Last night and this morning, I did a search of the phrases "Arminian brother," "Arminian brothers," and "Arminian brethren" on MetaCrawler. I'd like to share with you some more of the things that I found when I did this search.
<<First, then, THIS IS FACT. Men say they do not like the doctrine of election. Verily, I do not want
them to; but is it not a fact that God has elected some? Ask an Arminian brother about election, and at
once his eye turns fiercely upon you, and he begins to get angry, he can't bear it; it is a horrible thing, like
a war-cry to him, and he begins to sharpen the knife of controversy at once. But say to him, "Ah, brother!
was it not divine grace that made you to differ? Was it not the Lord who called you out of your natural
state, and made you what you are? "Oh, yes," he says," "I quite agree with you there." Now, put this
question to him: "What do you think is the reason why one man has been converted, and not another?"
"Oh," he says, "the Spirit of God has been at work in this man." Well, then, my brother, the fact is, that
God does treat one man better than another; and is there anything wonderful in this fact? It is a fact we
recognize every day.>> (C.H. Spurgeon, "Jacob and Esau," January 16, 1859)
<<I do not know where our Arminian brethren get their consolation from.>> (C.H. Spurgeon, "High Doctrine," June 3, 1860)
<<As for our Arminian brethren, it is wonderful to see how they hammer away at the ninth of Romans; steam-hammers and screw-jacks are nothing to their appliances for getting rid of election from that chapter. We have all been guilty of racking Scripture more or less, and it will be well to have done with the evil forever. We had better far be inconsistent with ourselves than with the inspired word. I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian, and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible.>> [C.H. Spurgeon, "Heart-Disease Curable," MTP Vol 27, Year 1881, pg. 346, Isaiah 61:1]
<<There may be an Arminian brother here who would like to get into this pulpit and preach the cheering truth, that God hath not said to the seed of Jacob, seek ye my face in vain. We not only accord him full liberty to preach this doctrine, but we will go as far as he can, and perhaps a little further, in the enunciation of that truth.>> (C.H. Spurgeon, "Election No Discouragement to Seeking Souls," Feb 7, 1864)
<<When we understand the antithesis in its full dimensions, we will see more fully the legitimacy of the "great gulf" language in certain contexts. To be sure, there is a great gulf between Christianity and unbelief, and between authentic Christianity and deformations of it. Is there also a "great gulf" between Reformed Christians and non-Reformed Christians, or between Van Tilian apologists and non-Van Tilian apologists? I confess I would be more conservative than Van Til was with this kind of language, maintaining that the chief antithesis is between belief and unbelief as such, rather than between varieties of belief or with various formulations of the truth. Arminianism and non-Van Tilian apologetics systems are erroneous in some measure, I would say; but they have much in common with the Reformed faith, and at the deepest level; thus we should not criticize them in the same terms we use to criticize unbelief.
Do Reformed believers really share "no fundamentals in common" with Arminian Christians like Stuart Hackett? In my view, statements like this are unwise and untrue if taken in their natural meaning. The issue of antithesis is essentially an issue of the heart, and I am confident that Reformed believers are, in general, of one heart with their Arminian brothers and sisters.>> (John Frame, "Van Til on Antithesis")
<<The children certainly must be a source of gravest concern to a consistently Arminian reasoner. The fundamental principle of Arminianism is that salvation hangs upon a free, intelligent choice of the individual will; that salvation is, in fact, the result of the acceptance of God by man, rather than of the acceptance of man by God. The logic of this principle involves in hopeless ruin all who, by reason of tenderness of years, are incapable of making such a choice. On this teaching, all those who die in infancy should perish, while those who survive the years of immaturity might just as well be left to themselves until they arrive at the age of intelligent option. Let no one suppose that we are insinuating that our Arminian brethren live on these principles. They are far from doing this. They people heaven with infants who die in infancy; infants who are saved by the sovereign grace of God operating quite independently of co-operation on their own part. Infants dying in infancy certainly cannot "improve grace." And that is to say, those who die in infancy, if they are saved at all, must be saved on the Calvinistic principle of monergistic grace. And it is not to be believed that our Arminian brethren neglect the religious training of their children more than other Christians. It must be confessed, however, that Professor Rishell brings grievous charges against what, from his representations, may be a considerable party in his church. He charges that they prosecute the religious training of their children with some degree of listlessness, on wrong presuppositions, and, in wide circles, with no firmly-grounded expectation that it will bear particularly rich fruit.>> (B.B. Warfield, "The Children in the Hands of the Arminians," in Union Seminary Magazine, Volume XVII, 1904)
<<While we certainly would not desire to see those who believe in limited atonement become slaves to words and phrases, and getting into bondage over terminology, yet I believe that a knowledge of that truth will cause a man to be careful in what he says in the process of evangelism. Surely we are to be careful in proclaiming God's truth, and our words may have a very profound effect upon the one who listens to us. If the truth and the implications of limited atonement have come across to us we will be delivered from the tragic "doubletalk" which Arminian brethren are so often forced to use. A sad example of this appeared some years ago in a popular Sunday School publication, an adult "take home" paper. The article was entitled "What Is Christianity," and in the midst of his presentation the author said:
"He voluntarily let men murder Him in a bloody death. He said two things about that death. First, He was substituting for us humans in death row--that if we were willing to let Him substitute (that is the righteous for the unrighteous) then in God's record book Christ's death would be substituted for ours."
Because the author insisted on universal redemption and yet wanted to hold on to the concept of substitution, he has effectively emptied the word substitution of all meaning, and become involved in a pathetic "doubletalk." Either the Lord Jesus was our substitute those 1900 years ago or He was not. He cannot have actually been our substitute on the cross, and then only be our substitute "if we will let Him!" Such talk cheapens the atonement and empties great words of their true significance. Limited atonement must cause us to be careful that we do not misrepresent the gospel, and that we speak clearly and carefully what God has said.>> (William Payne, "Limited Atonement and Evangelism," reprinted in Sound of Grace, June 1998)
E-mails, Forums, and Letters