To say that any semblance of a Calvinistic framework is entirely absent from the teachings of the early Church fathers, as will become evident shortly, is an understatement. Ironically enough, however, John Calvin was not…
Solus Arminius
Calvinism’s Exhaustive Determinism and Old Testament Scriptures
“I don’t see how anyone could read the Old Testament and not conclude that Calvinism is right,” was the assessment of one Calvinist professor recently. By “Calvinism” he meant the notion of God’s exhaustive predeterminism…
Arminius’s Christology
One’s justification and thus atonement before God is realized by one’s faith in and union with Christ Jesus (which is akin to Calvinistic doctrine and very much unlike Roman Catholic doctrine). The following is what…
Did Arminius Deny the Deity of Jesus Christ?
Calvinist Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), no doubt taking his cue from Arminius’s fierce supralapsarian opponent, Franciscus Gomarus1, writes: “The view of Socinus, and of Arminius who followed him closely, is totally different. It is a well-known fact that the Socinians denied the Godhead of Christ, who, as they taught, was born a mere man. But . . . they acknowledged that He had become God. Hence after His Resurrection He could be worshiped as God.”2
Outcomes, Foreknowledge, and Free Will
Posted by Robert (submitted to SEA on 10-21-09). I believe that I have come upon an insight that, though very simple to understand, does a great job of unlocking the supposed problem of the compatibility…
ARMINIUS 400: The Legacy of Jacob Arminius
The apostle Paul instructs us to render to all what is due them: honor to whom honor is due (Rom. 12:7). This day, October 19, 2009, we honor the life of Jacob Arminius, who died four hundred years ago. This third-generation Reformer was a gift to God’s Church ~ respected by many, even by his theological opponents. What follows is a little recorded history of the year prior to Arminius’s death, and testimonies concerning Arminius’s life, legacy and godliness.
First, a little history is in order. It would appear as though God, nine years before Arminius’s death, was preparing his successor, as He had done with Theodore Beza respecting John Calvin. Carl Bangs records:
The Calvinistic Hermeneutic, Opposed
Calvinism’s view of the sovereignty of God is its hermeneutical grid by which the rest of the Bible is interpreted. As Silva writes, “The God who controls the events of history is the God who interprets those events in Scripture . . .”1 He cites 1 Kings 12:15 as a proof text to support his thesis: “So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfill the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam.” Thus, for the Calvinist, everything that happens in the earth was meticulously predetermined by God’s causative, unchangeable will. And somehow, God is not responsible for all that he brings about.
The Calvinistic Hermeneutic, Stated
Hermeneutics is “the discipline that studies the theory, principles, and methods used to interpret texts, especially ancient ones such as the sacred Scriptures. Traditional hermeneutics focuses primarily on the discovery of the historical meaning as intended by the author and understood by the original audience.”1 Thus a Calvinistic hermeneutic is the discipline that studies the theory, principles, and methods which Calvinists use to interpret the Bible.
Arminius (and Arminians) on Monergism vs. Synergism
Arminius’s comments are presented here in the first person, as though he were addressing you personally.
On the issue of Free Will, Grace, and Synergism, let me ask, “What liberty does the will have in a sinful state?” I distinguished between five kinds of liberty as applied to the will: freedom from control of one who commands, freedom from the government of a superior, freedom from necessity, freedom from sin and its dominion, and freedom from misery. The first two apply only to God; the last, to man, but only before the fall. As for freedom from necessity, it is the very essence of the will. Without it, the will would not be the will.
Let this be distinguished from Pelagianism. I say that the will which is free from necessity may not be free from sin. That is the point in question. Is there within man a freedom of will from sin and its dominion, and how far does it extend? Or rather, what are the powers of the whole man to understand, to will, and to do that which is good? The question must be further restricted to spiritual good. The question, then, is briefly: What is the power of free will in fallen man to perform spiritual good?
Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Reformation Arminianism (Part Three of Three Parts)
R. C. Sproul, in his Willing to Believe, notes:
- Repeatedly the Synod of Dort charges the Remonstrants with teaching the doctrines of Pelagianism. Is not this charge overly severe and unfair? Both Arminius and the Remonstrants sought to distance themselves from pure Pelagianism.
Arminianism is often said to be semi-Pelagian, but not, strictly speaking, Pelagian. What the fathers of Dort probably had in mind is the link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism that renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism.1
But are the “fathers of Dort” right in their estimation? Is there a link between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism? Though we agree with the Dortians that the “link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism . . . renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism,” we will witness a rather glaring, broken link between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism below.
Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Modern Reformation Arminianism (Part Two of Three Parts)
In the (1973) preface of his book Knowing God, J. I. Packer writes, “For more than three centuries the naturalistic leaven in the Renaissance outlook has been working like a cancer in Western thought. Seventeenth-century Arminians and deists, like sixteenth-century Socinians, came to deny, as against Reformation theology, that God’s control of his world was either direct or complete, and theology, philosophy and science have for the most part combined to maintain that denial ever since.”1
In one fell swoop Packer has lumped Arminians with the heresies of the Deists and Socinians. Is Packer right in doing this? That “seventeenth-century Arminians” denied Reformation theology of God’s sovereignty is only part of the story. They did not deny God’s sovereignty, they denied the Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty.
Setting the Record Straight: The Current State of Modern Reformation Arminianism (Part One of Three Parts)
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), in his The Defense of the Faith writes, “since the whole debate between the Christian and the non-Christian positions revolves about the question of the relation of the eternal to the…
Exegeting 1 Timothy 2:4: God Our Savior, Who Desires All People To Be Saved
To some Calvinists, the very mention of an Arminian exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4, in an effort to defend the biblical notion that God desires the salvation of every individual on earth, is insulting, both logically and theologically.
As Alan Kurschner, from the Triablogue blog, stated, “Arminians start with the human-centered assumption that if God does not love all people undifferentiated, then he would be unjust to love some more than others. The Calvinist begins with the Biblical principle that because man is unworthy of grace and deserving only of death, God in his holiness, wisdom, and freedom chooses to love and elect any creature he desires.”
The Controversial Jacobus Arminius
What typically denominates an individual as controversial is not necessarily the truth which he or she promotes but the manner in which one argues against an established dogma. The reason why Arminius was so controversial in his time was because the truth which he proclaimed was at variance with an established form of Calvinism in Holland. John Calvin was not controversial due to the “hard truth” which he proclaimed. Nearly everyone within his theological circle (Reformed) agreed with his teachings. What kind of controversy could possibly be caused by someone whose teachings are nearly unanimously agreed upon by a majority of people?
The Freedom & Bondage of the Will
The dichotomy of the freedom and the bondage of the will is both a theological and a practical verity. We know from Scripture that the will of individuals is free to choose from two or…
For Whom Did Jesus Die?
Now that is an interesting question. Roger Olson asked, “If Christ’s death satisfied God’s justice for all, why aren’t all saved? Arminius answers: ‘For the sins of those for whom Christ died were in such…
Jesus, The Horn of Salvation: But For Whom?
“His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied: ‘Praise be the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come to his people and redeemed them. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), salvation comes from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us ~ to show mercy to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all our days'” (Luke 1. 67-75 TNIV, and henceforth).
Calvinism and Consistency
Admittedly, no systematic theology is perfect. That takes a load of pressure off of every sincere Bible student. Not one of us will ever have all of his or her doctrines correct. C. I. Scofield wrote that there will always exist a measure of false teaching in true, orthodox Christianity, due to our fallen nature and our design as finite creatures.
I was once convinced that Calvinism was right because people showed me a lot of proof texts to propagate this theology. I had read Chosen by God by R. C. Sproul and concluded that he, too, was correct. How could I have missed out on this teaching for so long? I will never forget what affect Sproul’s book had on my heart. How could God have chosen me and not others? Moreover, why would God have chosen me and not others?
The God Who Blinds?
The Bible Tools, “Sabbath-keeping, non-Trinitarian” post I was viewing read, “God Himself has kept Israel from seeing and hearing (understanding and applying) His truth, giving Israel a spirit of slumber to make possible the salvation…
Arminian Perspectives on the Providence of God
Arminius wrote, “Not only does the very nature of God and of things themselves, but likewise the Scriptures and experience do evidently show that Providence belongs to God. But Providence denotes some property of God, not a quality, or . . . a capability, or a habit; but it is an act which is not ad intra nor internal, but which is ad extra and external; and which is about an object . . . different from God, and that is not united to Him from all eternity in His understanding, but as separate and really existing.”1
Recent Posts
Roy Ingle, “Calvinism and the Atonement”
Why Does God Deny the Opportunity of Choice for or Against Him to Young Children Who Die and the Mentally Impaired?
Mark K. Olson, “Wesley’s ‘Warmed Heart’ at Aldersgate – What Really Happened?”
Adam Roe, “The Crucial Thread of Prevenient Grace: A Wesleyan Perspective on Divine Drawing”
