Jacob ARMINIUS:

IMARC (Independent Methodist Arminian Resource Center) ^ | Dr. Vic Reasoner

[Gamecock]

Arminius/Harmensen's "fruit" is the road back to Rome, i.e. salvation by the work of human effort towards belief.

And the seed planted by Arminius and fertilized by Finney is in full bloom in the American Religion today.

[xzins]

It's always a pleasure to remind folks that Finney was a Calvinist to his dying day. :>)

[Frumanchu]

It's always a pleasure to remind folks that Finney was a Calvinist ON his dying day.

[Frumanchu]

So what do you think of Sproul's actual words vs. what the author attributes to him?

[Buggman]

lol Is this really what this debate is coming down to?

[Gamecock]

Oh really?


From Michael Horton's Charles Finney vs. the Westminster Confession

From the denial of original sin, Finney is free to move to a denial of the doctrine of supernatural regeneration. Like revival, regeneration itself was a gift of God, a "surprising work of God," according to the first Great Awakening. But for Finney, while the Holy Spirit exerted moral influences, "the actual turning...is the sinner's own act."33 The evangelist's most popular sermon, which he preached at Boston's Park Street Church, was titled, "Sinners Bound To Change Their Own Hearts." "There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature," Finney declared, rendering the charge of Pelagianism undeniable. "Religion is the work of man," he said. "It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that and nothing else. When mankind become religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God. A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of constituted means--as much as any other effect produced by the application of means"


Sounds like a neo-Arminian to me......

[Gamecock]

You are requested at 46 as well!

[HarleyD]

I was just reading the same article. One item of interest:

"In DeKalb, Presbyterians and Methodists had divided over the phenomenon of "fainting under the power of the Spirit," endorsed by the Methodists, but when Finney arrived in 1823, he brought the Presbyterians into agreement with the practice. Indeed, Finney occasionally wondered aloud why he did not become a Methodist and praised them as better revivalists than the Presbyterians."

I wonder if the Methodist still "faint under the spirit". DA LINK: Charles Finney vs. the Westminster Confession

[connectthedots]

That she is a fruit. I thought her words were unambiguous.

[Corin Stormhands]

I'm assuming you have a copy of the book Fru, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However...

Since the chapter begins James Arminius was emphatic in his rejection of Pelagianism

I would think that Sproul addresses Pelagianism earlier somewhere in the first five chapters. Maybe the reference is there.

Maybe not.

[suzyjaruki]

ARMINIUS: (By Dr. Vic Reasoner) Edited to be about Arminius 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. 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. 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) 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)

2. Arminius is misrepresented as teaching the absolute freedom of the will. 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)

3. Arminius is misrepresented as teaching a works salvation. 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) 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) 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)

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)

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)

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).
13. Works, 2:151.
14. Works, 2:156
15. Works, 2:375.
26. Works, 1:659-60.
27. Works, 2:192
28. Works, 2:700.
41. Works, 2:701
42. Works, 2:400.
44. Works, 2:43-45. See also the comments of Carl Bangs, pp. 344-5.
45. "The Lord our Righteousness," Sermon #20, II.19.
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.
53. Works, 2:702.

It was a help for me in the reading of this article to separate Arminius from Wesley.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...Calvinist in the Arminian tradition

Nonsensical. That's like saying you're a Republican in the Socialist tradition.

[theFIRMbss]

>That's like saying you're a Republican in the Socialist tradition

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.C. PROPAGANDA

BY GEORGE F. WILL

January 13, 2005 -- IN communist East Berlin, one sign of the govern ment's swollen self-regard was the cluttering of public spaces with propaganda banners by which the government praised itself for providing socialism. In Washington today, the Department of Education building is an advertisement for its occupants.

Eight entrances are framed by make-believe little red schoolhouses labeled "No Child Left Behind." High on the building's front are two other advertisements for that 2002 law: large banners hector passers-by to visit NoChildLeftBehind.gov. ...

[Frumanchu]

I do have it. I've read it twice and referenced it many times more. Sproul does address Pelagianism earlier in the book. I went back through to check and did not see anywhere where Arminianism was equated with Pelagianism. It is referred to as being "semi-Pelagian" but that designation is thoroughly explained lest one believe that Arminians deny original sin.

I highly recommend the book.

[Corin Stormhands]

Thanks. I'll put it on my list. ;-)

[xzins]

Well...yes.

Don't get the wrong idea, but my big brother can beat up your big brother! :>)

[xzins]

This is the link to Finney's biography from Oberlin College, official, and written by a colleague...Oberlin was where Finney was President.

An Official Biography of Finney

In it you will find that Finney was always a Calvinist. It even runs down through the 5 points of the Tulip.

[Gamecock]

Isn't it interesting that when a group (in this case Oberlin College) desires a high degree of respectability, they trot out Calvin?

[xzins]

Yes, Reasoner is a methodist so his focus would ultimately be on Wesley, but it is good to see the contrast with Arminius.

[xzins]

We are discussing the history and differences in Holland of the calvinists in the arminian tradition and the calvinists in the dortist tradition.

I don't see any contradiction.