and the clear sense of the Christian’s eternal security in the covenant of grace. These are sad, and saddening losses, which impoverish the children of God in the same way that Roman Catholicism impoverishes them. There is more comfort and joy for God’s children set forth in the Scriptures than the Roman and Arminian theologies allow them to possess. At this point, at least, Rous’s verdict stands: Romanism and Arminianism show themselves to be all too much akin.
We conclude, then, that Arminianism should be diagnosed, not as a creative alternative to Reformation teaching, but as an impoverishing reaction to it, involving a partial denial of the biblical faith in the God of all grace. The lapse is less serious in some cases, more so in others, but in every case it calls for responsible notice and compassionate correction. The logical conclusion of Arminian principles would be pure Pelagianism, but no Arminian takes his principles so far (otherwise one would call him a Pelagian, and be done with it). Calvinists should therefore approach professed Arminians as brother evangelicals trapped in weakening theological mistakes, and seek to help them to a better mind."
In summary :
Consistently Arminian viewpoints as espoused at the Synod of Dort are a Graceles False Gospel and Heretical Unbiblical Unchristian views.
