When we first started Faith Defenders, many of those involved were from a charismatic background, and the “in thing” at the time was the fiasco at Lakeland, led by the now infamous Todd Bentley. Since that time, I think all of us at Faith Defenders recognise the whole circus church scene to be completely mis-led, and not to be even considered a valid option for those seriously seeking the truth from God’s Word. This is not to cast a proud finger at those still deceived by such hucksters, but simply to make it clear this article is not aimed at such an obviously false church.
The reason I am writing this, is that after encountering many believers coming from similar positions as myself in fairly recent times, there remains what I consider to be two golden calves, for want of a better comparison, that are slow to put up for slaughter. And the reason for my concern in pointing them out, is because I realise fully the weight of the majority, even within the true body of believers we call the Church, still clings to them.
The errors in doctrine that I refer to in such a way are beyond simply tackling in one fell swoop, but can in my opinion be traced back to the source of those who inspired what they have now become. Namely Josephus Arminius in the mid 1500′s, and John Nelson Darby in the early to late 1800′s. Who formed the doctrines of Armianism and Dispensationalism respectively, which have then been adopted and furthered by others since then.
With regard to Arminianism, there have already been some regular contributions here at Faith Defenders made by J.A. Matteson, who often makes a strong case in favour of the doctrines of grace that were formed in response to Arminianism many years ago, and there are also many solid links to places such as Monergism , that host many articles and audio sermons by people devoted to the same. However with regards to the latter doctrine of dispensationalism, the response in general seems much more silent. It is with regard to this subject that I hope to attempt to balance the equation a little.
I have to point out first of all that with regards to both doctrines, I am not suggesting for a second that either have an ultimate effect on our salvation directly. However I do believe that both have a direct effect on firstly how we view the role of God Himself in the salvation of His elect, who the elect of God are, and generally how we interpret the Bible as a singular and complete revelation of God’s Word to us for all our faith and practice. Secondly I also have to point out that I fellowship with a church that also embraces both doctrines quite openly, yet without doubt remain to be a church that holds the Bible in a place of reverence that I have never before witnessed. Therefore it is with great caution, and more than a little dread if I’m honest, that I tread this path. However for the precise reasons I’ve laid out above, I simply cannot remain a silent objector, for that in my opinion would be despicable.
The prime reason of this post therefore is to “nail my colours to the mast” so to speak, and state my intentions before they reveal themselves to the horror of the unsuspecting. As best as I am able, I would like to point out my own personal reasons for objecting to these doctrines where possible, for I do not want it to appear that I am simply pouring out someone else’s speil. However I do intend to point to some of the resources that have brought me to the place I now stand, in the hope they will speak far more clearly on the subject, and with much more weight of authority than I.
That is where I will finish for now, and have to make it clear that anything I write on this subject, is not necessarily the opinion of everyone else at Faith Defenders. A cursory glance at some of the recent discussions on the forum will show this to be the case, so please feel free to comment in as bold a way as you deem necessary, providing that good manners and respectfulness are maintained at all times. On the same note however, I would also suggest coming to this table empty handed, so to speak, and at least have the willingness to acknowledge the pre-suppositions we all hold on matters such as this.
PDF No related posts.
Why is not armenianism considered “another gospel” as per Gal. 1:8&9?
Hi Darrel,
Whilst I would be the first to admit that much of the confusion over salvation and end times events that I have suffered is due to what I would consider wrong teaching, as I have stated in the article, I honestly do not believe that it would be correct in laying an accusation of preaching a false Gospel.
Firstly I have to point out the verses that you highlighted from the book of Galatians, to the best of my understanding, were written to a church that had begun to embrace the false gospel of the Judaizers. When the letter is read fully, this can clearly be seen as the case, and therefore Paul is rebuking those who directly oppose the Gospel of Christ, whereby the believer is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by the completed works of Christ alone. For the Judaizers were demanding works as being necessary for salvation also.
With regards to the teachings I outlined, I have never considered them to directly oppose the essential core of the Gospel, which is the necessary belief of the elect of God. Namely that all men are sinners and under the wrath of God from birth, and in need of salvation by God’s grace. And the manifestation of that grace to all who believe, is the death of Christ as the ONLY acceptable sacrifice for our sins, and the resurrection from the dead on the third day, which is the proof of His sacrifice being acceptable before the Father.
This is what is essential to believe unto salvation in my opinion, and anything that does not directly contradict this truth, which neither Arminianism or Dispensationalism do, can be accused of preaching a false gospel.