What if any of these helpless heretics (e.g., Marcion, Mani, Praxeas, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Arius) had been the facinorous “flavor of the month” for as long as Arminianism? What if the respective “ISMS” of these men had been the “felicitously inconsistent” default position for most who claim the name of “Christian”? Would any fashionable Calvinist heretics argue as “cogently” as James White does, HERE?
“But also if our gospel is being hidden, it has been hidden in those being lost, in whom the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, [so that] the brightness of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God, [should] not dawn on them. For we do not proclaim ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves your slaves for the sake of Jesus. Because [it is] God who said, Out of darkness Light shall shine, who shone in our hearts to [give the] brightness of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:3-6; underlining mine).
Which Jesus does God desire to glorify Himself in the hearts of His people by? Which Jesus does God shine the redemptive knowledge of? Which Jesus does God reveal the brightness of the knowledge of as an immediate and inevitable fruit of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work? Is it the TRUE JESUS OF SCRIPTURE or the various false jesuses of Marcion, Mani, Praxeas, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Arius, or Arminius?
Let’s suppose Arianism had been the pervasive doctrinal flavor of the last few centuries. Let’s suppose further that I judged all professing Christian Arians to be unregenerate (as well as any tolerant religionists who thought these Arians were true-yet-muddled Christians). With me so far? Okay, good.
Now would it not be an absolute tolerant Calvinist CANARD to assert that by judging saved and lost in this manner, that I was necessarily advocating or promulgating
“a perfect understanding of all things”
and that I was
“[making] perfection of understanding an addition to the gospel”?
Would not such a non sequitur as this bedazzle you by its blinding idiocy? So, to judge as unsaved both Arians and those who consider Arians to be their “inconsistent brothers,” is “adding to the gospel” according to the tolerant Calvinist scheme. And which “gospel” would I be “adding” to in this case, according to them?
So, the fashionable idea here is that if you actually judge saved and lost by the true gospel (Romans 1:16-17; Mark 16:16), then it follows that you are “adding” to it. As a matter of course, tolerant Calvinists such as James White are judging saved and lost by a false gospel, so perhaps their idea is that I am “adding” to their false gospel? At any rate, no, I’m not “adding” to their fashionable false gospel; but I am judging righteous judgment by the TRUE GOSPEL.