ON PREDESTINATION

The Works of Arminius ^ | Jacob Arminius

[Poohbah]

Q. "How many Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?"
A. "None. We use candles."

Q. "How many charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?"
A. "Only one. His hands are in the air anyway."

Q. "How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb?"
A. "None. God has predestined when it will be light and dark.

Q. "How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?"
A. "Only one. But the light bulb has to WANT to change."

[xzins]

:>)

[PFKEY]

Ya know, the more one thinks about "believing in predestination", the less important it seems.

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.

The best summation I have even heard on the matter of predestination.

Can we now move on to other matters of faith, obedience and love? Gods grace and mercy are unquestionable.

[xzins]

BTW, good comments by both of you.

You should know, however, that this discussion is not really about predestination.

It's about what Arminius actually believed as opposed to what his later-in-history opponents suggest that he believed.

This article is from an author who died in 1609.

[r9etb]

You should know, however, that this discussion is not really about predestination.

Indeed not ... it's by the founder of the dreaded Arminianism....

I really do intend to read it fully, though. Thanks for posting it.

[PFKEY]

Thank you.

I understand the article isn't specifically about predestination. However, I always read any discussion that even remotely deals with the subject because I find the notion to be in contrast to what is taught in the scriptures.

There are many verses which speach of gaining and losing ones salvation which clearly do not reconcile with the many verses that speak of election and predestination.

For those who do not believe in election and predestination in the manner that Arminius or Calvin teach I am curious how they are able to reconcile the verses that speak of these things.

For me, I am able to reconcile them with a understanding or belief that the elect or those predestine that the Bible speaks of are those of the likes of people like John the Baptist or of Mary and Hoseph or the Apostiles.

Those who God specifically chose before the fondation of the world to carry out him plan/will.

I do not believe that one passage of scripture negates or cancels out another passage so predestination and election must be true as well as the notion that one can be saved or lost according to their freewill.

As I stated before, God's grace and mercy are unquestionable.

[HarleyD]

The Council of Orange also said some other things such as:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

or

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

or

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

If you're going to condemn Supralarsarianism of which the Council of Orange was a little more vague and didn't canonized, then you might as well condemn "free will" as well which the Canons condemn over and over. As Canon 3 points out it is God's grace that "makes" us pray to Him and can only be conferred by God. Heresy comes in many forms.

[Conservative til I die]

Thanks for the pings and all, but I care what Calvinists have to say about anything predestination about as much as I care what a Jehovah's Witness has to say about trinitarianism.

[xzins]

Ping to Post #2.

It includes some of the confessional info referred to in the other discussion.

[fortheDeclaration]

Whew! This is a real sluggard trying to read this. I will say the following comment: "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

Arminius did not say the topic was not discussed, he said no Council made it a tenet of orthodox faith.

[HarleyD]

After rereading this article I see yours and Frumanchu point. Supralapsarians was indeed never formally accepted by any council although it has always been discussed throughout the church.

I looked into this a little more closely. Calvinists hold three views on this; the supralapsarian, the infralapsarian, the sublapsarian. Arminius only mentions the one (supralapsarian) and never the others in this article. Probably because he took the infralapsarian view and made a slight but significant modification (nullifying God's election of men) so that it fit with his views. A good summary (although its a little harsh on the supralapsarian view) of these views can be found at The Order of Elective Decrees

I guess I've never really thought about the order of the decrees. I'll have to look into this a tad more closer.

[Frumanchu]

Harley, Arminius does in fact address the other views. However, he focuses in on supralapsarian as the extreme, then sort of wraps the other to into it by association, making the argument that they're really no different than supralapsarianism.

While supralapsarianism has always been present in the church, the Reformed position is and has always been infralapsarian.

As I posted previously, Arminius never accepted the Dutch Reformed Church's position on Predestination. He only agreed with the Belgic Confession insofar as he could redefine the terms therein (with the effect of completely changing the meaning of the confession).

The order of decrees is a significant issue in predestination, but it is secondary to Arminius' larger disagreement with all Calvinist lapsarian positions.

[HarleyD]

Thanks Fru. I will confess after rereading this article three or four times now I have had a difficult time understanding it. I'm not sure if it's the bold print that hurts my eyes (I have a sight condition) or if it's the style of writing. About all I can tell is that Arminius didn't like the interpretation of Predestination, probably because none of the definitions fit with his theology, so he developed his own. I noticed he offered no Biblical references to support his argument.

I also noticed from the link I posted, Augustine held an infralapsarianism belief which caught my attention. (At least I can understand him.) Since I'm relatively new to the Reform theology I appreciate you pointing out what was the original position of the Reform church.

[WriteOn]

Not at all. That is predestination. In the same way that gravity "makes" us fall.

[HarleyD]

But without gravity's help you'll never fall. Gravity does it all. :O)

[visually_augmented]

So I read your link on Lapsarianism and thought it quite informative and to the point. Though I agree with the Calvinistic approach to predestination, I fail to see the import of the Lapsarian aspect of God's ordained will.

In my mind, there is no real order to any of these issues since order appears to constrain God to a timeline. I tend to think that all five aspects of God's ordained will occured simultaneously - no cause and effect required.

[HarleyD]

Hmmmm...that's a good point. I must admit I've never thought about the order but apparently it's the thing that divides the supralapsarians from the infralapsarians and so on. God is certainly out of time and would not have an order. But order is sometime how we can limitly understand God and His scriptures.

I'm fairly new to the reform belief but when I discovered it, to me it seemed like a no-brainer. I've wondered how I could have missed this all these years as all the scriptures fall into place. As far as the finer points of the theology, I'm still slugging my way through.