Am I Predestined To Be An Arminian?

It's a relevant question to ask. Those who are predisposed to a determinist viewpoint seem to have trouble with this inquiry. It strikes them as odd or perhaps insincere, even hypocritical in some manner. Now, for those who find no shortage of opportunity to denigrate non-Calvinists and deny their position in Christ, it's an easy question to find an answer to. "Of course you were predestined to be an Arminian" they would state. "It's part and parcel of the reprobate life!". Such souls have no real place in the discussion for their minds are predisposed to attacking the body of Christ in any event without realizing the grievous harm they cause themselves and others. For those who profess a fellowship with their Arminian brethren, there is another quandary unrelated to the hatred and avarice of their hyper-Calvinistic fellows.

I began this inquiry after seeing the question stated by another Christian in an on-line fellowship recently. It seemed that the Calvinists he encountered struggled to answer the question directly and instead avoided a commitment to addressing what strikes me as almost an overly simplistic examination. For those who profess a love for Arminian brethren and hold tenaciously to hard determinism or it's very close cousin, compatibalism, the LORD ordains or purposes every action in this world, either through primary or secondary causes. As such the LORD places souls in the circumstances we find ourselves, each of us serving to bring greater glory to God either through the love of Christ or the travails of reprobation. Of course I find such thoughts to be near reprehensible, at best a spiritually poor understanding of the character of God who is Love, Justice. It brings the stench of sin into Glory were it ever true. Even still, the moderate Calvinist, as he must be termed, struggles to answer the question with a great deal of heartfelt forwardness. If I am deemed to be predestined to the Arminian faith and still held as a saint in Christ, there must be a tiered fellowship in the Calvinist mindset.

Calvinist Elitism

A rather contentious young Calvinist addressed my inquiry by responding with the following comment.

It's the rebellious nature within us all ... we're all natively Pelagian, and then Arminian ... and then we are shown the sovereingty of God in all things. So yes, you are predestined to be an Arminian, for that is where God has you -- at least for now.

This raises a rather serious concern regarding sanctification and the relationship some Calvinists believe they have with the LORD. I followed the young Calvinist's comment with a further inquiry asking if he was not "setting the stage for an elitist hierarchy not supported in scripture by suggesting that Arminians and non-Calvinists are left in this rebellious state (within the body of Christ) while Calvinists have been gifted with a greater intellectual and spiritual understanding?". Without drawing upon all the exchange, his defense was principally one of a renewal of the mind suggesting that the Apostle Paul was instructing a doctrine of gifted intellect with Calvinists being the recipients of such gifts as evidenced by their unique teachings. The renewing of the mind argument strikes me as quite odd in that the teaching by Paul really has nothing to do with intellectual grasp. The renewing of the mind has nothing to do with intellectualism and everything to do with changing and keeping the focus of our entire being on Christ rather than the wiles of the world. You only grow in Christ by being one with Him, your faith focused entirely on Him and your desires shaped by a mind that loves Christ. It is a contrast between a worldly focus and one that is dedicated to serving the LORD. That takes a new and continuing mindset on the things of Christ. Nonetheless, it remains striking that Calvinists can be taught in their churches and fellowships the startling falsehood that growth in Christ and sanctification as lovers of the LORD is found rooted in the numerically superior creases of the cerebrum.

Rebellion Against the Ordinations of God

Curiously, the same group of Calvinists offers another response to the question, one that suggests a contrast with one of their cherished doctrines. If Arminians and non-Calvinists are in a state of rebellion and I am rebelling against the predestining of God or His ordaining what I am, then how do Calvinists reconcile that with their refusal of a freed will in man to pursue a course different than that desired by God? Aside from wishing to, in the words of an old cliché, have their cake and eat it too by stating we are both in rebellion and less gifted then they (one cancels the other logically), the ability of redeemed man to rebel against the desires of God comes against several Calvinist thoughts, irresistible grace, deterministic ordination being the two principles. It strikes me as more important to the discussion that this latter issue is avoided than having the original question addressed. Stating that non-Calvinists are in rebellion to the LORD while hoisting themselves as more intellectually gifted than most of the body of Christ is the epitome of haughty arrogance rather than a demonstration of a mind renewed in Christ and prepared for the meek and humble service of Christ.

For now the question is answered. The LORD has predestined that I remain Arminian and in the state of the Calvinist mind, He has ordained my rebellion and smoothed the crevasses of my cerebrum and kept humble the growth of my hippocampus. If only now in my growing age as an Arminian, the LORD would reverse the growth of my prostate, I could be the complete piss and vinegar Arminian man.

Kangaroodort has a great post over on Arminian Perspectives entitled Never Really Saved To Begin With. He takes a tongue in cheek look at the mythical responses our Calvinist brethren present when encountering scriptural positions opposed to their perserverence doctrines. 

While I am at it, Thru Faith has an interesting post regarding the true unlimited nature of the atonement of Christ entitled Atonement for All.

Of course, SEA continues providing a broad resource for those Christians interested in understanding the orthodox and historic positions of the Body of Christ.

As always, William Birch at Classical Arminianism continues with his regularly thoughtful posts exloring classical Arminianism and our Calvinist brethrens near constant misrepresentation of what most saints in Christ believe.

Ben Witherington has a great short article on his blog entitled HERMENEUTICS—WHAT IS IT, AND WHY DO BIBLE READERS NEED IT? This is one of those enjoyable reads that I bookmark to return to again and again. We sometimes lose sight of our purpose in reading the scriptures and need to turn back onto a proper method of understanding our journey.

Foster’s Objections to Calvinism

As with our current age, the 19^th century saw an increase of Calvinist intrusion and misrepresentation of much of the body of Christ. The Rev Randolph Foster penned several letters addressing the aberrant doctrines of the various Calvinist sects and they were presented in a bound volume entitled Objections to Calvinism. In this day when Christians are being seduced to the miry ground of Calvinist thought, it might be appropriate to resurrect these volumes of Christian reflection. There are several works by devout men that we should try to keep in front of us knowing that each generation of saints brings a work of the LORD that each of us can benefit by. The following is the introduction to Foster's volume.

THE SUBJECT OF PREDESTINATION has, for many ages, engaged the attention of theologians and philosophers. That the world is governed by fixed and permanent laws is evident, even to the casual observer. But by whom those laws are established and how far they extend have been matters of controversy. In the Christian world, all admit that the will of God is the great source of law. In the arrangements of the vast systems of worlds, as well as in the formation of the earth with all its varied tribes, we recognize the hand of him who doeth "his will in the heavens above and in the earth beneath." All acknowledge the existence of a Divine decree; but questions arise. Do all things thus come to pass? Are human actions the result of laws as fixed and unalterable as those which govern the movements of the planets? Is the destiny of every human being unchangeably determined before his birth without reference to foreseen conduct? Or has the mind a power of choice? Can it move freely within certain specified limits? And will the nature of its movements and choice influence its eternal happiness? These are questions which in some form have exercised the highest powers of the human intellect.

The Atheistical school of philosophers, ancient as well as modem, taught the doctrine of necessity. With them, matter is eternal; and, no designing mind superintending its movements, there must be a necessity in nature. This has been differently expressed in different ages. Sometimes it appears as the atomic theory of Democritus and Leucippus and, again, as the Pantheism of Spinoza. But, whatever form it may assume, it teaches that all actions come to pass by necessity and denies the responsibility of all beings. It annihilates the freedom of the human will and degrades intelligence to mechanism.

Another class of philosophers admits the existence of a Deity, but denies his special, superintending providence. Such imagine the great First Cause to be, according to the Hindu mythology, in a state of beatific repose; or to be employed in movements so transcendentally important that the affairs of earth are neglected; or that he is himself subject to fate.

The third great class is composed of such as not only admit the existence of God, but who worship him as the supreme Governor and as invested with all moral as well as natural perfections. They reject the doctrine of fate and all necessity, other than that which springs from the Divine decree. But they differ as to the extent of that decree. This difference has given rise to the formation of sects and parties in all ages and to controversies of the most exciting character. Milton in his Paradise Lost fancies the fallen angels engaged in discussions of this nature. They

Reasoned high

Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate;

Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge, absolute,

And found no end, in wandering mazes lost.

Such, too, has been the character of many human controversies. One party maintains that God decrees whatever comes to pass and that the number of those who are to be saved and of those who are to be lost is definitely and unalterably determined from eternity, while others teach that some actions flow from man's free will and that God gives man the power to choose between life and death--decreeing salvation to those who obey his Gospel and pronouncing death upon the disobedient--or, in other words, that characters and not persons are elected. The latter sentiment, so far as a heathen ignorant of gracious influences could perceive, is expressed by Plato when in his treatise against the Atheists he says that God "devises this in reference to the whole, namely, what kind of a situation everything which becomes of a certain quality must receive and inhabit; but the causes of becoming of such a quality, he hath left to our own wills."

The Jewish sects differed upon these as well as upon other points of doctrine. The Essenes taught predestination in its most severe form. The Sadducees held the freedom of the will in nearly the same manner as the Pelagians have since taught; while the Pharisees endeavored to combine the two systems. Prideaux says, "They ascribed to God and fate all that is done, and yet left to man the freedom of his will. But how they made these two apparent incompatibles consist together is nowhere sufficiently explained; perchance they meant no more than that every man freely chooseth what he is unalterably predestinated to. But if he be predestined to that choice, how freely soever he may seem to choose, certainly he hath no free will, because he is, according to this scheme, unalterably necessitated to all that he doth and cannot possibly, choose otherwise."

The Mohammedans were, generally, rigid predestinarians. With them, every event in nature was fixed by an absolute decree. The soldier could neither be killed nor wounded until his time had come. Hence, they acquired a recklessness of all physical danger, as well as of moral feeling. But, even with them, the mind rebelled against fatalism, and the sect of the Motazalites and portions of other sects held the freedom of the human will.

In the early ages of Christianity, the doctrine of predestination, as extending to every act and fixing the destiny of every individual without reference to foreseen faith or works, was unknown. The early fathers teach no such creed. They occasionally use the terms foreordain, predestinate, elect, etc., but they invariably use these expressions in the Scriptural signification as employed by St. Paul and not in the predestinarian, or what has since been termed the Calvinistic, sense.

This continued to be the case for the first four centuries of the Christian era; but at the commencement of the fifth century, the Pelagian controversy arose. As usual in controversies, each party ran into an extreme. Pelagius was right in teaching that God willed all men to be saved and in denying the doctrine of infant damnation which had crept into the Church; but he erred greatly in teaching man's ability, without grace, to commence a religious life or to keep the commandments of God. Augustine, perceiving his errors, held correctly that man's salvation is of grace and that, apart from grace, he has no power to commence or continue a religious career. But he erred in teaching the unconditional election to life of a part of the race and the damnation of the rest, including some infants. Augustine was sustained and his works remain to this day standards in the Catholic Church.

It must, however, be remarked that Augustine is not at all times consistent in his statements. Hence, Calvin alleges that he had attributed to foreknowledge that which pertains only to decrees. His writings thus gave rise to discussions almost interminable. During the progress of the century in which he lived, a number who were termed Predestinarians advocated the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation to the utter denial of free will. Again in the ninth century, Godeschalcus, a Saxon monk, having taught that God had predestinated some to eternal death, a violent controversy arose, heightened by what existed between him and Rabanus, who was his abbot. The doctrines of Godeschalcus were condemned by three councils, and he was cruelly cast into prison. But, afterward, his sentiments were approved by three councils, and at his death the controversy ceased.

The Dominicans, who were for many centuries among the strongest pillars of the Catholic Church and to whom the machinery of the Inquisition was committed, were strict predestinarians. So, also, were the Augustinians and the Jansenists. On the other hand, the Jesuits, who became the most indefatigable enemies of the Reformation, while they professed to believe with Augustine, yet were the advocates of free will. With all its professed unity, the Roman Church has been as much divided upon these questions as the Protestant. At present the Jesuitic theology is prevalent. They deny that they are either Calvinistic or Arminian. But, while they profess to accord with St. Augustine, they have no doubt departed far from his views.

At the time of the Reformation, the great reformers drew much from St. Augustine. Luther was an Augustinian friar, and he found the great doctrine of justification by faith so well established by that father against all opposers, that he received for a time his views on predestination also. On free-will he had a sharp contest with Erasmus, but afterward kept almost silent on these perplexing questions, and, in the latter part of his life, strongly recommended Melancthon's works, which taught a different doctrine. The Lutheran Church, receiving their impress from him, hold only a predestination based upon foreknowledge; in this, strictly agreeing with the Arminian view.

Melancthon, in the commencement of his career, was a rigid Predestinarian. In 1525, writing of the decrees, he says: "Lastly, Divine predestination takes away human liberty; for all things come to pass according to Divine predestination--not only external works, but also internal thoughts, in all creatures." He, however, in a few years changed his opinion, and struck out such passages from his works. To Cranmer he observed that there had been, among the reformers, "Stoical disputations respecting fate, offensive in their nature, and noxious in their tendency." In writing to Peucer he compares Calvin to Zeno, saying, "Laelius writes to me that the controversy respecting the Stoical fate is agitated with such uncommon fervor at Geneva, that one individual is cast into prison because he happened to differ from Zeno." And near his death, referring to the doctrines of predestination, he says they are "monstrous opinions, which are contumelious against God and pernicious to morals."

Calvin became, among the reformers, the great champion of the decrees, and hence the system bears his name. So much importance did he attach to these peculiar views that he scrupled not to apply the most opprobrious epithets to those who refused to receive them. In one of his sermons he says, "The enemies of God's predestination are stupid and ignorant, and the devil hath plucked out their eyes." Again, "Such men fight against the Holy Ghost like mad beasts and endeavor to abolish the holy Scripture. There is more honesty in the Papists than in these men; for the doctrine of the Papists is a great deal better, more holy, and more agreeable to the sacred Scriptures, than the doctrine of those vile and wicked men, who cast down God's holy election--these dogs that bark at it and swine that root it up." And in another sermon he says, "The devil hath no fitter instruments than those who fight against predestination."

Sentiments such as these, taught to the youth preparing for the ministry, could not fail to have an influence in promoting a persecuting spirit. These ministers were scattered among the reformed churches over Europe, and soon began to exhibit their disposition. Liberty of opinion was tolerated for a time; but, early in the succeeding century, the famous Synod of Dort was assembled in which the opinions of the Remonstrants or Arminians were condemned as heresy. Pious and influential ministers were banished from the land, many were thrown into prison, while some of their patrons were put to death. Macaulay well characterizes the proceedings of this synod as manifesting "gross injustice, insolence, and cruelty."

A reaction followed. Arminianism and a modified Calvinism, known afterward as Baxterianism, gained ground upon the Continent and rapidly pervaded the Anglican Church. In the days of Wesley, a strong effort was made to suppress Arminian views. Calvinism being made a test of office in the college in which they were engaged, Mr. Benson was removed, and Mr. Fletcher resigned. A distinguished clergyman, Mr. Shirley, issued a circular, requesting a meeting of ministers to go in a body to Mr. Wesley's ensuing conference and demand that he and his preachers should retract their sentiments. But, though the spirit of the Synod of Dort was aroused, the civil power to punish could not be employed. Mr. W. continued to preach, and Mr. Fletcher, in his defense, issued those masterly Checks which displayed at once his superior genius and the strength of the cause which he had espoused.

In America in early days, the religious sentiment was, generally, Calvinistic. Such churches were supported by law in the New England states until a late period. The colleges and seminaries were also principally under their control. Hence, the introduction of Methodism gave rise to numerous controversies. In the midst, however, of repeated conflicts, Arminianism has increased until now a majority of members in the Union belong to churches which reject the Calvinistic faith. Of the churches, too, which are called Calvinistic, at least one-half have embraced what is termed New School theology. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of that system, the Old School assert that it is a departure, not only to Arminianism, but to Pelagianism.

For some years past there had been a growing union among Christians; controversies were less frequent, and the Presbyterian and Methodist churches were living in peace and harmony. Recently, however, repeated attacks of the most virulent character have been made upon the doctrines and usages of the Methodist Episcopal Church. For a time this was patiently borne; but as forbearance only seemed to increase the frequency and severity of the attacks, a notice of the principles involved became necessary.

The letters contained in the present volume were written by Rev. R. S. Foster, A. M., a member of the Ohio annual conference, who has charge of Wesley Chapel in this city. A number of them appeared in the columns of the Western Christian Advocate; and, at the earnest solicitations of many readers, he was induced to present them in a more permanent form. Their style is clear and forcible, and the process of argumentation strictly logical. As the reader will perceive, he has limited himself to two principal points: first, to show what are the doctrines of Calvinism; and, secondly, to state the prominent objections to them. This work has been well executed by giving the standard authors in their own language and thus preventing any candid opponent from making the charge of misrepresentation. The book will thus be very valuable to such as have not access to extensive libraries, or who have not time to examine for themselves the various writers here quoted. The objections are distinctly and explicitly stated, and the intelligent reader will, we think, be fully convinced that they are well sustained. We commend the volume as one of great merit to such as are perplexed upon the subject of predestination. We doubt not that many, after perusing these pages, will fully acquiesce with Calvin, in terming, as he did, the decree of predestination a horrible decree.

--M. Simpson

Objections to Calvinism as it is, in a series of letters addressed to Rev. N. L. Rice: by R. S. Foster, with an appendix, containing replies and rejoinders

Arminius on Repentance

From Arminius' Public Disputations, The Works of James Arminius, Translated from the Latin, Vols. 1 & 2 by James Nichols, Vol. 3 by W. R. Bagnall  

DISPUTATION 17 ON REPENTANCE RESPONDENT: HENRY NIELLUIS

As in succeeding Disputations are discussed Faith, and Justification through Faith, the order which has hitherto been observed requires us now to treat on Repentance without which we can neither have fellowship with Christ, nor be made partakers of his righteousness.

1. The matter on which we are at present treating, is usually enunciated in the three Latin words, resipiscentia, paenitentia, and conversio, repentance, penitence and conversion. The Greek word, Metanoia "change of mind after reflection," answers to the first of these, terms;Metameleia, "regret on account of misdeeds," to the second; and Ewisrofh "a turning about, a return," to the third. On this subject the Hebrews frequently employ the word h b w  t "a returning," as corresponding with the third of the preceding terms; and the word µ j n or h m j n which expresses the sense of the second. But though these words are, according to the essence and nature of the thing, synonymous, yet each of them signifies a particular formal conception. The First, repentance, is a conception of the understanding; the Second, penitence, a conception of the affections or passions; and the Third, conversion, is a conception of an action resulting from both the others. The general term, therefore, comprises the understanding, the affections, and an ulterior act resulting from both the preceding. The First signifies a change of mind after any thing has been done; and, after the commission of evil, a change of mind to a better state.

The Second expresses grief or sorrow of mind after a deed; and, after an evil deed, "sorrow after a godly sort," and not "the sorrow of the world," although the word is sometimes thus used even in the Scriptures. The Third denotes conversion to some thing, from which aversion had been previously formed. And, in this discussion, it is that conversion which is from evil to good; from sin, Satan and the world, to God. The First comprehends a disapproval of evil and an approval of the opposite good.

The Second comprises grief for a past evil, and an affection of desire towards a contrary good. The Third shews an aversion from the evil to which it adhered, and a conversion to the good from which it had been alienated. But these three conceptions, according to the nature of things and the command of God, are so intimately connected with each other, that there cannot be either true and right repentance, penitence, or conversion, unless each of these has the other two united with it, either as preceding it, or as succeeding.

2. According to this distinction of the various conceptions, have been invented different definitions of one and the same thing as to its essence.

For instance, "repentance is a change of mind and heart from evil to good, proceeding from godly sorrow." It is also "sorrow after the commission of sin on account of God being offended, and through this sorrow a change of the whole heart from evil to good." And "It is a true conversion of our life to God, proceeding from a sincere and serious fear of God, which consists in the mortification of our flesh and of the old man, and in the quickening of the Spirit." We disapprove of none of these three definitions, because in substance and essence they agree among themselves, and, sufficiently for [the purposes of] true piety, declare the nature of the thing. But a more copious definition may be given, such as the following: "Repentance, penitence, or conversion is an act of the entire man, by which in his understanding he disapproves of sin universally considered, in his affections he hates it, and as perpetrated by himself is sorry for it and in the whole of his life avoids it. By which he also in his understanding approves of righteousness, in affections loves it, and in the whole of his life follows after it. And thus he turns himself away from Satan and the world, and returns unto God and adheres to Him, that God may abide in him, and that he may abide in God."

3. We call repentance "the act of man," that we may distinguish it from Regeneration which is "the act of God." These two have some things in common, are on certain points in affinity; yet, in reality, according to the peculiar nature which each of them possesses, they are distinct; though, according to their subjects, they are not separated. We add that it is "the act of the entire man:" for it is his act with regard to the entire mind or soul, and all its faculties; and with regard to the body as it is united to the soul, and is an organ or instrument subjected to the pleasure and command of the soul. (1 Kings 18:37; Romans 12:1, 2.) It is an act which concerns the whole life of man as it is rational, and as it was born with an aptitude to tend towards sin and towards God, and to turn aside from either of them. It consists of the understanding, the affections, the senses, and motion, and concurs with all these conjointly, though subordinately, to [the production of] repentance, penitence or conversion.

(1.) In this act, the Understanding performs its office both by a general appreciation of its value and by its particular approbation and disapprobation.

(2.) The Affections or passions perform theirs, as they are ewiqumhtikov concupiscible, by loving, hating, mourning and rejoicing; and as they are qumoeidh", irascible, by being angry, zealous, indignant, fearful, and hopeful. (Ephesians 3 & 4.)

(3.) The Senses, both internal and external, perform their office by their aversion from unbecoming objects, and by their conversion to those which are suitable and proper. (Romans 6:13, 19.)

(4.) Lastly, the Motions of the tongue, hands, feet, and of the other members of the body, perform their office by removal from things unlawful and inexpedient, and by their application to those which are lawful and expedient.

4. The object of repentance is the evil of unrighteousness or sin, (considered both universally, and as committed by the penitent himself,) and the good of righteousness. (Psalm 34:15; Ezekiel 18:28.) The evil of unrighteousness is first in order, the good of righteousness is first in dignity. From the former, repentance has its commencement; in the latter, it terminates and rests. The object may be considered in a manner somewhat different; for, since we are commanded to return to God, from whom we had turned away, God is also the object of conversion and repentance, as he is the hater of sin and of evil men, the lover of righteousness and of righteous men, good to those who repent, and their chief good, and, on the contrary, the severe avenger and the certain destruction of those who persevere in sin. (Malachi 5:7; Zechariah 1:3; Deuteronomy 6:5.) To this object, may be directly opposed another personal object, the devil, from whom by repentance we must take our departure. (Ephesians 4:27; James 4:7.) To the devil may be added an object which is an accessory to him, and that is, the world, of which he is called "the prince," (John 12:31; 14:30,) both as it contains within it arguments suitable for Satan to employ in seduction, such as riches, honors and pleasures, (Luke 4:5, 6; 1 John 2:15, 16,) and as it renders to the devil something that resembles personal service. (Romans 6:9, 7.) In both these methods, the world attracts men to itself, and detains them after they are united to it. From it, also, we are commanded to turn away. Nay, man himself may obtain the province of an object opposed to God; and he is commanded to separate himself from himself, that he may live not according to man, but according to God. (Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9- 17; Romans 6:10-23.)

5. The primary efficient cause of repentance is God, and Christ as he is through the Spirit mediator between God and man. (Jeremiah 31:18; Ezekiel 36:25, 26; Acts 5:31; 17:30.) The inly moving cause is the goodness, grace, and philanthropy of God our creator and redeemer, who loves the salvation of his creature, and desires to manifest the riches of his mercy in the salvation of his miserable creature. (Romans 11:5.) The outwardly moving cause, through the mode of merit, is the obedience, the death and the intercession of Christ; (Isaiah 53:5; 1 Corinthians 1:30, 31; 2 Corinthians 5:21;) and, through the mode of moving to mercy, it is the unhappy condition of sinners, whom the devil holds captive in the snares of iniquity, and who will perish by their own demerits according to the condition of the law, and necessarily according to the will of God manifested in the gospel, unless they repent (John 3:16; Ezekiel 16:3-63; Luke 13:3, 5; Isaiah 31:6; Jeremiah 3:14; Psalm 119:71; in the prophets passim; Romans 7:6, 7.)

6. The proximate, yet less principal cause, is man himself, converted and converting himself by the power and efficacy of the grace of God and the Spirit of Christ. The external cause inciting to repent is the miserable state of the sinners who do not repent, and the felicitous and blessed state of those who repent — whether such state be known from the law of Moses or from that of nature, from the gospel or from personal experience, or from the examples of other persons who have been visited with the most grievous plagues through impenitence, or who, through repentance, have been made partakers of many blessings. (Romans 2:5; Acts 2:37.) The internal and inly moving cause is, not only a consciousness of sin and a sense of misery through fear of the Deity, who has been offended, with a desire to be delivered from both, but it is likewise [an incipient] faith and hope of the gracious mercy and pardon of God.

7. The instrumental causes which God ordinarily uses for our conversion, and by which we are solicited and led to repentance, are the law and the gospel. Yet the office of each in this matter is quite distinct, so that the more excellent province in it is assigned to the gospel, and the law acts the part of its servant or attendant. For, in the first place, the very command to repent is evangelical; and the promise of pardon, and the peremptory threat of eternal destruction, unless the man repents, which are added to it, belong peculiarly to the gospel. (Matthew 3:1; Mark 1:4; Luke 24:47.) But the law proves the necessity of repentance, by convincing man of sin and of the anger of the offended Deity, from which conviction arise a certain sorrow and a fear of punishment, which, in its commencement is servile or slavish solely through a regard to the law, but which, in its progress, becomes a filial fear through a view of the gospel. (Romans 3:13, 20; 7:7.)

From these, also, proceed, by the direction of an inducement to remove, or repent, a certain external abstinence from evil works, and such a performance of some righteousness as is not hypocritical. (Matthew 3:8; 7:17; James 2:14-26.) But as the law does not proceed beyond "the ministration of death and of the letter," the services of the gospel here again become necessary, which administers the Spirit, by whose illumination, inspiration and gracious and efficacious strengthening, repentance itself, in its essential and integral parts is completed and perfected. Nay the very conviction of sin belongs in some measure to the gospel, since sin itself has been committed against the command both concerning faith and repentance. (Mark 16:16; John 16:8-15.)

8. There are likewise other causes aiding or auxiliary to repentance, some of which are usually employed by God himself, and others of them by those who are penitent.

(1.) For God sometimes sends the cross and afflictions, by which, as with goads, he excites and invites to repentance. At other times, he visits them with the contrary blessings, that he may lead them, after having been invited, by goodness and lenity to repentance. (1 Corinthians 11:32; Jeremiah 31:18; Psalm 80 & 85.)

(2.) The causes employed by penitents themselves are watching, fasting, and other corporeal chastisements, as well as prayers, which are of the greatest efficacy in obtaining and performing repentance. The other causes employed by men are likewise serviceable in exciting the ardor of these prayers. (Psalm 119; Romans 2:4; 5:3, 4; 12:11, 12.) It is possible for this relation to exist between these auxiliary and the preceding instrumental causes, (§ 7,) that the auxiliary causes are subservient to the instrumental, since they excite men to a serious and assiduous meditation on the law and the gospel, and by the grace of God obtain yet more and more a right understanding of both.

9. The form of repentance is the uprightness of the turning away from evil, and of the return to God and to righteousness. It is conformed to the rule of the divine command, and is produced by an assured faith and hope of the divine mercy, and by a sincere intention to turn away and to return. As the penitence of Saul, Ahab and Judas was destitute of this uprightness, it is unworthy to be reckoned under this title. (1 Samuel 15:24, 25; 1. Kings, 21:27; Matthew 27:3.) But since the mind of the penitent is conscious to itself of this rectitude, or uprightness, no necessity exists for such a man anxiously and solicitously to examine whether it be so great, either intensively, extensively, or appreciatively, as the rigor of justice might demand.

10. The fruits of repentance, which may also have the relation of ends, are,

(1.) On the part of God, the remission of sin according to the condition of the covenant of grace in Christ, and on account of his obedience, and through faith in him. (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31; Romans 3:24:.

(2.) On our part, the fruits are good works, which are "meet for repentance," (Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8,) and "which God foreordained," that believers and penitents, who are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10.)

The ultimate end is the glory of God the Redeemer, who is at once just and merciful in Jesus Christ our Lord. (Revelation 16:9.) It results not only from the gracious and efficacious act of God, who bestows repentance, and converts us to himself; but likewise from the act of the penitents themselves, by which turning themselves away from sins, and returning to God, they "walk in newness of living" all the days of their life. It also results from the very intention of repentance itself.

11. The parts of repentance, as is abundantly evident from the preceding Theses, according to its two boundaries, (both that from which it commences, and that towards which it proceeds and in which it terminates,) are two, an aversion, or turning away from the Devil and sin, and a conversion or returning to God and righteousness. (Psalm 34:14; Jeremiah 4:1.) They are united together by an indissoluble connection; but the former is preparatory to the latter, while the latter is perfective of the former. The Papists, however, make penitence to consist of three parts; and seem to derive greater pleasure from employing the word penitence about this matter, than in the use of the terms repentance and conversion.

Their three parts are, the contrition of the heart, the confession of the mouth, and the satisfaction of the work; about which we make two brief affirmations.

(1.) If these be received as parts of the penitence which is necessary before God, then no contrition can be so great, either intensively or appreciatively, as to be in any wise either meritorious or capable of obtaining remission of sins. No confession of the mouth, not even that which is made to God, (provided the confession of the heart only be present,) is necessary to receive remission; much less is the confession which is made to any man, even though he be a priest. And there is no satisfaction, except the obedience of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the justice of God can be satisfied either for sin or for its punishment, even for the very least of either. (Acts 4:12; Hebrews 10:10, 14; 1 Corinthians 1:30.)

(2.) If these be received as part of the penitence to which, before the church, that man submits who has injured her by scandal, that he may render her satisfaction and may contribute to her edification; then indeed those words, [contrition, confession and satisfaction,] may bear an accommodated sense, and such a distribution of them may be useful to the church.

12. The contrary to repentance is impenitence, and a pertinacious perseverance in sinning: of which there are two degrees, one the delay of penitence, the other final impenitence unto death. The latter of them has a certain expectation of eternal destruction, even according to the most merciful will of God revealed in Christ and in the Gospel; lest any one should persuade himself, that the devils themselves, and men who have passed their lives in impiety, will at length experience the mercy of God.

The former of them, the delay of penitence, is marvelously dangerous, for three reasons:

(1.) Because it is in the power and hand of God to make even the delay of a single hour to be a final impenitence, since to Him belongs the dominion and lordship over our life and death.

(2.) Because after a habit of sinning has been introduced by daily exercise, a man is rendered anaisqhtov" incapable of feeling, and his conscience becomes "seared with a hot iron." (1 Timothy 4:2.)

(3.) Because, after the gate of grace has by the just judgment of God been closed on account of a malicious continuance in sins, no passage is open for the Spirit, who is necessarily the author of repentance. Therefore let these words always resound in our ears,

"Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." (Hebrews 3:7, 8; Psalm 95:7, 8.)

And this exhortation of the Apostle,

"Workout your own salvation with fear and trembling: for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure," (Philippians 2:12, 13.)

May this be graciously granted to us by God the Father of mercies, in the Son of his love, by the Holy Spirit of both of them. To whom be praise and glory forever. Amen.

COROLLARIES

It is not a correct saying, that "to those who relapse after having been baptized, penitence is a second plank [for their escape] after shipwreck." Those persons act harshly who, from the example of God not pardoning sins except to him that is penitent, refuse to forgive their brother unless he confesses his fault, and earnestly begs pardon.

The Works of James Arminius

A Few Brief Thoughts On Repentance Or What It Is Not

I was caught up in a discussion the other day on a matter that should capture the attention of each of us, that being what should be preached to a man regarding the Gospel. The fellow on the other end of the discussion kept digging in on one constant theme. The message was fear, fear of sin and its consequences, the sheer magnitude of condemnation that awaits the sinner. While I am a strong advocate of preaching conviction and repentance, somehow the thought of trying to strike fear into a man in order to bring him to Christ seems a wayward task. Instead it is the preaching of the Cross of Christ and our need for Him that expresses the power of God with regard to salvation. It is the Gospel message itself that brings grace, faith and salvation. Fear is a fleeting moment among men. What one man fears today when confronted is far distant in mind when the threat is lessened and circumstances improve, even outwardly if not inwardly. Fear is easily dismissed as time tends to erase it's cause. I found some wisdom on this matter in the writings of D.L. Moody, taken from the 6^th chapter of his book The Way To God.

Before I speak of what Repentance is, let me briefly say what it is not. Repentance is not fear. Many people have confounded the two. They think they have to be alarmed and terrified; and they are waiting for some kind of fear to come down upon them. But multitudes become alarmed who do not really repent. You have heard of men at sea during a terrible storm. Perhaps they had been very profane men; but when the danger came they suddenly grew quiet, and began to cry to God for mercy. Yet you would not say they repented. When the storm had passed away, they went on swearing the same as before. You might think that the king of Egypt repented when God sent the terrible plagues upon him and his land. But it was not repentance at all. The moment God's hand was removed Pharaoh's heart was harder than ever. He did not turn from a single sin; he was the same man. So that there was no true repentance there.

The fear of God, rather than being a cowering retreat, is a reverence for the Creator, an awe inspiring and often trembling experience. It is something desired rather than something to bring pangs and apprehension. Fear of the LORD is an experience of believers rather than a characteristic of unbelievers' repentance.

To All The Moderator Wannabes Out There

I know this is an odd entry but I was curiously amused this past weekend when I used the word described below in response to a zealous fellow advocating the lighting of pyres with regard to Arminians. In 16^th century English descriptive a faggot, or fagot depending upon one's spelling inclinations, denoted the bundles of sticks saturated with creosote that were piled around the feet and legs of countless Christian victims of religious tyranny. The soaked bundles were set afire and the faggots fed searing flames that consumed the poor soul strapped alive to an upright post. It is a gruesome way to die, sometimes slower than expected and inducing grievous agony to its victim.

However, to my amazing interest, somebody complained about the faggots, seemed to endorse the burning of Arminians, and charged me with vulgarities thereby banning me from their discussion board. I suppose I should have been offended yet instead I am amused that a moderator of a predominantly Calvinist website could match their lack of wits with their lack of proper theology. Cheers to the poor thesaurus challenged soul whom I sure remains clueless and certainly anonymous.

fag·ot
Variant(s):
or fag·got Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English fagot, from Anglo-French
Date:
14th century
: bundle: as a: a bundle of sticks b: a bundle of pieces of wrought iron to be shaped by rolling or hammering at high temperature

Coming Back To Prayer

E.M. Bounds penned a wonderful and easy to read book called Power Through Prayer many years ago that I often find myself turning to when matters of prayerful diligence arise. There is a comfort in reading again the strong and wise words of a saint who fully grasped, as well as we mortals can, the powerfulness of our petitions in prayer. As I read through the last chapter of the book, the following passage struck a nerve in me and I feel compelled to record it here.

Where are the Christly leaders who can teach the modern saints how to pray and put them at it? Do we know we are raising up a prayerless set of saints? Where are the apostolic leaders who can put God's people to praying? Let them come to the front and do the work, and it will be the greatest work which can be done. An increase of educational facilities and a great increase of money force will be the direst curse to religion if they are not sanctified by more and better praying than we are doing. More praying will not come as a matter of course. The campaign for the twentieth or thirtieth century fund will not help our praying but hinder if we are not careful. Nothing but a specific effort from a praying leadership will avail. The chief ones must lead in the apostolic effort to radicate the vital importance and fact of prayer in the heart and life of the Church. None but praying leaders can have praying followers. Praying apostles will beget praying saints. A praying pulpit will beget praying pews. We do greatly need some body who can set the saints to this business of praying. We are not a generation of praying saints. Non-praying saints are a beggarly gang of saints who have neither the ardor nor the beauty nor the power of saints. Who will restore this breach? The greatest will he be of reformers and apostles, who can set the Church to praying.

The richness of this simple extract demands contemplation, a reflection on what it means to lead a congregation or presbytery. How is it that supposed children of God, no longer children of wrath by nature, can consume their waking hours and minutes beating the skins of doctrine yet fail to grasp the essentialness of a prayer life. Whether excusing it through the poverty of cessationism or flippantly dismissing its importance as a matter we are simply told to do, the lack of prayer can have nothing but a profound and devastating effect on one’s spiritual condition. How are souls saved except preachers are sent and how can preachers sent to a mission field lack the effectual prayers of righteous men and women?

E.M. Bounds Power Through Prayer

The Power of Prayer

"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (Jas 5:16 AV)

I was thinking earlier this morning on the responsibilities of the saint and came upon this passage. In this age when carnal religion and charismatic excess present themselves as mediocre counterfeits in the church, it becomes far too easy to miss the importance of charisma and responsibility in our relationship with Jesus Christ and the Father. As I type this I cannot help but experience another déjà vu as I know this matter has pressed me repeatedly in past discussions and experiences. It is always troubling when the solid ground is missed because of one's excess and another's dismissal. One cavorts in the midst of a money scheme while the latter wallows in his cessasionism. I think it is the latter that troubles me more. The hyper-Charismatic with his prayer cloths and anointing oils sold by the gallon is easily identifiable. The dogmatic cessasionist, on the other hand, hides his rejection of the work of God behind a cloak of presumed orthodoxy only to feign an allegiance of charisma with the presumption that the gifts of God must certainly exist but not in any way imaginable today. The church world is full of both kinds today but I have to wonder how many of those James refers to as righteous men are offering fervent prayers for the glorious healing powers of God? Ezekiel pushed the thought further in another context when the prophet offers … "And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none." (Eze 22:30 AV). The LORD desires those righteous men who know His power and His promises.

I was going to take this thought to a polemic against Calvinist determinism but will save it for another day. There is no shortage of opportunities to expose the poverty of such thoughts but too many times I fail to dial into these more important issues in our sanctifying walk in Christ. I am a fervent believer in the power of prayer. I know that I know that I know, endlessly repeated, that the LORD works through our prayers and grants the wishes of a faithful servant. Sometimes those fulfillments are not exactly what we expected but we find our position granted as we desired. I needed to find another job a couple of years ago, one located back where we had previously lived and where our grandchildren now live. It took several tries, several prayers and at the end of the day, we are where we desired. Now I had prayed to the LORD for a particular opportunity but he gave me something better. Had he granted my particular wish, we would be in a lesser position, in a place that might have proved difficult to us knowing what we now know. Instead, He placed us where we can accomplish our immediate goals with little impediment. I want to bring this back to the passage from James.

When I was a young boy, I was enamored of an elderly man who operated a small dry cleaner shop in the neighborhood I grew up in. He was in his late seventies at this time and he took ill one summer with his very life threatened. Suffering from pneumonia, his lungs were filling with fluid and I remember my mother discussing the dire condition with several of the neighborhood women. None gave him any hope and as I sat on the upper steps of our stairwell I wept. I wept for an old friend and cried out to the LORD asking Him to save his life and bring him back home. I was not ready to see my friend go. Now, I was raised as one who sought out his own faith while a child excepting my forced attendance at the local Congregational Church Sunday School classes. I knew much of the scripture and as a child I knew Jesus was LORD. I can be ashamed of my later life but at that time I believed and trusted that the LORD was true to His Word. So weeping on that step and praying to the LORD, I knew He listened. I knew that my prayers mattered. I knew there was an effect. The LORD brought that old man home, restoring his health when all others prepared for his death. He became a testimony to me of the power of prayer that I cannot shake today. I have come to believe and know today that as James stated, the prayers of the LORD's children have an effect on our walk, the people around us and in fulfillment of the desires we have as children of God.

 

Google Sites For Theological Documents

For the past couple of years I have found Google.com to offer a wealth of free or low cost utilities that really provide a great help to those who spend a lot of time with the web. One tool I have recently started using is Google Sites. Like most web pages, it allows the user to store files that might be too large to post on a blog and to provide a quick resource for pertinent materials used for research and sourcing. Since I use this blog predominantly to work out my thoughts and ideas for my own benefit and not particularly for an audience, it is a great tool to have something like Sites to keep those documents and resources handy and accessible from one location. It is pretty sparse at the moment but perhaps over time I will be able to collect several more articles of particular interest to me.

This blogs Google Site is located at Arminian Resources

Christ’s Atonement Never Saved a Single Calvinist

You know, I was thinking a bit this morning and I have to state that the atonement of Christ at Calvary failed to save John Calvin. Yes, that's right. It didn't do the trick. I was trying to think of some other Calvinists that were saved by Christ's atonement and as hard as I tried, I couldn't think of any. James White? Pffft … Not a chance. My good loving Calvinist buddies over on CARM? Man, I'd love to say yes but the truth is not a single one of them can entice me to say they were saved by Christ's atonement. Arthur Pink? Now I wanted to say yes but alas the answer can only be no, Pink was never saved by Christ's atonement. Then I struck upon Charles H. Spurgeon and I thought surely he had to be saved by Christ's atonement. But the more I thought about it (especially when his disparaging remarks concerning Arminianism came to mind) I had to admit that even Spurgeon fell short. The more I thought about this, the clearer it became. Now, Calvinists are fond of claiming to be saved by Christ's atonement but can the Christian really believe them? Those who love Christ had better not believe them because I am convinced that not a single Calvinist was saved by Christ's atonement. What a horrible predicament that would place a Calvinist in to come to the realization that he was never saved by Christ's atonement. It might even force him to relinquish himself to the FACTS and doctrines of Christ and become an Arminian. It sure might help him especially when he realizes that, come to think of it, not a single Arminian was saved by the atonement of Christ either. It takes faith to be a child of God.

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" (Ro 3:24-25 AV)

Thanks to William Birch at Classical Arminianism for a wonderful article this morning.

Arminius on Predestination




Arminius wrote a considerable article dealing with the aspects and implications of various Calvinist doctrines of Predestination in his Sentiments. Recently, I have found myself engaged in several contentious discussions regarding the orthodoxy of Calvinist predestination. In turning to Arminius' Sentiments I came to the unsettled conclusion that the predestination teaching of the various Calvinist churches cannot be deemed as an orthodox instruction in the body of Christ if Arminius argues on a solid ground (which I do indeed argue). While I would not deem such teachings to be heretical and I am certainly not in a position to do such, the degree of unorthodoxy is such that if Calvinistic Predestination were removed from the syllabus of Reformed thought, the entire catalogue of that systematic theology would crumble. Its foundation is premised on that arbitrary determinism called by another name, Predestination. The following is an extract from Arminius' comments on this matter and provides the Reformation Arminian view of predestination that readily agrees with the historic orthodoxy of the Christian Church without causing any manner of doctrinal conflict with that orthodoxy. Arminius' comments in whole are lengthy and those sections that address the objectionable tenets of Calvinist Predestination are not presented here although a link to those comments is provided. – A.M. Mallett

From Arminius' Declaration of Sentiments:

MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.

I have hitherto been stating those opinions concerning the article of Predestination which are inculcated in our Churches and in the University of Leyden, and of which I disapprove. I have at the same time produced my own reasons, why I form such an unfavorable judgment concerning them; and I will now declare my own opinions on this subject, which are of such a description as, according to my views, appear most conformable to the word of God.

1. The first absolute decree of God concerning the salvation of sinful man, is that by which he decreed to appoint his Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, Priest and King, who might destroy sin by his own death, might by his obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost, and might communicate it by his own virtue.

2. The second precise and absolute decree of God, is that in which he decreed to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and, in Christ, for his sake and through Him, to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as persevered to the end; but to leave in sin, and under wrath, all impenitent persons and unbelievers, and to damn them as aliens from Christ.

3. The third Divine decree is that by which God decreed to administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith; and to have such administration instituted

(1.) according to the Divine Wisdom, by which God knows what is proper and becoming both to his mercy and his severity, and

(2.) according to Divine Justice, by which He is prepared to adopt whatever his wisdom may prescribe and put it in execution.

4. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain 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.

Predestination, when thus explained, is

1. The foundation of Christianity, and of salvation and its certainty.

2. It is the sum and the matter of the gospel; nay, it is the gospel itself, and on that account necessary to be believed in order to salvation, as far as the two first articles are concerned.

3. It has had no need of being examined or determined by any council, either general or particular, since it is contained in the scriptures clearly and expressly in so many words; and no contradiction has ever yet been offered to it by any orthodox Divine.

4. It has constantly been acknowledged and taught by all Christian teachers who held correct and orthodox sentiments.

5. It agrees with that harmony of all confessions, which has been published by the protestant Churches.

6. It likewise agrees most excellently with the Dutch Confession and Catechism. This concord is such, that if in the Sixteenth article these two expressions "those persons whom" and "others," be explained by the words "believers" and "unbelievers" these opinions of mine on Predestination will be comprehended in that article with the greatest clearness. This is the reason why I directed the thesis to be composed in the very words of the Confession, when, on one occasion, I had to hold a public disputation before my private class in the University. This kind of Predestination also agrees with the reasoning contained in the twentieth and the fifty-fourth question of the Catechism.

7. It is also in excellent accordance with the nature of God — with his wisdom, goodness, and righteousness; because it contains the principal matter of all of them, and is the clearest demonstration of the Divine wisdom, goodness, and righteousness [or justice]

8. It is agreeable in every point with the nature of man — in what form soever that nature may be contemplated, whether in the primitive state of creation, in that of the fall, or in that of restoration.

9. It is in complete concert with the act of creation, by affirming that the creation itself is a real communication of good, both from the intention of God, and with regard to the very end or event; that it had its origin in the goodness of God; that whatever has a reference to its continuance and preservation, proceeds from Divine love; and that this act of creation is a perfect and appropriate work of God, in which he is at complaisance with himself, and by which he obtained all things necessary for an unsinning state.

10. It agrees with the nature of life eternal, and with the honorable titles by which that life is designated in the scriptures.

11. It also agrees with the nature of death eternal, and with the names by which that death is distinguished in scripture.

12. It states sin to be a real disobedience, and the meritorious cause of condemnation; and on this account, it is in the most perfect agreement with the fall and with sin.

13. In every particular, it harmonizes with the nature of grace, by ascribing to it all those things which agree with it, [or adapted to it,] and by reconciling it most completely to the righteousness of God and to the nature and liberty of the human will.

14. It conduces most conspicuously to declare the glory of God, his justice and his mercy. It also represents God as the cause of all good and of our salvation, and man as the cause of sin and of his own damnation.

15. It contributes to the honor of Jesus Christ, by placing him for the foundation of Predestination and the meritorious as well as communicative cause of salvation.

16. It greatly promotes the salvation of men: It is also the power, and the very means which lead to salvation — by exciting and creating within the mind of man sorrow on account of sin, a solicitude about his conversion, faith in Jesus Christ, a studious desire to perform good works, and zeal in prayer — and by causing men to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. It likewise prevents despair, as far as such prevention is necessary.

17. It confirms and establishes that order according to which the gospel ought to be preached,

(1.) By requiring repentance and faith —

(2.) And then by promising remission of sins, the grace of the spirit, and life eternal.

18. It strengthens the ministry of the gospel, and renders it profitable with respect to preaching, the administration of the sacraments and public prayers.

19. It is the foundation of the Christian religion; because in it, the two-fold love of God may be united together — God's love of righteousness [or justice], and his love of men, may, with the greatest consistency, be reconciled to each other.

20. Lastly. This doctrine of Predestination, has always been approved by the great majority of professing Christians, and even now, in these days, it enjoys the same extensive patronage. It cannot afford any person just cause for expressing his aversion to it; nor can it give any pretext for contention in the Christian Church.

It is therefore much to be desired, that men would proceed no further in this matter, and would not attempt to investigate the unsearchable judgments of God — at least that they would not proceed beyond the point at which those judgments have been clearly revealed in the scriptures.

This, my most potent Lords, is all that I intend now to declare to your mightinesses, respecting the doctrine of Predestination, about which there exists such a great controversy in the Church of Christ. If it would not prove too tedious to your Lordships, I have some other propositions which I could wish to state, because they contribute to a full declaration of my sentiments, and tend to the same purpose as that for which I have been ordered to attend in this place by your mightinesses.

There are certain other articles of the Christian religion, which possess a close affinity to the doctrine of Predestination, and which are in a great measure dependent on it: Of this description are the providence of God, the free-will of man, the perseverance of saints, and the certainty of salvation. On these topics, if not disagreeable to your mightinesses, I will in a brief manner relate my opinion.


 

Antinomianism, A Calvinist Expectation

Antinomianism, while being more than a mouthful of syllables, is a state of philosophy I seem to encounter among the Calvinist bloggers and discussion sites. While John Fletcher penned an extensive discourse against the antinomian tendencies of Calvinist philosophy, the topic is not much discussed in our discourse with Calvinist brethren. It is one of those topics similar to the Calvinist insinuation of God authoring sin that brings out an astonishing denial. Let's look at a passage in scripture that recently brought this to light.

"Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1Th 5:16-22 AV)

This passage came up during a discussion about whether or not we can frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives and in the lives of others. The faithful are entreated to avoid several things one of them being to not extinguish the work of the Holy Spirit, to not quench the Spirit. Now ironically this suggestion was offered by a Calvinist who then posited the idea that we cannot frustrate or extinguish the work of God. Further it was suggested that in agreeing with the scriptures directly, we would present ourselves as lessening the LORD to a tiny God with ourselves able to stop his omnipotence. It is an absurd suggestion yet it was the defense offered after he insisted that quench does not mean to extinguish or put out, stifle or subdue. Yet Paul expressly stated "Quench not the Spirit" and the term used in scripture is sbennumi meaning specifically to not extinguish, stifle or suppress. There is a purpose to this apparent madness in attempting to redefine terms and it is to promote the philosophy of a continuous struggle against the LORD. In the Calvinist mind, Christians have no victory over sin, that the struggle with flesh is a Christian expectation and as such desired of the LORD. We are to continuously fail in Christ. Contrast that with the admonitions of the Apostles to be holy as the LORD is Holy, to be instructed in the ways of holiness and cautioned against allowing the flesh to rear up in our lives. By surrendering themselves to the expectations of flesh, the Calvinist becomes a slave to his view of sin being the norm in his walk. He becomes what he denies, antinomian in mind and deed explained away as a normative struggle over which he is not expected victory.

John Fletcher's work is often forgotten in this modern age but it would be wise of us to freshen ourselves against this philosophy of antinomianism that is nothing short of an enemy within the church. It robs the believer of his faith in Christ and produces a dead church content with worldliness and fatalistic expectation and the church deserves better than such a poor lead.

John Fletcher's An Equal Check To Pharisaism And Antinomianism

 

It's time R.C. Sproul realized the Christian realm is not defined by Calvinist intellectual polemics and endeavors. He has a plug for the Calvinist counterpart to this book on his blog and of course as with any Calvinist argument there is always a more convincing position stated by the greater body of Christ. Such it is with Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell's book Why I Am Not A Calvinist. It's available in many Christian bookstores and several online sites.

Christianbook.com

Arminius on the Free Will of Man

For the last 450 years since Christians began openly rejecting the religious philosophy of John Calvin, Theodore Beza and other Calvinists who formulated their assertions in the infancy of the Reformation, we have had to repeatedly cast down a false accusation, a spurious lie regarding the will of man. The charge of "free willism" or some great measure of Pelagianism has often infected the polemic of many Calvinists who either through theological ignorance or deliberate and willful deception slander and libel the greater body of Christ. Arminius addressed this falsehood spoken so easily off the lips of countless Calvinists in his day and ours in his Sentiments. When a modern version of the polemicists Beza, Gomarus and countless of their fellows spew the charges of Pelagianism and "free-willer" as if it damages one's Christianity, they are easily and irrefutably rebuked with the words of Arminius himself.

THE FREE-WILL OF MAN

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. 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.

Why Would God Become Angry At What He Ordained?

I asked this question on a discussion board when a Calvinist rightly pointed out that the LORD gets angry at the sinful actions of fallen men. There is no doubt that sin angers the LORD. The anger of the LORD is expressed in numerous passages yet this truth causes me to ask the Calvinist "why"? How is it that an omniscient God could possibly get angry at what He supposedly (in the Calvinist tradition) causes or ordains? If God issues a commandment that He has purposefully ordained to be broken, is it not an expression of hypocrisy to become angry at what is His very design? I do not think the Calvinist can address this inquiry in an honest manner. In fact I know from my experiences with a few that the response is to engage in an ad hominem fallacy and accuse me of presenting a straw man albeit unidentified. Contrary to the diversions, the question I pose is valid and crucial to understanding the religious philosophy of Calvinism.

Imagine for a moment I have planned an outing for tomorrow knowing full well that there is a bad storm on the way with torrential rains forecasted at 100% probability. I can see the weather map and the red squalls and I know what tomorrow will bring yet I make my plans for the outing nonetheless. Now upon waking in the morning and being faced with an absolute deluge, I fly into a rage because now, my outing is to be cancelled. I had no hope it would clear. In fact I knew it was going to rain yet now I am angry for doing something I knew with complete certainty would fail. Such is the scenario with Calvinist determinism. It has the LORD becoming angry at the fulfillment of His Holy purpose. In Calvinist thought, the LORD has ordained everything that comes to pass, including the sinful actions of men. Now, there is an excuse offered in their defense. We must come to understand the significance of "primary and secondary causes", so the Calvinist states. Yet whether primary or secondary, sinfulness serves the Calvinistic view of the purpose of God and in that sense this is no excuse. Whether primary, secondary, compatibalist or hard determinism, the Calvinist continues to have a God angry at the fulfillment of His desires.

The following was a recent exchange I had with a Calvinist about this matter (his comments in Bold Italics).

Why would God get angry at what he purposed?

You mean aside from the fact He told them not too fully knowing that some would according to thier nature? I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that there is/was a purpose to it.

That doesn't answer the inquiry. How is it that God, being omniscient, could get angry at what He purposefully ordained (caused in some minds)?

Are you saying that God is the author of sin Trav? No...of course not. Are you then saying that Calvinists believe that God is the author of sin? This can't be the case since the Calvinist believes in primary and secondary causes. Are you then saying that our definition of causes is flawed? Well...no one is saying you can't but to do so you would need to prove it via Scripture.

No, I am looking for the Calvinist answer to this question: How is it that God, being omniscient, could get angry at what He purposefully ordained (caused in some minds)?

And I've called you on the straw man implicit in your question. Next?

You have called nothing. In fact you are running from addressing the question. You stated the LORD gets angry and that is true. My question still stands:

The strawman implicit in your question is the caused bit. You know as well as I that we believe in primary and secondary causes. The rest of my response comes logically. Your hand is still stuck in the cookie jar Trav.

Whether you call it primary & secondary causes, compatibalism or just plain hard determinism, it remains you cannot answer the question directly without convicting yourself of a poor religious philosophy. Instead, you refuse to address the question using the slander of strawman as your "defense".

Another Calvinist in the discussion thread had a great one-liner in response to the question and deserves an honorable mention.

Because He purposed to get angry at it..

Arminius on the Perfection of Believers

The scriptures instruct us to be holy as the LORD is holy yet we stumble in sin, some more than others, some it seems not at all. There is a doctrine in some circles claiming the sinless perfection of all true believers yet such an anger can be brewed in the souls that teach such things as to betray the state of their being. I do not believe the scriptures teach such things but I do believe the desire of the LORD is that we be holy in all things, to be brought to a place of Christian perfection where our thoughts and deeds are captured in Christ. Arminius dealt with this matter in the following comments – A.M. Mallett

THE PERFECTION OF BELIEVERS IN THIS LIFE

Beside those doctrines on which I have treated, there is now much discussion among us respecting the perfection of believers, or regenerated persons, in this life; and it is reported, that I entertain sentiments on this subject, which are very improper, and nearly allied to those of the Pelagians, viz: "that it is possible for the regenerate in this life perfectly to keep God's precepts." To this I reply, though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought not on this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or entirely, provided I had only added that "they could do this by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it." But while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided. For I have contented myself with those sentiments which St. Augustine has expressed on this subject, whose words have frequently quoted in the University, and have usually subjoined, that I had no addition to make to them.

Augustine says, "four questions may claim our attention on this topic. The first is, was there ever yet a man without sin, one who from the beginning of life to its termination never committed sin? The second, has there ever been, is there now, or can there possibly be, an individual who does not sin, that is, who has attained to such a state of perfection in this life as not to commit sin, but perfectly to fulfill the law of God? The third, is it possible for a man in this life to exist without sin? The fourth, if it be possible for a man to be without sin, why has such an individual never yet been found?" St. Augustine says, that such a person as is described in the first question never yet lived, or will hereafter be brought into existence, with the exception of Jesus Christ. He does not think, that any man has attained to such perfection in this life as is portrayed in the second question. With regard to the third, he thinks it possible for a man to be without sin, by means of the grace of Christ and free-will. In answer to the fourth, man does not do what it is possible for him by the grace of Christ to perform, either because that which is good escapes his observation, or because in it he places no part of his delight." From this quotation it is apparent, that St. Augustine, one of the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine, retained this sentiment, that "it is possible for a man to live in this world without sin."

Beside this, the same Christian father says, "let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with each other." The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this — "that man could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still "greater facility by means of the grace of Christ." I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, "Without me ye can do nothing:" (John 15:5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. I cannot see that anything is contained in all I have hitherto produced respecting my sentiments, on account of which any person ought to be "afraid of appearing in the presence of God," and from which it might be feared that any mischievous consequences can possibly arise. Yet because every day brings me fresh information about reports concerning me, "that I carry in my breast destructive sentiments and heresies," I cannot possibly conceive to what points those charges can relate, except perhaps they draw some such pretext from my opinion concerning the Divinity of the Son of God, and the justification of man before God. Indeed, I have lately learnt, that there has been much public conversation, and many rumors have been circulated, respecting my opinion on both these points of doctrine, particularly since the last conference [between Gomarus and myself] before the Counselors of the Supreme Court. This is one reason why I think, that I shall not be acting unadvisedly if I disclose to your mightinesses the real state of the whole matter.

Arminius on Perseverance

I have never felt comfortable telling any soul that that he might lose his salvation as I have never met a Christian who lost a thing. At the same time, I think Arminius makes an expression of this issue well enough to guide me in my thoughts on the matter. - A.M. Mallett

THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

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. Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.

From The Works of Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments

Ben Witherington has an on-going review of George Barna and Frank Viola's book Pagan
Christianity that is of great interest. It is wonderful to see a noted Christian scholar tackle this misleading and ill-informed publication. This is another example of sound and orthodox Christianity refuting a neo-theological perspective that should have undergone a more thorough academic review before hitting the presses.

Review Part 1

Review Part 2

Review Part 3

Review Part 4