The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, 1610

'Broken and Spilled' website ^ | Unknown | Unknown

[fortheDeclaration]

The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, 1610

The Articles of the Remonstrants given below, though published by his followers a year after his death, expresses the confession of Arminius and his followers.

1. That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundations of the world were laid, determined to save, out of the human race which had fallen into sin, in Christ, for Christ’s sake and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on the same his son and shall through the same grace persevere in this same faith and obedience of faith even to the end; and on the other hand to leave under sin and wrath the contumacious and unbelieving and to condemn them as aliens from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36, and other passages of Scripture.

2. That, accordingly, Jesus Christ, the savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for all, by his death on the cross, reconciliation and remission of sins; yet so that no one is partaker of this remission except the believers (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2).

3. That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good—nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God (John 15:5).

4. That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7 and elsewhere passim).

5. That those who are grafted into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby been made partakers of his life giving Spirit, are abundantly endowed with power to strive against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to win the victory; always, be it understood, with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ assisting them in all temptations, through his Spirit; stretching out his hand to them and (providing only that they are themselves prepared for the fight, that they entreat his aid and do not fail to help themselves) propping and upbuilding them so that by no guile or violence of Satan can they be led astray or plucked from Christ’s hands (John 10:28). But for the question whether they are not able through sloth or negligence to forsake the beginning of their life in Christ, to embrace again this present world, to depart from the holy doctrine once delivered to them, to lose their good conscience and to neglect grace, this must be the subject of more exact inquiry in the Holy Scriptures, before we can teach it with full confidence of our mind.

The End

[fortheDeclaration]

Bump for read.

[Frumanchu]

Shall I post the entire Canon of Dort? :)

[maestro]

Thank You!

Again!
m

Maranatha!

[drstevej]

Article 5 is unwilling to say conclusively whether one may lose his/her salvation.

Are those who say you definitely can lose your salvation Hyper-Arminians?

[fortheDeclaration]

Please do and lets compare!

[fortheDeclaration]

I would say that Wesley moved away from Arminius in this and that out of fear of loss of Holiness if one knew they had eternal security.

The point is that Arminius was not dogmatic about it and eternal security can be reconciled with conditional election.

[The Grammarian]

I would say that Wesley moved away from Arminius in this and that out of fear of loss of Holiness if one knew they had eternal security.

I agree, Wesley moved away from Arminius' ambiguosity on the matter, although I do not think it was out of fear of a loss of motivation toward holiness. Not completely, anyway.

The point is that Arminius was not dogmatic about it and eternal security can be reconciled with conditional election.

Yes, it can be reconciled--it's just logically inconsistent. The logical corollary of conditional election is conditional security, but if one inserted a line into one's doctrine that said that conditional election didn't automatically mean conditional security, and then said that despite conditional election, "predestination closed the door," then one could come away from conditional election with unconditional security.

[drstevej]

Just a historical note.

Arminius died in 1609 while the controversy over his views was in full bloom. The Remonstrances were written in 1610 and signed by 42 ministers influenced by Arminius. So technically they are not the view of Arminius per se.

The entire matter was complicated by the fact that the Dutch Reformed Church was the State Church whose ministers were paid by the state. Other churches / religions were accorded freedom (including Anabaptists and Jews). So in addition to the controversy over theology and church discipline for errant views, the controversy became a tug of war between the role of the state in such matters.

Arminius, an Erastian, held that the church was subordinate to the state and was well connected with people of influence. This further muddied the waters in addressing the theological issues.

The rejection of the Remonstrances theologically resulted also in the "loss of livings" of the Remonstrant ministers who were no longer paid by the state.

The whole issue of church-state relationship and authority was being hammered out amid the relative freedom / tolerance afforded in Holland at the time.

[The Grammarian]

Just a historical note. Arminius died in 1609 while the controversy over his views was in full bloom. The Remonstrances were written in 1610 and signed by 42 ministers influenced by Arminius. So technically they are not the view of Arminius per se.

You are correct on all other points, but actually, the ambiguosity of the Remonstrants' position on a believer's security is straight Arminius. From the Works of James Arminius, the Declaration of Sentiments of James Arminius states:

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies -- yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual. Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration. Godrules.net

[drstevej]

True, the Declaration of Sentiments as well as the Remonstrances argue a 'they can't', but 'perhaps they can', so we better 'keep our options open' theology on the fifth point.

Hanging on to 1 point Calvinism ain't easy.

[Frumanchu]

I was being more sarcastic than serious. To post it would be quite a burden to readers as it is rather lengthy.

If time permits, I will begin pulling excerpts in from it to respond to certain arguments. That's a big if though;)

[The Grammarian]

"One point Calvinism" is easy--it's "two point Calvinism" that's hard. Total Depravity's easy enough a starting point, but Unconditional Security doesn't fit too easily with Conditional Election. ;)

[fortheDeclaration]

I was being more sarcastic than serious. To post it would be quite a burden to readers as it is rather lengthy. If time permits, I will begin pulling excerpts in from it to respond to certain arguments. That's a big if though;)

Yes, the Remonstrants are fairly short, so I figured that it would not be a bad idea to put them out to see what the Arminians really believed.

If you can post the Calvnists views as they relate to the Remonstrants that would be helpful.

[fortheDeclaration]

would say that Wesley moved away from Arminius in this and that out of fear of loss of Holiness if one knew they had eternal security. I agree, Wesley moved away from Arminius' ambiguosity on the matter, although I do not think it was out of fear of a loss of motivation toward holiness. Not completely, anyway.

Amen! There are many verses that do go against eternal security, just as there are for it!

The key is 'rightly dividing' and understanding the unique aspect of the Church age believer, that he is in union with Christ and that is the basis of his eternal security, not election.

The point is that Arminius was not dogmatic about it and eternal security can be reconciled with conditional election. Yes, it can be reconciled--it's just logically inconsistent. The logical corollary of conditional election is conditional security, but if one inserted a line into one's doctrine that said that conditional election didn't automatically mean conditional security, and then said that despite conditional election, "predestination closed the door," then one could come away from conditional election with unconditional security.

Well, I believe the Arminians and the Wesleyians having rightly acknowledged man's ability to reject God, took it right into salvation.

What they could not see was that this a pre-salvation rejection and after you were saved and brought into the Body of Christ, you could not remove yourself, nor could Christ Himself remove you (2Tim.2:13) since you were now part of Him.

[RnMomof7]

Arminius, an Erastian, held that the church was subordinate to the state

Well sounds like Wesley and Arminius had common ground here Steve..

[RnMomof7]

Well, I believe the Arminians and the Wesleyians having rightly acknowledged man's ability to reject God, took it right into salvation.

Does God have the same "right" as man..can God reject a man?

[fortheDeclaration]

You know you ask some silly questions!

Does the Bible say that God wants to reject man? (1Tim.2:4,Jn.3:16, Ezek.33:11)

God rejects man after man rejects God (Jn.3:36)

But then again you will find that in Scripture, not in one of your goofy 'Creeds'

[RnMomof7]

God rejects man after man rejects God (Jn.3:36)

So the initiation is always on mans part..never Gods?

[maestro]

Posts # 18 and #19..........WHAT?.............WHAT "is" THIS?

(Romans 10:17..................)

BTTT