GRPL ping to an examination of Arminius and his faithful followers.
Posted on 11/14/2006 11:50:05 AM PST by Frumanchu
For the past four hundred years, the doctrinal battle between Arminians and Calvinists has raged on. This battle had its formal beginning with the issuance of the Canons of the Synod of Dordecht in 1619. These canons were the result of a national synod held in Dordrecht by the Dutch Reformed Church, and attended by delegates from Reformed churches throughout all of Europe, for the purpose of addressing the Five Articles of Remonstrance issued by followers of Jacobius Arminius in 1610, one year after Arminius’ death. The articles addressed point on which the Remonstrants disagreed with specific doctrines commonly held in the Reformed churches at that time. Though Arminius held pastoral and professorship positions in the Reformed churches and universities up until his death, Arminius voiced disagreement with many in the Reformed Church over the issue of predestination and openly called for revisions to the Dutch Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, the creedal standards of the Dutch Reformed Church. Following Arminius’ death, several of his former students and followers, under the leadership of Simon Episcopius, issued the Articles of Remonstrance.
Because of the political and ecclesiastical turmoil which attended and followed the movement, it has at times been suggested that the subsequent dismissal of the Remonstrants from the Reformed Churches was due in large part to their departure from Arminius’ actual beliefs to the extent that they went beyond what he taught and put forward more extreme positions than he actually held. The purpose of this brief article is to examine the content of the Five Articles of the Remonstrance and compare it with the writings of Arminius in order to establish whether the Remonstrants were wholly in keeping with the teachings of Arminius on all points or whether the Remonstrants went beyond the teachings of Arminius.
Article I: Conditional Election
“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.” –Articles of Remonstrance, 1610 (I)The first contention of the Remonstrants was that God decided in a general sense to save all who put their faith in His Son, and to subsequently elect unto salvation those individuals who met that requirement. Position in Christ, as determined by the presence of faith, was the central causal factor in the election of the individual.
If there is one thing that is abundantly clear from Arminius’ writings, it is that he steadfastly refused to discuss or even refer to predestination outside of the immediate context of the individual being positionally “in Christ” by virtue of their faith. Indeed, his affirmation of the Belgic Confession was predicated upon reserving for himself the right to interpret the phrases "those persons whom" and "others" in Article XVI to refer to “believers” and “unbelievers” respectively1.
Arminius, in his Declaration of Sentiments, gave the logical order to the eternal decrees of God as thus2:
1. That God first decreed to appoint His Son to be Mediator for the purpose of saving mankindIt is in the last of these that Arminius most clearly articulates that which the Remonstrants stated3:
2. That God secondly decreed to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and to save those who persevere therein, and to leave in sin and under wrath all others
3. That God thirdly decreed to administer “in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith.”
4. That God lastly decreed to damn or save particular persons.
This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.It is very clear from reading the first article of the Remonstrance alongside the words of Arminius in explanation of his own view of predestination that the two were in close accord. Election is presented by both as conditioned upon faith in Jesus Christ as foreseen observationally by God.
Article II: Unlimited Atonement
“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).” –Articles of Remonstrance, 1610 (II)
Arminius was presented with the charge that he taught “Christ has died for all men and for every individual” and responded thus in his Apology4:
“[The statement] may mean either that "the price of the death of Christ was given for all and for every one," or that "the redemption, which was obtained by means of that price, is applied and communicated to all men and to every one." (1.) Of this latter sentiment I entirely disapprove, because God has by a peremptory decree resolved, that believers alone should be made partakers of this redemption. (2.) Let those who reject the former of these opinions consider how they can answer the following scriptures, which declare, that Christ died for all men; that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; (1 John ii, 2;) that He took away the sin of the world; (John i, 29;) that He gave his flesh for the life of the world; (John vi, 51;) that Christ died even for that man who might be destroyed with the meat of another person; (Rom. xiv, 15;) and that false teachers make merchandise even of those who deny the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction; (2 Pet. ii, 1, 3.)Arminius strongly opposed an understanding of the statement which applied the redemption purchased by Christ to all men and everyone, but readily affirmed the statement when understood as the price being given for all men. His subsequent quotations of Prosper of Aquitain echo the sentiment that this price, having been paid for all, is only effective in the redemption of those who pass through life with the faith of Christ.
…
All the controversy, therefore, lies in the interpretation. The words themselves ought to be simply approved, because they are the words of Scripture. I will now produce a passage or two from Prosper of Aquitain, to prove that this distinction was even in his time employed: "He who says that the saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world, has regard, not to the virtue of the sacrament, but to the case of unbelievers, since the blood of Jesus Christ is the price paid for the whole world. To that precious ransom they are strangers, who, either being delighted with their captivity, have no wish to be redeemed, or, after they have been redeemed, return to the same servitude." (Sent. 4, super cap. Gallorum.) In another passage he says, "With respect both to the magnitude and potency of the price, and with respect to the one general cause of mankind, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world. But those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and without the sacrament of regeneration, are utter strangers to redemption."”
Article III/IV: Man’s Depravity and Resistible Grace
“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).I have combined these two articles as they build upon each other and were addressed together in the response from the Council at Dordt.“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).” – Articles of the Remonstrance, 1610 (III,IV)
In Arminius’ Declaration of Sentiments, he makes the following statements concerning the grace of God5:
IV. THE GRACE OF GODIn reference to Divine Grace, I believe, 1. It is a gratuitous affection by which God is kindly affected towards a miserable sinner, and according to which he, in the first place, gives his Son, "that whosoever believers in him might have eternal life," and, afterwards, he justifies him in Christ Jesus and for his sake, and adopts him into the right of sons, unto salvation. 2. It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man -- such as faith, hope, charity, &c.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not sufficient to think, will, or do any thing that is good. 3. It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and according to which God may then will and work together with man, that man may perform whatever he wills.
In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, "is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?" That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.
The wording used by the Remonstrants is again almost identical, referring to the “mode of operation” of the grace of God in contradistinction to the certainty of actions that result from this grace once received. The grace given is necessarily predecent (“prevenient” or “preventing”) to any good works, which works necessarily flow from such grace…but the grace itself is resistible.
Article V: Questionable Perseverance
“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.” – Articles of the Remonstrance, 1610 (V)On this point the Remonstrants were equally as clearly in accord with Arminius as with the first of the articles. They acknowledge the tremendous influence exerted by God upon the believer for the purpose of preserving their salvation, but as to whether or not it is possible for a believer, once justified, to fail ultimately to obtain salvation by means of failure to maintain saving faith it is left to be a matter of further investigation.
Arminius echoes this position6:
“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.”Clearly the statement of the Remonstrants so closely resembles that of Arminius as to ostensibly have been written by the same hand, and Arminius’ Declaration of Sentiments would appear to have been the prime source upon which the statement was based.
Conclusion
Based upon the juxtaposition of the statements of the Remonstrants with the words of Arminius regarding their respective doctrines, it is quite clear that Arminius’ followers were faithful to his teachings and accurately represented them in their issuance of the Articles. As such, the rejection of the Remonstrants by the Reformed Synod at Dordrecht constituted an implicit and necessary rejection of the teachings of Arminius himself on these topics and render unsupportable any claims that his followers exceeded, exaggerated or embellished his position in their remonstrance.
Footnotes
1 Carl Bangs, "London Edition: of The Works of James Arminius,” trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, (Grand Rapids MI : Baker, 1991), Vol.1, Declaration of Sentiments, Article I (“Sentiments of Predestination”)
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Carl Bangs, "London Edition: of The Works of James Arminius,” trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, (Grand Rapids MI : Baker, 1991), Vol.1, Sect. 3, Article XII
5 Carl Bangs, "London Edition: of The Works of James Arminius,” trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, (Grand Rapids MI : Baker, 1991), Vol.1, Declaration of Sentiments, Article IV (“The Grace of God”)
6 Carl Bangs, "London Edition: of The Works of James Arminius,” trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, (Grand Rapids MI : Baker, 1991), Vol.1, Declaration of Sentiments, Article V (“The Perseverance of the Saints”)
GRPL ping to an examination of Arminius and his faithful followers.
Ping for relevance to ongoing discussion.
< crickets>
Most excellent essay, Fru.
I do hope it's not too long.
Who can tell? They were busy running for their lives.
Ok, here is what must be an ignorant question on my part: Just what nit-wits think that the Remonstrants were not following Arminius' theology?
On second thought, maybe I don't want to know.
post tenebras lux,
Kinda like you from any post or thread where actual scholarship is applied to the claims you've made regarding Arminius and the Remonstrants.
You've claimed several times that the Remonstrants did not faithfully represent Arminius and in fact "went beyond" what Arminius taught. Well, it's here in black and white with their words and his words. So by all means please feel free to either show where I'm wrong here...or perhaps admit that you were in error and that the Remonstrants DID in fact accurately represent Arminius in the articles they presented.
What's it going to be, xzins? Truth or historical revisionism?
"Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them," says he, "before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate. Certainly He did not make them so; nor did He foresee that He would make them so, but that they would be so." - Augustine
To be fair, Arminius approached that particular point from a different direction. Arminius' view of man's depravity was consistent with the orthodox view right up to the point of God's grace. He fully affirmed the truth that God's grace was first required for anything good to be done, whereas Pelagius denied the absolute requirement for grace in order to do anything righteous. The function and efficacy of that grace is where Arminius begins his departure.
Come on y'all. You've raised your hand, now have the courage to walk that aisle and receive your salvation. It's predestined cause God has already seen you make that brave move.
post tenebras lux,
Fru, to be absolutely fair, Arminius view was nothing more than what the Catholics believe. Arminius' writings are nothing more than gobbledygook and you have to look pretty hard to try to figure out what exactly he was saying. But it was certainly clear enough for the Remonstrant. The discussion that Arminius was a closet Catholic does have some merit simply because he didn't understand the concept of grace. Please keep in mind that, at that time, this was the predominately Protestant view. I would like to cut Arminius a break but it all comes down to the point of how one interprets predestination and election.
Augustine's in his Treatise of the Predestination of Man points out that the Pelagius believes (in part) that God looks down through time and see who will choose Him. That is the Pelagius view of election as defined by Augustine who should know. There is also a second erroneous view that Augustine mentions in his Treatise; that man makes a decision to follow God. This isn't the Pelagius' view but one that Augustine held and was obviously held by some in the church. Augustine, late in his life, recognized this error and the seriousness and significant of it. People of that era did affirm God's grace as saving them but they didn't recognized this subtle error that God saves men and leads us to repentance; not the other way around.
To me the Peligius heresy and the Augustine's "free will" error have been blended together. This is probably because it is impossible to understand how God can predestine or elect His people except through looking down the "corridor of time". It supports Pelagius and "free will". This is what semi-Peligianism is all about, the merging of heresy and misunderstanding. I'm sure Augustine didn't considered himself a heretic by believing in "free will". In fact we would all suggest that Augustine was very orthodox in his beliefs. But he quickly got rid of the doctrine and tried to make amends once he realized the issue. In the end one is left with heresy.
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.