James Arminius on 'Free Will'

Excellent quote Bro. Dallas. I have noticed that classical Arminians like Arminius, John and Charles Wesley and Menno Simons defined free will much differantly that modern day Free Will people.

 

I think the reason for this is because the majority of evangelical Americans are not Arminians. Here is an excerpt from Sproul's Pelagian Captivity of the Church:


Modern Evangelicalism almost uniformly and universally teaches that in order for a person to be born again, he must first exercise faith. You have to choose to be born again. Isn't that what you hear? In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of "professing evangelical Christians" in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions -- or let me say it negatively -- neither off these positions is semi-Pelagian. They're both Pelagian. To say we're basically good is the Pelagian view. I would be willing to assume that in at least thirty percent of the people who are reading this issue, and probably more, if we really examine their thinking depth, we could find hearts that are beating Pelagianism. We're overwhelmed with it. We're surrounded by it. We're immersed in it. We hear it every day. We hear it every day in the secular culture. And not only do we hear it every day in the secular culture, we hear it every day on Christian television and on Christian radio.

In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man's basic thesis was, we don't need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America's most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they're correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings -- and I say, "I don't see how any Christian person could write this." And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism.

http://www.modernreformation.org/mr01/mayjun/mr0103pelagian.html

 

If we're going to toss around quotes from Arminius, here are some quotes from James Arminius from "On Predestination", Works of James Arminius Vol 1.

This is the section where Arminius details what God has taught him from the scriptures.

This section follows the ones where he denounces supralapsarianism, and a couple of other forms of predestinations that adhere to various parts of TULIP.

Give special note to one of the points distinguishes us non-Calvinists from Pelagians (an incorrect and dirty name we are commonly slandered with as Frogman (IIRC) pointed out here in another thread).

(Arminian does not equal Pelagian)
Arminius contends that his view of Predestination:
"...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." Point 14 below.

 

Vol 1. of the Works of James Arminius. The Grace of God

 

Vol 1. of the Works of James Arminius. The Grace of God

 

Dallas,

Thank you for posting these quotes. I hope you do understand that they only strengthen the true Arminian position by showing that the modern day Calvinistis are not attacking true Arminians but instead are attacking a watered down, uneducated form of Arminianism which often attempts to deny the truths that Arminius never intended to subvert, nor did he need to subvert in order to biblically support his conclusions.

In other words, its possible to uphold these truths mentioned in the quotes above without being a 5 point Calvinists. It's not only possible, it is biblical. That should lead us to discuss the issue where Arminius truly does contrast with Calvin and thus stop waisting time bantering over issues in which we have a common ground.

 

Sick kid this week (she's on antibiotics now), two jobs, chores, etc.

I haven't abandoned this thread, just wanted everyone to know. I'll post again when I have a chance.

 

Frogman,

Have you ever read Luther's "Bondage of the Will"? Compared to Luther, Calvin was an Arminian. This passage shows Calvin's Arminism:

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 14

God sometimes makes eternal life a consequent of works? This is not the Lutheran view:

Formula of Concord, SD, Art. III