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.
More thoughts from Arminius. Note how he sounds entirely different than others report.
You can re-frame it all you want, x. Arminius was no Calvinist, and neither are you.
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.
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?
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.
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.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 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.
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.
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"?
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
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.
Orthodox and Catholics believe in infusion of righteousness. Protestants believe righteousness is imputed. Arminius suggestion that righteousness is infused is not Protestant doctrine.
That is a very gracious and much appreciated post.
Indeed, especially when one is faced with such tricky questions. :-)
Kosta mou, be good now!
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.
Was Calvin a Calvinist?
Yes. Contrary to may attempts you may see arguing otherwise, 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...)
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.