That'll be $35.00.
Posted on 01/13/2005 8:23:15 AM PST by xzins
However, I'm fascinated by Arminius' recounting of the various confessions of his era that appear to indicate a number of different perspectives on reformation theology. It appears there wasn't some form of lockstep consistency in those early years of the Reformation, and that some perspectives lost out and some won out. That's a fascinating new insight into early calvinist expansion.
V. It neither agrees nor corresponds with the Harmony of those confessions which were printed and published together in one volume at Geneva, in the name of the Reformed and Protestant Churches. If that harmony of Confessions be faithfully consulted, it will appear that many of them do not speak in the same manner concerning Predestination; that some of them only incidentally mention it; and that they evidently never once touch upon those heads of the doctrine, which are now in great repute and particularly urged in the preceding scheme of Predestination, and which I have already adduced. Nor does any single Confession deliver this doctrine in the same manner as it has just now been propounded by me. The Confessions of Bohemia, England and Wirtemburgh, and the first Helvetian [Swiss] Confession, and that of the four cities of Strasburgh, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau, make no mention of this Predestination. Those of Basle and Saxony, only take a very cursory notice of it in three words. The Augustan Confession speaks of it in such a manner as to induce the Genevan editors to think, that some annotation was necessary on their part, to give us a previous warning. The last of the Helvetian [Swiss] Confessions, to which a great portion of the Reformed Churches have expressed their assent and which they have subscribed, likewise speaks of it in such a strain as makes me very desirous to see what method can possibly be adopted to give it any accordance with that doctrine of Predestination which I have just now advanced. Yet this [Swiss] Confession is that which has obtained the approbation of the Churches of Geneva and Savoy.VI. Without the least contention or caviling, it may very properly be made a question of doubt, whether this doctrine agrees with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism; as I shall briefly demonstrate.
1. In the 14th Article of the Dutch Confession, these expression soccur: "Man knowingly and willingly subjected himself to sin, and, consequently, to death and cursing, while he lent an ear to the deceiving words and impostures of the devil," &c. From this sentence I conclude, that man did not sin on account of any necessity through a preceding decree of Predestination: which inference is diametrically opposed to that doctrine of Predestination against which I now contend. Then, in the 16th Article, which treats of the eternal election of God, these words are contained: "God shewed himself Merciful, by delivering from damnation, and by saving, those persons whom, in his eternal and immutable counsel and cording to his gratuitous goodness, he chose in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any regard to their works. And he shewed himself just, in leaving others in that their fall and perdition into which they had precipitated themselves." It is not obvious to me, how these words are consistent with this doctrine of Predestination.
2. In the 20th question of the Heidelberg Catechism, we read: "salvation through Christ is not given [restored] to all them who had perished in Adam, but to those only who are engrafted into Christ by the faith, and who embrace his benefits." From this sentence I infer, that God has not absolutely Predestinated any men to salvation; but that he has in his decree considered [or looked upon] them as believers. This deduction is at open conflict with the first and third points of this Predestination. In the 54th question of the same Catechism, it is said: "I believe that, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God out of the entire race of mankind doth by his word and Spirit gather or collect unto himself a company chosen unto eternal life and agreeing together in the true faith." In this sentence "election to eternal life," and "agreement in the faith," stand in mutual juxtaposition; and in such a manner, that the latter is not rendered subordinate to the former, which, according to these sentiments on Predestination ought to have been done. In that case the words should have been placed in the following order: "the son of God calls and gathers to himself, by his word and Spirit, a company chosen to eternal life, that they may believe and agree together in the true faith."
Bump for later perusal.
Do Arminians have poor eyesight. :O)
Speaking for myself, yes.
Speaking for the font in the article: I copy/pasted the source code and that's what came up. :>)
Bump for later. I'm just back from the doctor (bronchitis) and the fever's spiking again.
Prayers aloft, Corin.
"III. This doctrine was never admitted, decreed, or approved in any Council, either general or particular, for the first six hundred years after Christ.
is untrue. Augustine wrote the A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints
This is just an excerpt from the beautiful writings of Augustine on predestination.
CHAP. 19 [X.]— IN WHAT RESPECTS PREDESTINATION AND GRACE DIFFER.
Moreover, that which I said, "That the salvation of this religion has never been lacking to him who was worthy of it, and that he to whom it was lacking was not worthy,"—if it be discussed and it be asked whence any man can be worthy, there are not wanting those who say—by human will. But we say, by divine grace or predestination. Further, between grace and predestination there is only this difference, that predestination is the preparation for grace, while grace is the donation itself. When, therefore, the apostle says," Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works," [Eph. 2.9,10.] it is grace; but what follows—"which God hath prepared that we should walk in them"—is predestination, which cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to do, whence it was said, "He made those things that shall be." [Isa. 46.11.] Moreover, He is able to foreknow even those things which He does not Himself do,—as all sins whatever. Because, although there are some which are in such wise sins as that they are also the penalties of sins, whence it is said, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient," [Rom. 1.28.] it is not in such a case the sin that is God's, but the judgment. Therefore God's predestination of good is, as I have said, the preparation of grace; which grace is the effect of that predestination. Therefore when God promised to Abraham in his seed the faith of the nations, saying, "I have established thee a father of many nations," [Gen. 17.5.] whence the apostle says, "Therefore it is of faith, that the promise, according to grace, might be established to all the seed," [Rom. 4.16.] He promised not from the power of our will, but from His own predestination. For He promised what He Himself would do, not what men would do. Because, although men do those good things which pertain to God's worship, He Himself makes them to do what He has commanded; it is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the fulfillment of God's promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of men; and thus what was promised by God to Abraham would be given to Abraham by men themselves. Abraham, however, did not believe thus, but "he believed, giving glory to God, that what He promised He is able also to do." [Rom. 4.21.] He does not say, "to foretell"—he does not say, "to foreknow;" for He can foretell and foreknow the doings of strangers also; but he says, "He is able also to do;" and thus he is speaking not of the doings of others, but of His own.
It's obvious Arminius wanted to focus in specifically on this form of predestination and only make scant reference to the "second and third types" in an effort to make the latter look just as "extreme" as the former.
I want to say there's an easy example from recent events that shows how someone can focus in on one aspect and then project it across a wide scope to portray the whole as extreme...even hyper-extreme...
”3. It [Predestination] has had no need of being examined or determined by any council, either general or particular, since it is contained in the scriptures clearly and expressly in so many words; and no contradiction has ever yet been offered to it by any orthodox Divine. “
In Augustine’s writing there was a great controversy on this very subject; so much so that Augustine wrote a whole book about it. This controversy wasn’t in the church but was in repudiation of Pelagian. Augustine writes in Chapter 36:
"Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such...."Blessed," says he[Paul], "be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ; even as He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted." [Eph. 1.3.] Not, then, because we were to be so, but that we might be so. Assuredly it is certain,—assuredly it is manifest. Certainly we were to be such for the reason that He has chosen us, predestinating us to be such by His grace.
Sound familiar? It seems to me Arminius is arguing the same thing as Pelagian in regards to predestination.
as we all already know Supralarsarianism was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529AD, but heresy is a like a bad habit that keeps coming back.
"According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema."
That'll be $35.00.
You know, I'd just about be willing to try that...
You must have been predestined to post this long article with broken hyperlinks.
Yep...musta been.
I looked at some of the links in the original and they were definitions and biblical references. However, when I brought the source code over, all of the addresses had changed to a freerepublic.com address and not a link to the article. To correct or even to remove all the links was more work than I felt like doing.
Easier to just go to the original. :>)
Consider: If predestination is true, then none of the heat and noise matters. Not one little bit of it. Whether I believe it or not, or you believe it or not, has absolutely no consequence. Trying to convince other people that it's true likewise has no consequence.
The only thing that matters about predestination is if it is not true. In that case, it's best to act as if you have at least some say in the matter of your salvation -- which is also how you should act if you do believe in predestination.
As I've said a number of times before:
God is sovereign, we're responsible, and all the stuff in between is a mystery.
Maybe you are predestined to receive that award.
It is true that God is sovereign and that we have some responsibilities to fulfill. Thanks for the post.
See #16 for the explanation on the links. :>)
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.