James Arminius’ 20 Reasons for Rejecting Theodore Beza’s Supralapsarian Predestination

, posted by SEA

1. It is not the foundation of Christianity of salvation, or of its certainty.
2. It comprises within it neither the whole nor any part of the Gospel.
3. It was never admitted, decreed, or approved in any Council, either General or Particular, for the first 600 years after Christ.
4. None of those Doctors or Divines of the Church who held correct and orthodox sentiments for the first 600 years after the birth of Christ, ever brought this doctrine forward or gave it their approval.
5. It neither agrees nor corresponds with the harmony of those confessions which were printed and published together in one volume at Geneva, in the name of the Reformed and Protestant Churches.
6. It is doubtful whether this doctrine agrees with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.
7. It is repugnant to the nature of God, particularly to those attributes of his nature by which he performs and manages all things-his wisdom, justice and goodness.
8. It is contrary to the nature of man.
9. It is diametrically opposed to the act of creation.
10. It is at open hostility with the nature of eternal life. 
11. It is opposed to the nature of eternal death and to those appellations by which it is described in Scripture.
12. It is inconsistent with the nature and properties of sin. 
13. It is repugnant to the nature of grace, and as far as its powers permit, it effects its destruction.
14. It is injurious to the glory of God.
15. It is highly dishonorable to Jesus Christ our Savior.
16. It is hurtful to the salvation of men.
17. It inverts the order of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
18. It is in open hostility to the ministry of the Gospel.
19. It completely subverts the foundation of religion in general and of the Christian religion in particular.
20. It has been rejected both in former times and in our own days by the greater part of the professors of Christianity.

[List taken by Eric Landstrom from Richard R. Studebaker, “The Theology of James Arminius,” pp. 8-9.]