Posted on 11/29/2006 8:26:15 AM PST by xzins
In 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.
This covers just about everything.
In 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 regard to point 1, it appears that he is indicating that it was by Grace that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
In regard to point 2, it is by Grace that sinful men are enlightened in order that they might see and believe and be saved.
In regard to point 3, it is by grace that those who believe and are saved are kept and sanctified.
Arminius' statement covers absolutely nothing of theological importance. At all.
You could get everyone from Gottschalk to Celestine to Augustine to Molinus to Beza to Aquinas to Calvin to Gomarus on board with that statement, in and of itself; heck, with a mere gloss on the interpretation of the words (you wouldn't have to change the words themselves at all), the Arch-Heretic Pelagius could come along for the ride.
If you think that statement covers anything, let alone "everything"... good golly-gee grief. I never even completed Orthodox Presbyterian diaconal training, let alone the theological Parris Island which is required of OP candidates for the office of Presbyter, and even I can plainly see that Arminius' statement is so ambiguous as to be theologically worthless.
What do they teach at Wesleyan seminaries, anyway? Kindergarten finger-painting?? How about finger-painting with Black and White, at least?
Good grief.
Alright, try this on for size:
The above statement is jointly affirmed by Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of the Institute on Religion and Public Life, Dr. Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ, Pr. Peter Kreeft of Boston College, Dr. James J. I. Packer of Regent College, and the Rev. Pat Robertson of Regent University, as well as many other esteemed contributors to Evangelicals and Catholics Together.
So, here's your Quiz: the following Affirmation by Evangelicals and Catholics Together, "We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ,".... is False, Anti-Christian, and in fact SATANIC. Yes, or No? Why or Why Not?
Now the issue in the sentence must be in one of it's three parts:
1. justified by grace: scripture B, above, says that this is OK.
2. through faith: Scripture C, above, says that this is OK.
3. because of Jesus Christ. If there is any problem here it is with the expression "because of." Christ was raise "because of" our justification. In other words, our justification was not possible without Christ and His resurrection. No matter how you arrange it, then, we are justified because of Christ.
I see no problem with the above statement. I tracks throughout with the bible.
I have therefore set forth the following Minor Challenge as a means of "Dividing the Question" (okay, everybody, go ahead and check your Logic textbooks and Parliamentary forms):
To his credit: Xzins is, as usual, utterly and impeccably Honest in his approach to Theological debate (not like most Arminians, IMHO, hmm hmm). He stakes his Claim, he defends it without taking Personal Offense, and he is always willing to answer any Cross-Examination or Rebuttal with a straight "Yes or No" answer -- being willing always to explain himself more fully on request, but always willing to defend his "Yea" or his "Nay" without fudging. In this, he stands alone amongst all Arminians with whom I have dealt. Good enough.
Xzins, staking the Claim of "Moderate Calvinists" for his brethren Arminians, Responds:
Alright then.
As I have charged, the Arminians are not only Deadly Wrong on Theology, they are Deadly INCOMPETENT on Theology.
In defense of the Ecumenical Councils of the Reformed Church of the West, whose Apostolic Lineage traces through Ancient Orthodoxy long before Rome, and who have upheld the Predestinarian Faith of Jesus Christ against all Arminian Pretenders -- I cite, in response, the great Dutchman of our age: Dr David J. Engelsma, "Doctor Amillennial" (with my own codicil as addendum):
These few words are church- and world-shaking.
If the declaration is correct, the 16th century Reformation of the church was a mistake, indeed, the most gigantic mistake made in at least the last 1,000 years of church history. But it was far worse than a huge blunder. It was Gross Sin: the ripping apart of the blessed body of Christ, just as Rome has always charged.
To a man, the Reformers insisted that the Reformation was NOT about abuses, whether of immorality on the part of the clergy or of tyranny on the part of popes. Such was the Reformers' regard for the Unity of the Church that they freely acknowledged that the Reformation could not be justified on the basis of correcting abuses and improving morals. The Reformation, they maintained, was about the Gospel, particularly the Doctrine of Justification - Heart of the Gospel.
The Reformation was schism!
For, "we affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ."
The entire history of Protestantism in general since the Reformation, as of every Protestant church in particular, has been vain, an exercise in futility. All the development of distinctive Protestant theology, all the work, all the struggle, all the sacrifice, all the suffering, all the martyrdom has been for nothing. Write "VANITY!" by all means in capital letters, at the beginning and the end of the church-history book of Protestantism.
For, "we affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ."
It is now the solemn duty of all Evangelical Churches to confess to God and the Pope the sin of their separation from Rome and to seek admission into the Roman Catholic Church. They must do so at once. The Sin of Schism is grievous. It is Damning. Evangelicals must not continue in it for a moment. Let all Evangelical Churches in all the World hold a special Synod, or General Assembly, or Conference as soon as possible. Let them authorize a delegation of leaders, including Billy Graham, Charles Colson, and James I. Packer, to present their Confession and Supplication to the Vicar of Christ in Rome.
And then, we all troop back.
Back to a gospel of Christ and Mary, of Grace and "Free Will", of Faith and Works. Back to uncertainty about final salvation. Back to certainty of hellish agonies at death in Purgatory. Back to participation in the sacrificing of Jesus Christ again every day. Back to the worship of a piece of bread. Back to the Confessional and its satisfactions. Back to the authority of "Church" and "Tradition" above that of HOLY SCRIPTURE. Back to an ungracious god of salvation by Works of the Law.
...With our little ones.
For, "we affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ."
In fact, ECT's affirmation of the fundamental oneness of present-day evangelicals and Roman Catholics as regards Justification is merely that: a description of the agreement of present-day evangelicals and Rome. It does not describe any agreement between the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification and the Reformation's doctrine of Justification. ECT's affirmation is Evangelical compromise of the Reformation's doctrine of Justification.
What is missing from ECT's affirmation?
Only the word that makes all the difference between the Truth of the Reformation and the False doctrine of Rome!
Only the word that makes all the difference between the One, Only, True Gospel of Grace and the False "gospel" of salvation by Man's Will, Works, and Worth!
Only the word, "ONLY"!
ECT's affirmation, grounding the whole enterprise in the gospel, says:
"… we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ."
The confession of the Reformation was, and is: "We are justified by grace only through faith only because of Christ only."
This positive confession necessarily included, and includes, the negative, "We reject as False Doctrine the teaching that justification is by Grace and merit through Faith and works because of Christ and the sinner himself."
EVERY "church" that maintains Free-Will, though its Evangelical Credentials be never so impressive, is one with Rome in the Doctrine of Justification. It comes as no surprise that this church in one way or another expresses approval of ECT. Such an evangelical church can indeed cooperate with Rome in evangelism: both offer to sinners a salvation dependent upon the sinner's own will, choice, or acceptance, and both thus grant to sinners a righteousness made up, in part, of the Sinner's Own Fine Efforts. ~~ A Defense of the Gospel of Grace Against ECT, by Professor David J. Engelsma, Doctor of the Dutch Reformed Church, (a Congregation approved by the Ecumenical Councils of the Reformed Church of the West.)
Oh, that's just great, Xzins.
You'd actually approve the ECT Declaration, and your Arminian so-called "Moderate Calvinists" really would go off and give away the entire Reformation without even knowing what's going on, wouldn't they?
Jes' beautiful. Typically Arminian.
Arminians do not understand The Word, do not even know that they do not understand The Word, and don't even care to know. And them's the facts.
To a man, the Reformers insisted that the Reformation was NOT about abuses, whether of immorality on the part of the clergy or of tyranny on the part of popes. Such was the Reformers' regard for the Unity of the Church that they freely acknowledged that the Reformation could not be justified on the basis of correcting abuses and improving morals. The Reformation, they maintained, was about the Gospel, particularly the Doctrine of Justification - Heart of the Gospel.
The Reformation was schism!
AMEN! Excellent declaration of truth and the way words are used to get around it.
What is missing from ECT's affirmation?
Only the word that makes all the difference between the Truth of the Reformation and the False doctrine of Rome!
Only the word that makes all the difference between the One, Only, True Gospel of Grace and the False "gospel" of salvation by Man's Will, Works, and Worth!
Only the word, "ONLY"!
AMEN!!!
"Rome has not essentially changed. Rome declared that what it said at the time of the Reformation was infallible and could not change. Declared it to be irreformible truth. Rome has not changed and precious truths of God's word are still worth upholding even at the cost of unity even at the cost of being considered "troublemakers" in the religious world. We need to guard the antithesis against the destructive error of Rome." -- Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, from a tape, THE REFORMATION, October 28, 1990. "The Reformation is dying daily in our day when the Ecumenical Movement, and other forces like unto it, wish to soften the antithesis with Rome, today. I want to assure you that it's not my pugnacious debating nature that makes me say we must exalt that antithesis and guard it. It's my love for the Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of His word.
You might want to emphasize the TRADITION thing like we did on the other threads. Remember the GRPL/Neener magisteriam and all? That might cool things off a little, besides who can argue with a dogmatic TRADITION claim?
Not so, OP. You simply asked me if there was anything theologically wrong with the original statement you posted.
As I said, the 3 parts are all biblical, therefore, there is nothing wrong with it.
That is not the same as asking if there is anything theologically wrong with the "only" statement, and if I prefer that statement to the one without it.
Ask me that.
See #9.
I posted before seeing your advice about claiming maghysterical tradition.
Did we settle the issue regarding the Council of Aaarrghhhh? Wouldn't it have an impact on any claims based on tradition?
Sadly for OP, I have him between a rock and a hard place. He didn't ask thorough enough questions.
In your opening about Arminians and considering themselves Calvinists.
You act as though I don't like the label, "calvinist." I do like it. Entitlement to it isn't really an issue for me. I do pretty much what I want whether others agree or not. It has been said that I am very, very (very) stubborn.
I have tried to determine when that label first came into use, and I've not yet been able to find. (Nor has anyone shown me.)
But, it is obvious from Arminius' writings that he had the highest regard for Calvin; considered him second only to sacred scripture itself.
What passes for arminianism is apparently something that I am not. Should that surprise you....what passes for presbyterianism is something that you are not.
Tevia also recommends saying something is in the good book.
I suspect he was on both sides at once: tradition and the good book. That would make him a rabbinical catholic, If I'm beginning to understand these things. Maybe Buggs can sort it out.
The Council of Aaaarrrggghhhhh of 2004 is an interesting case in the bylaws of Roberts Rules of Order. Since it was scheduled but never moved nor seconded to adjournment, that would seem to indicate it could fall under the "Eternal Council" subsection of the Eternal Order of the Time Table and ! point. (Not a "Point of Order.")
I suggest we adjourn the 2004 Council at the meeting of the 2007 Council after doing all business for both in 2004.
Who says that time can't reverse? Hah!
"Who says that time can't reverse? Hah!"
I think we're catching onto this tradition thing. I think I'll try it out in court.....on a small insignicant motion, like for a continuance.
I've often wondered why that isn't called a "continuance laterance."
"continuance laterance."
That's a football term for at the end of the game when the running back pitches the ball back to another runner who advances the ball until stopped and then he pitches the ball back to another teammate who tries to advance the ball. You see the play a lot in rugby. I asked K and she told me all about it. She knows those things.
K appears to be much smarter than either of us.
I now hope one day on "Law and Order" to hear "I would like to request a continuance laterance on that your honorance."
I would have put the "ance" suffix on everything, but that would've been much more silly than the silliness is already is.
OR
In a football game at the end to hear one or another Gumble say, "There's the old continuance laterance....Tiki's laterancing it backward...."
(I said the first line only to make K feel good. Her idea might be a little dumber than my own. :>)
Ah, but OP asked a very interesting question in his sidebar. While Arminians might wish to align themselves somewhat to Calvin, why are no true Calvinists willing to align themselves to Arminius?
I wouldn't want to align myself with Arminius belief of a "co-operating" faith. This is straight out of Rome.
I am a calvinist, and I wish to align myself with Arminius, so your premise is wrong. There are also other moderate calvinists who align themselves with arminius (or the thrust of arminianism...)
What you and OP really wish to say is "Why doesn't X or Y branch of Calvinism wish not to align themselves with Arminianism?" (Dortists, for example.)
I keep asking when the label "calvinist" was first used, and no one seems to know.....at least, I haven't gotten an answer yet. Do you know? (As in, "I am a Calvinist.")
The bottom line, though, is that I am a moderate calvinist in the tradition of Arminius. Arminius remained a calvinist throughout his life.
Arminius was not a Calvinist. He was part of the counter-Reformation. Like Rome, he did not believe in irresistible grace nor in God's perfect election based on nothing within the man. He turned the Christian church back to Rome with "merited salvation." Shame on him.
And it does not escape notice you fail to capitalize "Calvinist" every time you use the word. Kind of like "american" or "christian."
The ironic part in all this is that you are doing EXACTLY what Arminius did -- blur the vital distinctions, hedge the truth and hope no one notices.
Calvinists notice.
In 1545, Pope Paul III convened the Council of Trent wherein the Catholic Church adopted a stance on Justification that was blatantly contrary to Scripture. In Canon 9, the church declared, "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
"SOLA FIDE."
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.