Skip to comments.Jacob ARMINIUS:
Posted on 01/12/2005 2:05:23 PM PST by xzins
John Wesley observed that "to say, 'this man is an Arminian,' has the same effect on many hearers, as to say, 'This is a mad dog.'"(1)
Arminianism has been called "the last and greatest monster of the man of sin, the elixir of Anti-Christianism; the mystery of the mystery of iniquity, the spawn of Popery, and the varnished offspring of the old Pelagians." (2)
Robert C. Harbach wrote, "Arminianism is that rejected error which has become the most insidiously devised heresy ever to lay claim to biblical support." Harbach complained that Calvinists are the most hated people in the universe because they alone stand for the truth. In contrast, he defines Arminianism as everything he rejects:
|Therefore also comprehended under the brand of Arminianism are the following evil forms of the same proud heresy: Universalism, Romanism, Pelagianism (naturalism), Socinianism (modernism), Amyraldianism (synergism), Baxterianism (hypothetical redemption), New School Presbyterianism (religious humanism), etc.(3)|
|According to the Pelagian conception regeneration is solely an act of the human will, and is practically identical with self-reformation. With some slight differences this is the view of modern liberal theology. A modification of this view is that of the Semi-Pelagian and Arminian. . . ."(4)|
First, let us look at the man who has been so maligned and then look at his teachings which have been misrepresented.
Jacob Hermansz was a Dutch theologian of the late sixteenth century. We know him by his Latin name, Jacobus Arminius. In 1582 James Arminius arrived in Geneva to study under Calvin's son-in-law, and successor, Theodore Beza. Beza had made the Calvinistic position more rigid and had taught supralapsarianism - that the decrees of election and damnation came prior to the decree to create man.
The fact is that the early Dutch reformers were not Calvinists when they overthrew Catholicism in 1566. When James Arminius was installed as pastor in Amsterdam in 1587, Calvinism was not in control. Arminius had the reputation of being a brilliant preacher, a gifted Bible exegete, and a humble and dedicated Christian. His expositional preaching drew large crowds.
As the city was opened to trade, new merchants arrived bringing in Calvinism and only toward the end of his fifteen year tenure as pastor did Calvinism become strong enough to create problems for Arminius.
Two ministers from Delft had debated Dirck Coornhert, a Catholic humanist, and as a result felt it was necessary to modify Beza's rigid position. In 1589 they published a book which did so. As a former student of Beza, Arminius was asked to defend his teacher, although there is no evidence to suggest that Arminius had ever accepted the position of Beza. There had always been a diversity of opinion among Dutch theologians. However, the influx of Calvinistic teaching was growing.
Arminius faced a crisis of conscience and he responded with integrity. He concluded that supralapsarianism made God the author of sin. No one could refute his scholarship, but preachers began to openly attack him from the pulpit. His words were twisted out of context and his enemies tried to destroy his influence.
In 1603 Arminius moved to Leiden to become professor theology at the university. He was considered the greatest scholar of his day and taught until his death in 1609. He was the first ever to receive the Doctor of Divinity degree from the University of Leiden. Even at Leiden he was under attack from the Calvinist, Gomarus. Finally, Arminius asked for a public hearing, but he died before the synod convened. He was about 49 when he died, and his death was probably hastened by the stress he was under.
After his death, 42 of his followers wrote their manifesto, the Remonstrance, in 1610. In 1618-9 the Synod of Dort was convened and adopted a high Calvinistic statement which included the supralapsarian position of Beza. Although it was Arminius who had called for an open forum, there were 130 Calvinists present and 13 Remonstrants who were prisoners of the state and were given no vote. "The Remonstrants were at a disadvantage from the very start, and were summoned as defendants. They were denied seats in the council, and were treated throughout as accused parties." (6)
Simon Episcopius, the successor of Arminius, delivered a speech of two hour length, so logical and magnanimous that it moved many hearers to tears. (7) Yet the Synod of Dort condemned Arminianism as heretical and as a result some 200 Remonstrant ministers were ousted from their pulpits. Some were banished and persecuted until 1625. (8)
Arminianism reintroduced the spirit of tolerance to the Church. The early Arminians were well educated and held strong convictions, but they displayed a different spirit. They had no animosity toward those who disagreed with them; they only asked that their views be permitted to exist.
There were theologians in England who taught the essence of what Arminius taught before Arminius. After the restoration of Charles II in 1660, Arminianism held great influence within the Church of England. Over time, however, the Arminians became the more liberal party in the church. In seventeenth century England the Latitudinarians were considered Arminian. In the eighteenth century the term was associated with Socinianism. It was not until the Wesleyan Reformation that the pure doctrine of Arminius was restored and the tendencies of Pelagianism and Unitarianism removed. John Wesley published the first popular account of the life of Arminius in English and this came in the first issue of The Arminian Magazine in January, 1778.
Having looked at the life, the spirit, and the influence of Arminius, I conclude that we should hold him in the highest regard. John Fletcher concluded that among the theologians who endeavored to steer their doctrinal course between the Pelagian shelves and the Augustinian rock, "none is more famous, and none came nearer the truth than Arminius."(9)
But what about his doctrines which are misrepresented?
1. Arminius is misrepresented concerning total depravity
Lars Qualben in A History of the Christian Church states that Jacob Arminius and his followers taught "Man was not totally depraved and could therefore co-operate with God in the spiritual regeneration." (10)
"Arminianism, however, under its breath croons the siren song of man's essential goodness." (11)
However, Samuel Wakefield, an early American Methodist theologian wrote, "True Arminianism, therefore, as fully as Calvinism, admits the total depravity of human nature." (12)
Let Arminius speak for himself.
|On account of this transgression, man fell under the displeasure and the wrath of God, rendered himself subject to a double death, and deserving to be deprived of the primeval righteousness and holiness in which a great part of the image of God consisted. (13)|
Arminius describes the effects of the first sin of the first man as "the withdrawing of that primitive righteousness and holiness. . . . The whole of this sin, however, is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all their posterity." (14)
Again, Arminius explains the effects of the sin of our first parents.
|This was the reason why all men who were to be propagated from them in a natural way, became obnoxious to death temporal and death eternal, and devoid of this gift of the Holy Spirit or original righteousness: This punishment usually receives the appellation of "a privation of the image of God," and "original sin." (15)|
Kenneth Grider explains, "Original sin refers to a state of sin in us due to that original act of sin on Adam's part." (16)
Wesley preached that anyone who denied original sin are but heathens still. He claimed this as "the first grand distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity." (17)
In Wesley's 272 page treatise, "The Doctrine of Original Sin," he declared without this doctrine "the Christian system falls at once."(18) Wesleyan-Arminians do affirm man's sinful nature, our basic inclination to sin, our total depravity which was inherited from Adam.
2. Arminius is misrepresented as teaching the absolute freedom of the will.
R. J. Rushdoony equates humanism with Arminianism. He refers to the old humanistic dream that every man, by his own free choice, can effect his salvation. "If this sounds very much like Arminianism, it is because the same principle undergirds Arminianism and humanism: salvation as man's decision."(19)
Christopher Ness accused Arminians of teaching that "saving grace is tendered to the acceptance of every man; which he may or may not receive, just as he pleases." (20)
John MacArthur wrote,
|Pragmatism's ally is Arminianism, the theology that denies God's sovereign election and affirms that man must decide on his own to trust or reject Christ. That places on the evangelist the burden of using technique that is clever enough, imaginative enough, or convincing enough to sway a person's decision. . . . to teach or imply that human technique can bring someone to Christ is contrary to Scripture. (21)|
In Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will: (22) R. C. Sproul also equates Pelagianism directly with Arminianism. Although Sproul never gets around to defining the will, he argues for monergism as opposed to synergism. (23) Monergism, as defined by Sproul, means that God is the single actor in regeneration. He defines synergism as a relationship in which God assists and humans cooperate. This, he says, leads to absolute human autonomy. I fail to see how cooperation with means the same thing as autonomy from.
Monergism has also been defined as the position that "the grace of God is the only efficient cause in beginning and effecting conversion." (24) Writing in the Beacon Dictionary of Theology, William Abraham said, "Wesleyan Arminianism is monergistic to the degree that all saving grace is acknowledged as coming from God, and that even man's free cooperation is made possible by prevenient grace."(25) Early Methodism taught that we were saved by free grace. Call it by either term, we could only cooperate as we were enabled by prevenient grace. This emphasis is neither Pelagianism nor absolute human autonomy.
James Arminius declared
|But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good, but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.(26)|
|In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. (27)|
|Free Will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. . . . I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good: It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the affections, and bends the will to carry into execution good thoughts and good desires. This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and cooperated lest we will in vain. (28)|
John Wesley said that the will of a sinner is "free only to evil."(29) In another context Wesley stated that he came to the very edge of Calvinism:
1. In ascribing all good to the free grace of God 2. In denying all natural free will and all power antecedent to grace 3. In excluding all merit from man even for what he has or does by the grace of God. (30)
Our emphasis in not upon free will, but upon God's grace, including prevenient grace. John Fletcher stated that Arminianism asserts "that obedient free will is always dependent upon God's free grace; and disobedient free will upon God's just wrath."(31) John Wesley wrote, "Natural free-will, in the present state of mankind, I do not understand: I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which 'enlightens every man that cometh into the world.'"(32)
It is not historic Wesleyan-Arminianism which overemphasized free will,(33) it was the later teaching of Charles Finney, a Pelagian, who influenced the holiness movement at this point. (34) Robert Chiles surveyed three major transitions in American Methodism between 1790 and 1935. He concluded,
|The third major change in Methodist theology, 'from free grace to free will,' began with the Wesleyan doctrine of grace as free for all and in all and as the sole power of salvation. Steadily the areas of achievement assigned to man's freedom were increased. . . . Repentance and, eventually, faith came to be considered essentially human acts, not God's gifts, and salvation proper became man's divinely assisted effort to moralize and spiritualize his life. (35)|
The third major change in Methodist theology, 'from free grace to free will,' began with the Wesleyan doctrine of grace as free for all and in all and as the sole power of salvation. Steadily the areas of achievement assigned to man's freedom were increased. . . . Repentance and, eventually, faith came to be considered essentially human acts, not God's gifts, and salvation proper became man's divinely assisted effort to moralize and spiritualize his life.(35)
3. Arminius is misrepresented as teaching a works salvation.
Francis E. Mahaffy wrote, "An Arminian views salvation to be to a considerable extent, the work of man. He does not look upon man as dead in trespasses and sins . . . but rather as sick and in need of help. The evangelist brings a message to him to persuade him to use his own unfettered free will to come to Christ." (36)
Christopher Wordsworth cautioned that "we must not fall into The Arminian error, which represents man's goodness, foreseen by God as the ground of God's predestination of the godly."(37)
Louis Berkhof wrote in his Systematic Theology, "The Arminian order of salvation, while ostensibly ascribing the work of salvation to God, really makes it contingent on the attitude and the work of man." (38)
J. I. Packer concluded, "Thus, Arminianism made man's salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being view throughout as man's own work and, because his own, not God's in him." (39)
In contrast, Kenneth Grider stated that "we Arminian- Wesleyans are not Pelagians, since we believe in original sin and since we believe that prevenient grace is necessary to enable us to use our freedom for taking savory directions in our lives."
Grider then clarifies what he means.
|This view means that we will not say to a congregation in an evangelistic service, "You do your part and God will do His part." Unregenerate persons cannot do any such thing until God first does His part of extending prevenient grace to them.|
This view also means that the Arminian-Wesleyan will not say, "God will meet you halfway." We cannot initiate our own salvation. being fallen creatures, inclined to evil and that continually, God must come all the way to where we are and initiate in us our "first faint desire" to turn to Christ - as John Wesley said.(40)
Arminius declared that "faith, and faith only, is imputed for righteousness. By this alone are we justified before God, absolved from our sins, and are accounted, pronounced and declared RIGHTEOUS by God, who delivers his judgment from the throne of grace."(41)
Arminius also wrote,
|Evangelical faith is an assent of the mind, produced by the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel, in sinners, who through the law know and acknowledge their sins, and are penitent on account of them: By which they are not only fully persuaded within themselves, that Jesus Christ has been constituted by God the author of salvation to those who obey Him, and that He is their own Saviour if they have believed in Him; and by which they also believe in Him as such, and through Him on God as the Benevolent Father in Him, to the salvation of believers and to the glory of Christ and God.(42)|
Two years after his Aldersgate experience, Wesley explained that he had wandered many years in the "new path of salvation by faith and works," but about two years ago it pleased God to show us the old way of salvation by faith only."(43) Those who claim the Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine teaches otherwise need to read "Justification by Faith," which is the fifth sermon of the doctrinal standards of Methodism.
Arminius did not object to saying, "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us," but he did object to saying that "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for righteousness." He wanted to avoid saying that Christ's righteousness is a cloak over our unrighteousness. He believed in the imputation of Christ's righteousness we are partakers in Christ. (44)
John Wesley also embraced the doctrine of imputed righteousness, but pronounced a similar caution:
|In the meantime what we are afraid of is this: lest any should use the phrase, "The righteousness of Christ," or, "The righteousness of Christ is 'imputed to me'," as a cover for his unrighteousness. We have known this done a thousand times. A man has been reproved, suppose for drunkenness: "O", said he, "I pretend to no righteousness of my own: Christ is my righteousness." Another has been told, that "the extortioner, the unjust, shall not inherit the kingdom of God." He replies, with all assurance, "I am unjust in myself, but I have a spotless righteousness in Christ." And thus though a man be as far from the practice as from the tempers of a Christian, though he neither has the mind which was in Christ nor in any respect walks as he walked, yet he has armor of proof against all conviction, in what he calls the "righteousness of Christ."(45)|
John Wesley wrote an essay entitled "What is an Arminian?" He raised this question, "How can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings?" Wesley proceeded to offer this advice, "Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means."
Wesley said Arminianism was usually charged with five errors:
1. they deny original sin 2. they deny justification by faith 3. they deny absolute predestination 4. they deny the grace of God to be irresistible 5. they affirm a believer may fall from grace
Wesley said that they pleaded "not guilty" to the first two charges. In fact Wesley claimed the doctrine of original sin was "the first, grand, distinguishing point between heathenism and Christianity." (46) Concerning justification he also wrote that he thought just as Mr. Calvin did. "In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth." (47)
Concerning the third charge, though, there is an undeniable difference between Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists believe absolute predestination; Arminians believe in conditional predestination.
Wesley explained that Calvinists hold that God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity to save the elect and no others. Christ died for these and none else. Arminians, on the other hand, hold that God has decreed, from all eternity, "He that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned." In order to make this possible, "Christ died for all."
Wesley said the last two points are the natural consequence of the third. Calvinists hold that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it than to resist the stroke of lightning. But if predestination is conditional, then grace is not irresistible.
Finally, Calvinists hold that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. Arminians hold, however, that a true believer may make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Not only may he fall into gross sin, but he may fall so as to perish forever.
So, Wesley concluded, in effect the three final questions hinge upon one, Is predestination absolute or conditional? Wesley's objection to Calvinism is based upon his objection to their doctrine of predestination.
At this point it may be helpful to give the statement of Arminius on predestination.
|1. The election of Jesus Christ.|
God first decreed the salvation of sinful man by appointing his Son Jesus Christ for a Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, Priest and King, who might destroy sin by his own death.
2. The election of the Church.
God then decreed that he will receive into favor those who repent and believe in Christ and who persevere to the end, but to leave in sin and under wrath all who are impenitent and unbelievers and to damn them as aliens from Christ.
3. The appointment of means.
Next God decreed to administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means necessary for repentance and faith and to have such administration instituted according to His wisdom and justice.
4. The election of individuals.
Finally, God in His foreknowledge knowing from all eternity who would through his preventing grace believe and through his subsequent grace would persevere through the means of grace and likewise knowing those who would not believe and persevere, decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. (48)
John Wesley closed the essay in which he defines an Arminian with a caution against using labels and calling names. He said it was the duty of every Arminian preacher to never in public or private to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach. And it is equally the duty of every Calvinist preacher to never in public or in private, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach. (49)
John Fletcher wrote a tract entitled, "The Reconciliation; or, An Easy Method to Unite the People of God." This tract contains essays on "Bible Calvinism" and "Bible Arminianism." Fletcher concluded the Church needs Bible Calvinism to defeat Pharisaism and she needs Bible Arminianism to defeat antinomianism.(50) While Fletcher may have been too optimistic about how "easy" this unity would be to attain, yet he understood the need for balance.
When John Wesley, the Arminian, preached the funeral of George Whitefield, the Calvinist, he said there was a trait Whitefield exemplified which was not common. Wesley said he had a "catholic spirit." He loved all, of whatever opinion, mode of worship, or denomination who believed in the Lord Jesus, loved God and man, delighted in pleasing God and feared offending Him, who was careful to abstain from evil and zealous of good works. (51)
Wesley recorded in his Journal for December 20, 1784 that he had the satisfaction of meeting Charles Simeon. However, it was Simeon who preserved the account of that conversation.
|Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will as you a few questions. . . . Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?|
Yes, says the veteran, I do indeed. And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
Yes, solely through Christ. But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last. Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
No. What, then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?
Yes, altogether. And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
Yes, I have no hope but in Him. Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; fir this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree. (52)
Across their ministry both Arminius and Wesley patiently denied that they were heretics, but were in agreement with historic Christianity and the great ecumenical church councils. Arminius declared, "If any one will point out an error in this my opinion, I will gladly own it: Because it is possible for me to err, but I am not willing to be a heretic." (53) Wesley also issued this appeal,
|Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated upon a change of circumstances. Point me out a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. (54)|
These men were not heretics, but reformers. Their authority was the Word of God. As we contend for their doctrine, let us also exemplify their spirit with them a quiet confidence that the Spirit of Truth is able to convince men.
According to John Wesley this debate centers over whether predestination is absolute or conditional. Most of the popular "Bible teachers" today accept the premise of Arminius, but the conclusion of Calvin. Very few want to defend the notion that God practices arbitrary discrimination.
Mildred Wynkoop wrote, "One of Wesley's concerns was that there was something biblically defective about the Calvinism of his day. But his polemic was doctrinal, never personal. It was fearless and forceful, but never bitter. This 'break' with Calvinism was not a break in Christian fellowship but a correction of what he believed to be a false interpretation of Scripture." (55)
Today we still share Wesley's concern that the doctrine of absolute predestination "is not only false, but a very dangerous doctrine, as we have seen a thousand times."(56) Yet we cannot legislate correct doctrine through force. Nor will we win the debate through name-calling and misrepresentation.(57) We do not deserve to have an influence unless we are faithful expositors of the Word of God. Let us stick to the issue. Our task is to set the standard of consistent biblical interpretation. May God enable us to accept the challenge and teach the Scriptures with integrity.
1. The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed., Thomas Jackson, ed. (1872; Rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 10:358.
2. quoted by Christopher Ness, An Antidote Against Arminianism (Internet copy from 1700 edition), p. 2.
3. Calvinism - The Truth (Grand Rapids: First Protestant Reformed Church, 1993), 3, 28.
4. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), p. 473. In his History of Christian Doctrine, Berkhof frequently combines Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism or Socinianism. Since Pelagius and Socinian were heretics, this amounts to guilt by association. For a complaint against this practice, see Donald M. Lake, "Jacob Arminius' Contribution to a Theology of Grace, Grace Unlimited, Clark H. Pinnock, ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1975), 239. In the same book Grant R. Osborne writes, "One of the tragedies of our current situation in evangelicalism is the emotive code-words or labels which we attach to certain positions and which enable us to automatically reject the totality of that position on the basis of the label. One of the worst of these "code-words" is "semi-pelagian" which means automatically that the position is a-biblical, and that the data within need not be studied further. To many strong Calvinists any Wesleyan-Arminian position is automatically "semi-pelagian" ("Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews," p. 165).
5. Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (1971; Rpt. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1985), 21.
6. John F. Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893), 320.
7. Frank L. Day, "Simon Episcopius and the Remonstrants of Holland," The Theologians of Methodism, W. F. Tillett, ed. (1895; Rpt. Salem, OH: Schmul, 1992), 18. See also "Account of the Proceedings of the Synod of Dort," added at notes to the 1996 printing of The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, translated by James Nichols and William Nichols (1825-1875; Rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1:489-90.
8. A good overview is provided by Daniel D. Corner in "The Synod of Dort Unmasked," chapter 4 of The Believer's Conditional Security (Washington, PA: Evangelical Outreach, 1997), 57-73.
9. The Works of the Reverend John Fletcher (1833; Rpt. Salem, OH: Schmul, 1974), 2:281.
10. (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1958), 351. See also the statement by Louis Berkhof, "Man has by nature an irresistible bias for evil. He is not able to apprehend and love spiritual excellence, to seek and do spiritual things, the things of God that pertain to salvation. This position, which is Augustinian and Calvinistic, is flatly contradicted by Pelagianism and Socinianism, and in part also by Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism (p. 248).
11. Harbach, p. 6.
12. Christian Theology (1862; Rpt. Salem, OH: Schmul, 1985), 290-1.
13. Works, 2:151.
14. Works, 2:156
15. Works, 2:375.
16. J. Kenneth Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (Kansas
City: Beacon Hill, 1994), 277.
17. "Original Sin," Sermon #44, III.1.
18. Works, 9:194.
19. Systematic Theology (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 1994), 2:923. He also said, "Anyone who uses the term 'free will' is importing the religion of Satan into Biblical doctrine" (1:524).
20. Ness, p. 32.
21. Our Sufficiency in Christ (Dallas: Word, 1991), 152.
22. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997?).
23. Allen C. Guelzo, "Sproul on the Will," Christianity Today, 2 March, 1998, pp. 59-61.
24. C. G. Fry, "Monergism," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 729.
25. "Monergism," Beacon Dictionary of Theology, ed. Richard S. Taylor (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1983), 344.
26. Works, 1:659-60.
27. Works, 2:192
28. Works, 2:700.
29. "The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption," Sermon #9, II.7.
30. Works, 8:285
31. Fletcher's Works, 2:229.
32. Works, 10:229-30
33. Mildred Wynkoop, Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1967), 69.
34. William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1880), 3:74.
35. Theological Transition in American Methodism: 1790-1935 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1965), 186-7.
36. "Evangelism," The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Gary North, ed., Vol. 7, No. 2 (Winter, 1981): 61.
37. quoted by Samuel Fisk, Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1973), 73.
38. Berkhof, p. 421.
39. "Introductory Essay," in John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (London: Banner of Truth, 1959), 3-4.
40. pp. 246-7.
41. Works, 2:701
42. Works, 2:400.
43. Journal, 22 June, 1740.
44. Works, 2:43-45. See also the comments of Carl Bangs, pp. 344-5.
45. "The Lord our Righteousness," Sermon #20, II.19.
46. "Original Sin," Sermon #44, III.1.
47. Journal, 14 May, 1765.
48. Works, 1:653. For an excellent commentary upon these sentiments of Arminius on predestination, see Wynkoop, p. 53-55 and the chapter on "Predestination" by her brother, Carl Bangs, pp. 350-355.
49. Works, 10:359-61.
50. Fletcher's Works, 2:283-363.
51. "On the Death of George Whitefield," Sermon #53, III.7.
52. quoted by J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1961), 13-14.
53. Works, 2:702.
54. "Preface" to Wesley's Sermons, 9.
55. Wynkoop, 13.
56. Letter to Lady [Maxwell], 30 Sept, 1788 in Works, 13:149-150.
57. While the Calvinists adopted the TULIP acronym to explain their position, they have also assigned to us the acronym LILAC which misrepresents our position:
|T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Preservation of the Saints
|L - Limited Depravity
I - I elect God
L - Limitless Atonement
A - Arrestible Grace
C - Carnal Security
posted for biographical info and doctrinal insight
Interesting in that it shows how time has a tendency to compress and distort.
That's asking a lot.
Arminian Five Points of the Remonstrance of 1610
with contrasting Five Points of Calvinism
1) Election is conditioned upon man's response or foreseen faith (conditional "election")
The Reformed Tradition, by contrast, teaches that election is unconditional.
2) Universal Atonement (According to Arminians Christ has already atoned and propitiated for the sins of all humanity. Christ purchased redemption not only for those who would believe but for all men, yet only those who believe go to heaven). The Reformed Tradition asks, if this is the case, why aren't all men saved if all their sins are atoned for? Unbelief is also a sin. By contrast, we believe the Bible teaches that the redemptive blessings of the atonement were intended only for those who would believe, the elect (particular redemption). Christ died in a way for the elect that He did not for the non-elect.
3) "Unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God's will" (thus eliminating the categorization of either "Pelagian" or "Semi-Pelagian." The latter holds that the first steps are originated by the human will rather than by the Holy Spirit) This doctrine is similar to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, with some important differences.
4) Grace is not irresistible
(Thus faith is itself a principle or capacity in autonomous natural man standing ultimately independent of God's action of grace) The Reformed Tradition, by contrast, teaches that God can make His grace efficacious
5) Possibility of falling away from grace
This is the supposition that our sin as believers can result in God's judicial displeasure. Many Arminians teach that our judicial standing before God must be maintained by holy living. Justification, in other words can be gained and lost. The Reformed Tradition, by contrast, maintains the biblical teaching that our judicial standing before God is through Christ's blood, which alone is sufficient to maintain our justification. Holy living and perseverance springs from our new nature received in regeneration which now delights in God's law, and will not fall away.
These Five Points of the Remonstrance of 1610 are virtually identical (prima facie) with Catholic Molinism
Jacob Arminius did affirm total depravity and the doctrine of sola fide, but he denied monergistic regeneration in terms of it's efficacy.
BTW, the author's treatment of Sproul's comments in Willing to Believe is misleading to say the least.
Error always requires a tolerant spirit in order for it to exist, and even thrive.
Taken from the introduction of a 1958 reprint of John Owen's, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. If you haven't read this before, take the time now, it is so edifying: Introduction
Because of Fru's observation of R.C.'s comments, I'd like to re-read this J.A. article again tomorrow paying attention to Louis Berkhof's references.
We have has many cults and questionable doctrine come out of Arminian Theology ... even today in the "modern" age we have the heresy of open Theism
Calvinism brought forth the "Protestant work ethic," the US Constitution, the Puritans, and the middle class, just to name a few.
If we look at what "tolerance" has contributed to the church we find the erosion of God's Word, ordaining homosexuals, the break down of families.
No thank you, I'll stick with Calvinist view.
x, pay attention and read the link.
There are no coincidences.
~~A good link detailing James Harmensen's life and exploits can be found here:
Did you ever wonder why James Harmensen changed his name to Jakob/James Arminius?
I guess he just preferred the Latin...~~
And in case you're interested, one more informative site:
This is an excellent article Suzy. Rather lengthly but definitely worth the read. Thanks for posting.
"Arminius also wrote, Evangelical faith is an assent of the mind, produced by the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel, in sinners, who through the law know and acknowledge their sins, and are penitent on account of them: By which they are not only fully persuaded within themselves, that Jesus Christ has been constituted by God the author of salvation to those who obey Him, and that He is their own Saviour if they have believed in Him;
These are two different views. The first one sounds positively Reformed. The second sounds like the present synergistic belief of the Arminians. Both of which are from Mr. Arminian's book properly titled, Works. I suppose he couldnt make up his mind.
John Wesley said that the will of a sinner is "free only to evil."
Its not surprising Wesley had similar doctrinal issues following Arminius teachings.
Not even 20 posts into the thread and the same spirit is already evident in the responses.
Jacob...Arminius..."His followers, called Arminians or Remonstrants, carried matters CONSIDERABLY FURTHER than Arminius had done in his writings, and set forth THEIR views in a document called 'Remonstrance' and consisting of five articles..." -- Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, "Arminianism."
It appears that the remonstrance against which you are debating is not a faithful representation of Arminius' own views. They were created AFTER Arminius' death.
In fact, Arminius, during his lifetime was always able to successfully defend himself, and in the midst of the controversy was STILL give a seat at the University of Leyden, the crown jewel of Calvinistic teaching in bitterly anti-catholic Netherlands.
I'm beginning to think we're going to have to read Arminius himself to understand his views. When renowned calvinistic scholars state that the remonstrants didn't accurately reflect Arminius' own views, then it's time we looked into what those views actually are.
Calvinist in the Arminian tradition is beginning to make more and more sense historically.
Yeah. Tell me again how we're keeping you prisoner and not letting you post. I love that story ;)
What part of "spirit" did you miss Fru?
The way people tend to denigrate Arminius making him the historical equivalent of Satan Incarnate on these threads is amazing. We have him blamed for everything from Open Theism to Mormonism. I'm sure if he lived before Mohammed he'd be blamed for Islam as well.
But it does appear that he was a faithful disciple of Calvin's teachings and it would appear that Arminius was closer to Calvin's teachings than many of the modern Calvinists of our times.
As was shown on the other thread, Calvin had to deal with the hyper-Calvinists of his day as well. Perhaps that strain that Calvin fought against was the same strain that Arminius fought against.
So was Arminius a Calvinist? He says he was, and I think we ought to take him at his word. :-)
We Are Free to Believe:James Arminius
| James Arminius was emphatic in his rejection of Pelagianism, particularly with respect to the fall of Adam. The fall leaves man in a ruined state, under the dominion of sin. Arminius declares: In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened [attenuatem]; but it is also imprisoned [captivatum], destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. . . .1
In the perennial debate between so-called Calvinism and Arminianism, the estranged parties have frequently misrepresented each other. They construct straw men, then brandish the swords of polemics against caricatures, not unlike collective Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. As a Calvinist I frequently hear criticisms of Calvinistic thought that I would heartily agree with if indeed they represented Calvinism. So, I am sure, the disciples of Arminius suffer the same fate and become equally frustrated. Arminius himself came from a Calvinistic framework and embraced many tenets of historic Calvinism. He frequently complained, in a mild spirit, of the manifold ways in which he was misrepresented. He loved the works of Augustine and in many respects earnestly sought to champion the Augustinian cause.
The above citation from one of Arminiuss works demonstrates how seriously he regards the depths of the fall. He is not satisfied to declare that mans will was merely wounded or weakened. He insists that it was imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius.
Indeed, to show his agreement with Augustine, Arminius goes on to say: For Christ has said, Without me ye can do nothing [John 15:5]. St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: Christ does not say, Without me ye can do but little; neither does He say, Without me ye cannot do any arduous thing, nor Without me ye can do it with difficulty: But He says, Without me ye can do nothing! Nor does He say, Without me ye cannot complete [perficere] any thing; but Without me ye can do nothing.2
So far Arminius clearly seems to agree with Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. He affirms the ruination of the will, which is left in a state of captivity and can avail nothing apart from the grace of God. It would seem, then, that the debate between historic Calvinism and Arminianism is but a tempest in a teapot, resulting from a serious misunderstanding between the parties. The point at issue will appear later, however, as we consider the nature of grace and how it liberates man from his bondage to sin.
Effects of the Fall
Arminius distinguishes among three aspects of fallen man: his mind, his affections, and his life. Of the mind Arminius says:
The Mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God: For the animal man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14); in which passage man is called animal, not from the animal body, but from anima, the soul itself, which is the most noble part of man, but which is so encompassed about with the clouds of ignorance, as to be distinguished by the epithets of vain and foolish; and men themselves, thus darkened in their minds, are denominated mad [amentes] or foolish, fools, and even darkness itself (Rom. 1:2122; Eph. 4:1718; Titus 3:3; Eph. 5:8).3This dark state of the mind is exacerbated by the heart or affections, which further plunge human thinking into corruption: To this Darkness of the Mind succeeds the Perverseness of the Affections and of the Heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil.4
Arminius cites numerous biblical quotations in support of his view of the effects of sin. Together, the darkness of the mind and the perversity of the heart leave men morally impotent:
Exactly correspondent to this Darkness of the Mind, and Perverseness of the Heart, is the utter Weakness [impotentia] of all the Powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause. . . .Arminius not only affirms the bondage of the will, but insists that natural man, being dead in sin, exists in a state of moral inability or impotence. What more could an Augustinian or Calvinist hope for from a theologian? Arminius then declares that the only remedy for mans fallen condition is the gracious operation of Gods Spirit. The will of man is not free to do any good unless it is made free or liberated by the Son of God through the Spirit of God. Arminius describes the Spirits operation in the following terms:
. . . a new light and knowledge of God and Christ, and of the Divine Will, have been kindled in his mind; and . . . new affections, inclinations and motions agreeing with the law of God, have been excited in his heart, and new powers have been produced [ingeneratae] in him. . . . [Then,] being liberated from the kingdom of darkness, and being now made light in the Lord (Eph. 5:8) he understands the true and saving Good; that, after the hardness of his stony heart has been changed into the softness of flesh, . . . he loves and embraces that which is good, just, and holy; and that, being made capable [potens] in Christ, co-operating now with God he prosecutes the Good which he knows and loves, and he begins himself to perform it in deed. But this, whatever it may be of knowledge, holiness and power, is all begotten within him by the Holy Spirit. . . .6Again it seems that Arminius is merely echoing the teaching of Luther and Calvin. He affirms the absolute necessity of grace for man to turn to the good, and he even speaks of the Holy Spirit working within man to accomplish all of this.
Then Arminius makes an observation that sounds like a sudden departure from Reformation thought. He declares that this work of regeneration and illumination is not completed in one moment; but . . . it is advanced and promoted, from time to time, by daily increase.7 When Arminius expands on this point, he seems to mean that what is begun in regeneration is continued in the process of life-long sanctification. For example, the divine illumination that occurs at the onset of conversion is a work that continues through the Christian pilgrimage.
What is jarring here is Arminiuss reference to regenerations not being completed in one moment. Perhaps this is a mere slip of the pen, intended to convey the idea that the fruit of regeneration is ongoing. If he means that the work of regeneration itself is not instantaneous but gradual, then he sets himself in opposition to Reformation thought.
The beginning of the work of grace is called preventing grace or more popularly prevenient grace, referring to the grace that comes before conversion and on which conversion depends. Arminius first quotes Augustine, then Bernardus:
Subsequent or following Grace does indeed assist the good purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence unless through preceding or preventing Grace. And though the desire of man, which is called good, be assisted by Grace when it begins to be; yet it does not begin without Grace, but is inspired by Him. . . .The term preventing grace is open to misunderstanding. To prevent in modern usage usually means to keep something from happening. This is not how Arminius uses the term. The word prevent derives from the Latin venio, which means simply to come. The prefix pre means before. Therefore, preventing grace does not keep salvation from happening but necessarily comes before salvation.
Later Arminius addresses the distinction commonly found in Reformed theology between the external and internal calls of God. The external or outward call usually refers to the preaching of the gospel that men hear with their ears. The internal call refers to the operation of the Spirit of God within man, whereby he calls them internally. It is not a mere outward wooing, enticing, pleading, or drawing.
The Point of Departure
Arminius declares that internal vocation is granted [contingit] even to those who do not comply with the call.9 Here, at last, we see the critical point of departure from the view of Luther and Calvin. For the Reformers, the internal call is effectual. That is, all whom God calls internally comply with his call. This sets the stage for the debate over the resistible or irresistible grace of regeneration. Arminius declares: All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, and a capability of resisting the Holy Spirit, of rejecting the proffered grace of God, of despising the counsel of God against themselves, of refusing to accept the Gospel of grace, and of not opening to Him who knocks at the door of the heart; and these things they can actually do, without any difference of the Elect and of the Reprobate.10
Arminius makes it clear that prevenient grace is resistible. This grace is necessary for salvation, but does not insure that salvation will ensue. Grace is a necessary condition for salvation, but not a sufficient condition for salvation. Arminius distinguishes between sufficient and efficient grace: Sufficient grace must necessarily be laid down; yet this sufficient grace, through the fault of him to whom it is granted [contingit], does not [always] obtain its effect. Were the fact otherwise, the justice of God could not be defended in his condemning those who do not believe.11
Prevenient grace is sufficient in that it provides everything the sinner needs in order to be saved. The sinner is unable to do the good without it. We can see here that Arminiuss chief concern is to defend the justice of God.
If only irresistible grace is given, then in the final analysis God determines who will and who will not be saved. The unspoken question is this: If the sinner cannot respond to the gospel without irresistible grace and if this grace is not given to all, then how can God justly condemn those to whom he has not given it? Arminius goes on to say: The efficacy of saving grace is not consistent with that omnipotent act of God, by which He so inward- ly acts in the heart and mind of man, that he on whom that act is impressed cannot do any other than consent to God who calls him. Or, which is the same thing, grace is not an irresistible force.12
Related Works by Arminius
Certain Articles to Be Diligently Examined and Weighed. In The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. 2:70654.
The Public Disputations of James Arminius. In The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. 2:72264. A bit earlier Arminius said that prevenient grace is sufficient but not efficient. It does not always obtain its effect. At this point he laid the fault with men rather than with God. The failure to acquiesce in this sufficient grace is a fault. Arminius does not say that the assent to prevenient grace is a virtue, but he strongly implies it. If failure to assent is a fault, then to assent is a virtue. If it is not virtue, it is at the very least decisive to the outcome. In the final analysis the good outcome is contingent or dependent on what the person does or does not do.
Is Arminiuss view of regeneration monergistic or synergistic? To answer this question we must first understand what is meant by regeneration. Is regeneration the same as prevenient grace? If prevenient grace always enables the sinner to assent to grace, then Arminiuss view is monergistic in this regard. For Arminius prevenient grace seems to be irresistible to the degree that it effectively liberates the sinner from his moral bondage or impotency. Prior to receiving prevenient grace, man is dead and utterly unable to choose the good. After receiving this grace, the sinner is able to do what he was previously unable to do. In this sense, prevenient grace is monergistic and irresistible.
But what Arminius calls the inward vocation or call of God is neither monergistic nor irresistible. He says: Those who are obedient to the vocation or call of God, freely yield their assent to grace; yet they are previously excited, impelled, drawn and assisted by grace. And in the very moment in which they actually assent, they possess the capability of not assenting.13
Prevenient grace, then, makes man able to assent to Christ but not necessarily willing. The sinner is now able to will, but he is not yet willing to do so. The ability to will is the result of a monergistic, irresistible work of the Holy Spirit, but the actual willing is the synergistic work of the sinner cooperating with Gods prevenient grace. Giving grace is the work of God alone; assenting to it is the work of man, who now has the power to cooperate or not cooperate with it.
Arminiuss view differs sharply from the Augustinian and Reformed view, which insists that the monergistic work of regeneration makes the sinner not only able to will but also willing. To be sure, it is still the sinner who wills, but he wills because God has changed the disposition of his heart. Arminius says: In the very commencement of his conversion, man conducts himself in a purely passive manner; that is, though, by a vital act, that is, by feeling [sensu], he has a perception of the grace which calls him, yet he can do no other than receive it and feel it. But, when he feels grace affecting or inclining his mind and heart, he freely assents to it, so that he is able at the same time to with-hold his assent.14
Arminius makes it clear that, at the commencement of the work of salvation, man is passive. The exciting of grace on the soul is monergistic. The response to this exciting is synergistic, in that one can freely assent to it or withhold assent. Francis Turretin notes this distinction in Arminius:
The question is not whether grace is resistible in respect of the intellect or affections; for the Arminians confess that the intellect of man is irresistibly enlightened and his affections irresistibly excited and affected with the sense of grace. But it is treated of the will alone, which they maintain is always moved resistibly, so that its assent remains always free. There is granted indeed irresistibly the power to believe and convert itself, but the very act of believing and converting itself can be put forth or hindered by the human will because they hold that there is in it an essential indifference (adiaphorian) as to admitting or rejecting grace. . . . Thus we strenuously deny that efficacious grace is resistible in this sense. . . .The Rich Man and the Beggar
In answering a list of theological articles written against his views, Arminius complains at several points that he has been misunderstood or misrepresented. He was accused of teaching that faith is not the pure gift of God but depends partly on grace and partly on free will. He answered that he never said faith was not the pure gift of God, and he offered in response what he calls a simile:
A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propriety, that the alms depended partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly on the liberty of the Receiver, though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because the beggar is always prepared to receive, that he can have the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases? If these assertions cannot be truly made about a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine Grace are required!16In Arminiuss simile it is hard to imagine a destitute beggar not assenting to such a gracious gift. But the fact remains that, to receive the alms, the beggar, while still destitute, must stretch out his hand. At the same time, he stretches out his hand because he wants to do so. To receive the gift of faith, according to Calvinism, the sinner also must stretch out his hand. But he does so only because God has so changed the disposition of his heart that he will most certainly stretch out his hand. By the irresistible work of grace, he will do nothing else except stretch out his hand. Not that he cannot not stretch out his hand even if he does not want to, but that he cannot not want to stretch out his hand.
In Arminiuss simile, the beggar could conceivably be so obstreperous as to refuse the alms offered. In Augustinianism, this very obstinacy is effectively conquered by irresistible grace. For Calvin, the grace of God extends not only to the alms, but also to the very stretching out of the hand. For Arminius, the beggar possesses the natural power to stretch out his hand. One irony of history is that Arminius took this position in the midst of an effort initially designed to defend Calvinism. He held Calvin and his work in high regard. At one point Arminius said:
Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvins Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself [a Dutch divine, 15511608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison (incomparabilem esse) in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy (spiritum aliquem prophetiae eximium). His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination (cum delectu), like the writings of all men.17Arminius had been educated at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands from 1576 to 1582. After graduation he was sent to Geneva for further study. He took a pastorate in Amsterdam in 1588. In 1603 he was appointed professor of theology at Leiden.
In 1589 Arminius was asked to defend the doctrine of supralapsarianism against two ministers of Delft. As he prepared, he began to doubt not only supralapsarianism, but the whole doctrine of unconditional predestination. In this crucible his views on human freedom were forged. Soon a fierce controversy erupted between Arminius and his supra lapsarian colleague, Franciscus Gomarus, escalating into a national debate with political ramifications throughout Holland. After Arminius died in 1609, his views were systematized by his pupil and successor at Leiden, Simon Episcopius.18
|1James Arminius, The Public Disputations of James Arminius, D.D., in James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, trans. James and William Nichols, 3 vols. (182575; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 2:192 (11.7). Disputation 11 is titled On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers.
3Ibid., 2:19293 (11.8).
4Ibid., 2:193 (11.9).
5Ibid., 2:19394 (11.1011).
6Ibid., 2:19495 (11.12).
7Ibid., 2:195 (11.13).
8Ibid., 2:196 (11). The first paragraph is a quotation of Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians; the second paragraph, of Bernardus, On Free Will and Grace.
9James Arminius, Certain Articles to Be Diligently Examined and Weighed: Because Some Controversy Has Arisen Concerning Them among Even Those Who Profess the Reformed Religion, in Arminius, The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, 2:721 (17.4). Article 17 is titled On the Vocation of Sinners to Communion with Christ, and to a Participation of His Benefits.
10Ibid., 2:721 (17.5).
11Ibid., 2:72122 (17.12).
12Ibid., 2:722 (17.13).
13Ibid., 2:722 (17.16).
14Ibid., 2:722 (17.17).
15Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 199297), 2:54748 (15.6.67).
16James Arminius, The Apology or Defence of James Arminius, D.D., against Thirty-one Theological Articles, in Arminius, The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, 2:52 (against article 27).
17Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (190710; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 195253), 8:280.
18Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, rev. Cyril C. Richardson, Wilhelm Pauck, and Robert T. Handy (New York: Scribners, 1959), p. 399.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.