Featured Unconditional Election

More succinctly, Arminius believed in prevenient grace; that all human beings possess enough God-given faith to believe the Gospel message. His followers expanded upon his views. The problem with Arminius' own beliefs is that they undermined the totality of the Reformed faith. If man possesses even a modicum of faith, then he is really not dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). It also lends itself to a Synergistic view of salvation. If the sinner is not completely dead in sin, then they have some claim on their ability to believe. That is joyous news to the Synergist, but not faithful to scripture. It is for that reason that Amyaldrians (so-called 4 pointers) were rejected as being part of the continental Reformers at the Synod of Dordt. When they say that are in the Reformed tradition, that only carries until Dordt where any such claim was rejected.

 

Not quite accurate. Arminius wrote:
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that is needful that he be born again of God on Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good.

He never believed that "all" human beings had such grace.

 

Don, what Arminius wrote does not negate the consequences of his theology. I will go into it in more detail later, but he was synergistic in his soteriological views.

 

Do you believe Calvin should be held responsible for hyper-calvinists?

 

Don,

Arminius' most quoted statement on prevenient grace is, "Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace". He continues, "This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and cooperates lest we will in vain." So, yes, Arminius believed in a grace that God offers all creatures and it is up to man's free will to reach out and take of that grace.

 

First, I have no idea what a true hyper-Calvinist is since the term is defined in the eye of the beholder.

Second, I think what you are trying to get at is should Arminius be tainted by the extremes of his followers? The answer to this question is no, he should not. But as previously stated, Arminius' belief in prevenient grace and free will is enough to place him squarely in the Synergist camp. Whatever else the Remonstrants concocted is superfluous.

 

Arminius also wrote:
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.

 

We've had one or two on this board over the years, though I can think of none currently visiting us.

Exactly.

And as we continue to share passages of Arminius' writings, we may possibly see differently. Or I may concede. But it will be fun and interesting to do so in a civil manner.

 

I believe God chooses some for election, such as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, & the apostles, including Paul. But even they had a choice. For instance, Moses coulds refused God at the burning bush, to his eternal sorrow, & Paul coulda refused Jesus on the road to Damascus.

But I do NOT believe God has, or does, condemn anyone to hell without any chance for redemption. Remember, Scripture says He is NOT WILLING that ANY should perish.

 

I agree with you on this one. The whole argument concerning election between Calvinists and Arminians is between the difference between predestination and foreknowledge. I myself consider this to be an unknowable mystery to us. What difference does it make? We should therefore "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved." With Arminius and Calvin I believe in the perseverance of the saints. Only those who persevere until the end shall be saved. This whole controversy that has been waged for hundreds of years has no merit and has only served to divide Christians.

 

In order to make that statement, which you have NOT shown to reflect Arminius' writings, you must necessarily ignore the words that immediately preceeded what you chose to focus on:

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself....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....When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation....

 

Don said: ↑
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. The pope could have spoken those words.

Brian said:
The problem with the "grace" of Arminius is that it falls far short of being the grace we see demonstrated by God, which does not just "aid" us.
-------------
Didn't Arminius' position come from his embracing elements of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian teachings?

 

I think if you'll look into it further, you'll find that Arminius emphatically denounced and repudiated pelagianism.