John Calvin was a theologian, pastor, biblical exegete, and tireless apologist for Reformed Christianity, and ranks among the most important thinkers in church history. His theological works, biblical commentaries, tracts, treatises, sermons, and letters helped establish the Reformation as a legitimate and thriving religious movement throughout Europe. No theologian has been as acclaimed or assailed as much as Calvin...
Gentlemen:
It is not as if this debate is new — nor is it as if this debate is neatly divided between the [supposedly righteous] Calvinists and the [unalterably heretical] Arminians.
There is currently a big debate (and it will be more clear in forthcoming books about Jesus being “generated” from the Father; That is, He gets His personhood or essence from the Father. The Father gets His essence from no one. And the Spirit gets His essence from the Father and the Son. [CALVINIST] Millard Erickson’s new book on the Trinity addresses this issue, as does Thomas Oden.
Grudem, on the other hand, disagrees with this language. He sees that it is not necessary to talk about the Son being “begotten” or “generated” from the Father, as though Jesus “needs” something from Him in order to exist (which sounds too close to what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim).
And as a reminder, [CALVINIST] John MacArthur at one time did not subscribe to Jesus being God’s Son from all eternity; for the Father said, “Today have I begotten You.” Grudem says that the word “begotten” simply means “one and only / unique,” and not “birthed” (obviously). Many
Church History professors say that “begotten” as used in the early Church Fathers meant “to share in the divinity of the Father.” Yet in [CALVINIST] Erickson’s new book, he says that the fathers believed that the Son was “generated” from the Father, not “brought into existence,” but as
Jesus claimed, “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father” (John 6:57 NASB). Some say Jesus is claiming to have His “human” personhood, so to speak, from the Father.
Jesus, therefore, is the only begotten Son of God in the sense that Jesus is the only natural Son of God and the rest of us are the adopted sons and daughters. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through
him” (1John 4:9). Arminius, in understanding his context,
agreed with the Athanasian creed, which says Jesus proceeds from the father. That seems to be wholly orthodox. This was the point of Arminius — NOT anti-trinitarianism. Oh, and by the way, [CALVINIST] Bruce Ware holds to this same view.
This view, while I take issue with the wording of Arminius’ wording (which can be explained largely by understanding the CONTEXT) is still within the realm of orthodoxy and is shared by very many trinitarians (CALVINISTS Ware and Erickson among them).
Colossians says “He [Christ] is the image of the invisible
God [the Father]”, and tells us that it was God’s [the Father’s] “pleasure that all the fullness dwell in Him [Christ]”. Hebrews calls Christ the “radiance of His [the Father’s] glory and the exact representation of His nature.” John calls Christ the Word, which is also a natural way to understand an expression (though logos can mean more than that).
In summary, I think Arminius’ view, and the view of many
trinitarians, is one way to understand these passages and they can find theological support from these passages. Not everyone understands the Trinity in this manner (I don’t like the wording, certainly), but it is a common view — and to charge that it is anti-trinitarian and unorthodox would have to mean that you would indict Bruce Ware and Millard Erickson in the SAME WAY. Any of youe super Calvies wanna tackle that?
Patriot Preacher
______________
A day late, but hopefully not a dollar short... I’ll try to settle this argument.
Alex Murphy wrote: According to Arminius’ writings, Christ’s deity was only given to Him by the Father (ie only God the Father possesses deity by nature). It can be concluded that Arminius’ gospel included a very non-trinitarian Christology.
patriot preacher replied: Mr. Murphy — Calvinist’s have spread this fable forever. It’s not true. Please, give millions of your brothers and sisters in Christ a little respect...
...By the way, your links lead to articles that have absolutely nothing to do with Arminius or his views...? Augustine, the New Republic, etc., but NOTHING about Arminius.
SeaHawkFan also replied to Alex: Your claims musy be a lie since there was zero mention of such claims in the Canons of Dort. If Arminus had taught such things as you claim, the Synod of Dort would have pointed them out.
Alex is, in fact, correct. Although his links confuse me, too, his facts are sound.
From the pen of Jacobus Arminius:
The Divinity of the Son of God
I shall probably be asked, “do you not acknowledge, that, to be the Son of God, and to be God, are two things entirely distinct from each other?” I reply, undoubtedly I subscribe to such distinction. But when those who make it proceed still further, and say, “since to be the Son of God signifies that he derives his essence from the Father, to be God in like manner signifies nothing less than that he has his essence from himself or from no one;” I deny this assertion, and declare, at the same time, that it is a great and manifest error, not only in sacred theology, but likewise in natural philosophy. For, these two things, to be the Son and to be God, are at perfect agreement with each other; but to derive his essence from the Father, and, at the same time, to derive it from no one, are evidently contradictor, and mutually destructive the one of the other.
But, to make this fallacy still more apparent, it must be observed, how equal in force and import are certain double ternary and parallel propositions, when standing in the following juxta-position:
God is from eternity, possessing the Divine Essence from eternity. The Father is from no one, having the Divine Essence from no one. The Son is from the Father, having the Divine Essence from the Father.
The word “God” therefore signifies, that He has the true Divine Essence; but the word “Son” signifies, that he has the Divine Essence from the Father. On this account, he is correctly denominated both God and the Son of God. But since he cannot be styled the Father, he cannot possibly be said to have the Divine Essence from himself or from no one. Yet much labour is devoted to the purpose of excusing these expressions, by saying, “that when the son of God in reference to his being God is said to have his essence from that form of speech signifies nothing more, than that the Divine essence is not derived from any one.” But if this be thought to be the most proper mode of action which should be adopted, there will be no depraved or erroneous sentiment which can be uttered that may not thus find a ready excuse. For though God and the divine Essence do not differ substantially, yet whatever may be predicated of the Divine Essence can by no means be equally predicated of God; because they are distinguished from each other in our mode of framing conceptions, according to which mode all forms of speech ought to be examined, since they are employed only with a design that through them we should receive correct impressions. This is very obvious from the following examples, in which we speak with perfect correctness when we say, “Deum mortuum esse,” and “the Essence of God is communicated;” but very incorrectly when we say, “God is communicated.” That man who understands the difference existing between concrete and abstract, about which there were such frequent disputes between us and the Lutherans will easily perceive what a number of absurdities will ensue, if explanations of this description be once tolerated in the Church of God. Therefore, in no way whatever can this phrase, “the Son of God is autotheos,” [”God of himself,” or “in his own right,”] be excused as a correct one, or as having been happily expressed. Nor can that be called a proper form of speech which says, “the Essence of God is common to three persons;” but it is improper, since the Divine Essence is declared to be communicated by one of them to another.
Sort of different than -
The Athanasian Creed
(1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; (2) Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (3) And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; (4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. (5) For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. (7) Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. (8) The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. (9) The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. (10) The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. (11) And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. (12) As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. (13) So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; (14) And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. (15) So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (16) And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. (17) So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; (18) And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord. (19) For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; (20) so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords. (21) The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. (22) The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. (23) The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. (24) So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. (25) And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another. (26) But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal. (27) So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. (28) He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
(29) Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (30) For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. (31) God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world. (32) Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. (33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. (34) Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. (35) One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. (36) One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person. (37) For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; (38) Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; (39) He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; (40) From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. (41) At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; (42) And shall give account of their own works. (43) And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. (44) This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
- isn’t it? The essence (pun intended) of Arminius’ writing in not trinitarian, and reads like a TD Jakes attempt at calling Oneness Pentecostalism kind of sort of trinitarian.
