Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE FREE-WILL OF MAN
God Rules ^ | Jacob Arminius

Posted on 01/25/2006 1:25:12 PM PST by xzins

III. THE FREE-WILL OF MAN

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace.

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and 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.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: arminius; free; freewill; will
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 941-944 next last

1 posted on 01/25/2006 1:25:15 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Buggman; blue-duncan; Corin Stormhands

More thoughts from Arminius. Note how he sounds entirely different than others report.


2 posted on 01/25/2006 1:26:34 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Of course, had you posted these last two posts together it would be clearly presented that Arminius still believes one must cooperate with and accept the grace of God (that is, the efficacy of the grace which God gives to man in order to save him is by no means assured) in order to be saved. Arminius believes it enables faith, Calvin believes it inspires faith.

You can re-frame it all you want, x. Arminius was no Calvinist, and neither are you.

3 posted on 01/25/2006 1:36:14 PM PST by Frumanchu (Inveterate Pelagian by birth, Calvinist by grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; P-Marlowe
Actually, I was a bit more interested in demonstrating that Arminius never would have supported having a practicing homosexual be a representative of his church.

Other than that, he was a Calvinist professor at a Calvinist University.

I have long described myself as a calvinist in the tradition of Arminius.

4 posted on 01/25/2006 1:58:30 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Very interesting post. Perhaps you (or others here) can explain a few points about Arminius's teachings:

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace.

This seems straightforward enough.

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and 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.

This raises questions:

1. According to Arminius, who is regenerated? That is, why are some regenerated and others not?

2. Does the regenerated man know he has been regenerated? If so, how?

3. Can the unregenerated man know he has not been regenerated?

4. Is there any way to tell from someone's thought, speech, or behavior whether regeneration has occurred?

5. Most if not all people think they have free will, that they freely choose good or evil. Is that belief illusory?

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.

What does it mean here to say that the regenerated man is "delivered from sin"? Surely that does not mean he no longer sins.

Would Divine Grace be withheld on any condition from a regenerated person?

5 posted on 01/25/2006 2:43:02 PM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; Buggman; blue-duncan; Corin Stormhands; Frumanchu
“In reference to Divine Grace, I believe,…2. It is an infusion” –Joseph Arminius on Grace of God

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man…, ...except through the assistance of Divine Grace.... but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

These are nothing more than Catholic ideas. They never were Protestant thought and are precisely what the Reformation was framed against. I underlined that Arminius focused on his own tradition. If you agree with Arminius on these statements the apple has indeed fallen far from the tree.

6 posted on 01/25/2006 4:31:21 PM PST by HarleyD (Man's steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way? - Pro 20:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; xzins; P-Marlowe; Buggman; blue-duncan; Corin Stormhands; Frumanchu
Addedum: Protestants believe in imputed righteousness. Catholics believe in infused righteousness.

Arminian shows his true colors and Protestants bought it hook, line, and sinker.
7 posted on 01/25/2006 4:40:29 PM PST by HarleyD (Man's steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way? - Pro 20:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Actually, I was a bit more interested in demonstrating that Arminius never would have supported having a practicing homosexual be a representative of his church.

Which is obviously why you posted two thread pertaining to Arminius' soteriology.

Other than that, he was a Calvinist professor at a Calvinist University.

Sorry, but this is no more credible than when you tried this same thing about a year ago over the course of a couple threads.

Just to revisit:

5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.

I have hitherto been stating those opinions concerning the article of Predestination which are inculcated in our Churches and in the University of Leyden, and of which I disapprove. I have at the same time produced my own reasons, why I form such an unfavourable judgment concerning them; and I will now declare my own opinions on this subject, which are of such a description as, according to my views, appear most conformable to the word of God.

He quite freely admits he IS in disagreement with what is being taught in the University of Leyden and in the Dutch Reformed churches.

I have long described myself as a calvinist in the tradition of Arminius.

And I've long pointed out how truly absurd this is given that Arminius was not a Calvinist.

It seems American political liberals are not the only ones who feel the need to rewrite history in order to manufacture historical support for fundamentally flawed ideology.

8 posted on 01/25/2006 5:01:31 PM PST by Frumanchu (Inveterate Pelagian by birth, Calvinist by grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; annalex; kosta50

HD, if one is in fact among the elect, is there any reason not to "sin vigorously"? And if one is not among the elect, does it make any difference at all if one "sins vigorously"?


9 posted on 01/25/2006 5:05:30 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man…, ...except through the assistance of Divine Grace.... but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

These are nothing more than Catholic ideas. They never were Protestant thought and are precisely what the Reformation was framed against

Excuse me for butting in to a "private" Protestant post. But in the first sentence above, (which you highlighted in your initial post), is it true that Protestants do NOT believe that the regenerated no longer need Divine Assistance daily? Was that what Luther was arguing? Forgive my ignornace in advance. I had previously thought that we ALL believed that God's graces were necessary to do ANYTHING good, and this wasn't just a Catholic belief (which, of course, it is)

Again, pardon my interruption into your guys' squabbles. I usually stay out of them, but your post picqued my interest.

Regards

10 posted on 01/25/2006 5:33:34 PM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Kolokotronis,

Arminianism/Calvinism is a distinction wholly within the Reformation movement. Even though the Catholics are mentioned, it is only as a rhetorical device in what is an internal Protestant dispute. I would advocate giving our Protestant friends a space to discuss things important to them in peace, and in necessary nuance of which we, outsiders, are not capable. If we lob over to them fundamental questions like this pretty soon it will be not a Arminianism/Calvinism thread but a Catholic-Orthodox/Protestant thread, and we have enough of those.

The same thing happens to us, of course. Post anything with "Purgatory" or "Mary" in the title and 80% of the thread goes to deal with Protestant prooftexting or demands for more prooftexting, and the real purpose of the thread is lost. Not every thread benefits from wide participation.


11 posted on 01/25/2006 5:34:26 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; annalex; kosta50; Kolokotronis
We welcome our Catholic friends to participate but my point to our Protestant friends is infusion versus imputed righteousness. It certainly never stopped me. :O)

Orthodox and Catholics believe in infusion of righteousness. Protestants believe righteousness is imputed. Arminius suggestion that righteousness is infused is not Protestant doctrine.

12 posted on 01/25/2006 5:54:06 PM PST by HarleyD (Man's steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way? - Pro 20:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: annalex

That is a very gracious and much appreciated post.


13 posted on 01/25/2006 5:56:31 PM PST by Frumanchu (Inveterate Pelagian by birth, Calvinist by grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; annalex; Kolokotronis
That is a very gracious and much appreciated post

Indeed, especially when one is faced with such tricky questions. :-)

14 posted on 01/25/2006 6:01:45 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex

Kosta mou, be good now!


15 posted on 01/25/2006 6:03:04 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; annalex; Cronos; Kolokotronis
Thank you for the invitation. Likewise, feel free to come and visit our posts.

I am not sure what imputation and infusion is, but I can tell you it is not something we often talk about. :-)

God wanted man to make choices. That much is clear. He created man in His own image and gave him the power to choose freely. Genesis reveals that God asked Adam to name every animal. God foreknew his choices, but He did not make them for him. God planted the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, so that Adam and Eve could choose. In that respect, God choreographed what was to unfold in Paradise, but He did not make Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden tree.

Even after they ate of the forbidden fruit, God asked them why did they eat of the forbidden fruit, giving Adam and Eve a chance to repent. Their refusal to repent sealed their fate.

Thus, we see two very different events: one that is rather unimportant to man (naming of the all the animals), and the other (the Fall) that is cataclysmic to humanity. Both are products of our free will. To say that God does not want us to make decisions freely about our own fate (i.e. whether it is our own demise or our salvation) in cooperation with God is therefore clearly wrong.

16 posted on 01/25/2006 6:08:34 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis; HarleyD
"I would advocate giving our Protestant friends a space to discuss things important to them in peace, and in necessary nuance of which we, outsiders, are not capable."

I, for one, was looking forward to K's participation.

And may I suggest that no one who truly knows the Lord should feel themselves an "outsider" in any healthy Biblical discussion.




"The same thing happens to us, of course. Post anything with "Purgatory" or "Mary" in the title and 80% of the thread goes to deal with Protestant prooftexting"

FR is, after all, a PUBLIC discussion forum. I have found that having to defend my beliefs from attacks of various sorts has actually strengthened my faith - and taught me a lot of stuff I didn't know.

If you were a 1st cent. Christian putting forth your ideas in the agora, you would face the same type of diverse audience - and they wouldn't give you a pass either.
17 posted on 01/25/2006 6:10:08 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu

Was Calvin a Calvinist?


18 posted on 01/25/2006 6:11:14 PM PST by bethelgrad (for God, country, the Marine Corps, and now the Navy Chaplain Corps OOH RAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bethelgrad
Was Calvin a Calvinist?

Yes. Contrary to may attempts you may see arguing otherwise, Calvin was indeed a Calvinist.

19 posted on 01/25/2006 6:22:50 PM PST by Frumanchu (Inveterate Pelagian by birth, Calvinist by grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; xzins; P-Marlowe; Buggman; blue-duncan
Calvin was indeed a Calvinist.

If I were a betting Calvinist, I'd put money on the fact that he never would have wanted to be called that...:-)

(that said, I'm on dialup at my mom's house, so I'm not sticking around...)

20 posted on 01/25/2006 8:27:13 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you can read this tagline, thank Jack Bauer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 941-944 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson