When I saw that an Arminian Methodist was
to speak at the Annual Meeting of the Protestant Alliance in The Reformer magazine, I was shocked. Upon examining Penn Free Methodist Church’s
website, I saw that the speaker (Peter Simpson) was quite clearly a classic
Arminian. But how could a magazine entitled The Reformer invite a speaker
whom the Reformers would have deemed a heretic?
I wrote to Dr. Scott-Pearson of
the Protestant Alliance to state my concern and to call him to examine this
matter. From the response I received, it
does not appear that the doctor understands what Arminianism actually is. We cannot blame him as many do not. Many Christians think that Arminianism is the
exact opposite of Calvinism; they wrongly call the Pelagians or semi-Pelagians of today 'Arminians'. Many do not
realise that Arminianism is actually subtly similar to Calvinism (a term I
dislike; I prefer the term ‘Gospel’).
Arminianism is only different in that it teaches that, although men are
elected to salvation by God, Christ died for each individual that ever existed
and one can cast off the work of the Holy Spirit at any time. For a closer examination of the five points
of Arminianism, please view this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Articles_of_Remonstrance
So, let’s examine Simpson’s views and see if they match with the original
Arminianism of the Remonstrance and, thus, whether Scott-Pearson is right or
wrong.
Firstly, on Simpson’s website
for Penn Free Methodist Church, they
boast that ‘some of the preachers who first ministered to the congregation here
had been personally appointed by John Wesley’.
I’m not sure why anyone would advertise this fact unless they were not
aware of the fact that Wesley taught the false doctrine of Sinless Perfectionism. This is not a good start
for Scott-Pearson…
To establish that he is a
classical Arminian, according to the articles of the Remonstrance, Simpson
should believe that Christ loved and laid down His life for everyone: ‘The need of the hour is for each individual
to repent of sin, and to come to Jesus Christ, who, out of love for us, warned
us…’ So, according to Simpson, Christ
loved each individual. I’d be wary of putting
words into Christ’s mouth after He clearly says otherwise to the church at
Laodicea:
Revelation 3:19 As many
as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
If Christ loves everyone then
He must have given Himself as a sacrifice for everyone, atoning for all
sins. After all, Paul said:
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands,
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it…
Simpson’s language is identical
to that of one who holds to the Arminian doctrine of Universal Atonement.
The second doctrine to be
established is that Simpson believes God’s grace is resistible: ‘He does
so by drawing men to himself, working upon their hearts and consciences by means
of the Holy Spirit, and thereby giving to them the potential to believe.
'Remember that he is also able to cease drawing men, and to leave them in their unbelief. Therefore it is imperative that if you feel him drawing you, you respond whilst there is time...’
So, God only gives men the potential
to believe, according to Simpson. This
logically implies that they can choose to resist the Spirit of God and stop
themselves from being drawn by God.
Further to this, God can just start and stop drawing people at random so
one had better exercise whatever potential they’ve been given before God
changes His mind, according to Simpson.
I find the Lord Jesus debunks this nonsense most succinctly:
John 6:37, 39, 44 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will
raise him up at the last day.
There is nothing here about
giving man the potential to make a choice; the choice has been made by God in
Christ from before the foundation of the world, according to Ephesians 1. All of those chosen shall come and those drawn by the Father will be raised to
eternal life at the last day, according to the Lord Jesus in verse 44 above.
Simpson therefore believes in
the two distinguishing marks of a classic Arminian Remonstrant. The
Reformers who met together at the Synod of Dordt classified this as a heresy!
I find, then, the title of the magazine - The Reformer - to be a misnomer. I do wonder how the Reformers would view Peter Simpson's doctrines; I wonder how the Earl of Shaftesbury (the founder of the Protestant Alliance) would feel about this lax attitude.
It becomes apparent that Scott-Pearson does not know what Arminianism is when he writes statements like these:
‘We…are quite unable to concur that [Peter Simpson] holds to “classic Arminian
beliefs”.’
I have shown that he does.
But, further to this, Scott-Pearson wrote that Peter Simpson has an 'excellent position with regard to the Gospel'. The Protestant Alliance is 'required to embrace all shades of BIBLICAL
Protestantism'!
According to the Reformed position, which Scott-Pearson claims to represent by
the title of the Protestant Alliance’s magazine, there is little that is biblical or Reformed about Peter Simpson's Gospel. In fact, it was
condemned as a heresy.
Please join me in praying for Scott-Pearson and Simpson and for the Protestant
Alliance as a whole; how they need discernment and consistency in their understanding and teaching.
