• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Arminius is inconsistent with theological truth.

Carbon

Admin
Joined
May 19, 2023
Messages
5,224
Reaction score
4,061
Points
113
Location
New England
Faith
Reformed
Country
USA
Marital status
Married
Politics
Conservative
Arminius is inconsistent with theological truth.

The scriptures nowhere declare, that the fruit of Christ's death is a possibility of the remission of sins: nor did Arminius produce any passage of scripture to that purpose. But to speak of the fruit of Christ's death without scripture is untheological.

Scripture asserts the contrary which can be easily proven.
 
I haven't read Arminius. Was that "fruit of Christ's death" not simply his flowery or poetic way of putting across the idea of the "results" of what Christ did?

Can you quote what he said?
 
I haven't read Arminius. Was that "fruit of Christ's death" not simply his flowery or poetic way of putting across the idea of the "results" of what Christ did?

Can you quote what he said?
Arminius wrote:
"God required of Christ, that he should make his soul an offering for sin, give his flesh for the life of the world, pay the price of redemption for the sins and captivity of mankind; and promised, if he did so, that he should see his seed, and become an eternal priest. The priest accepted this condition," Christ, relying on this infallible promise, did willingly give himself to death. But from this assertion of Arminius and the Remonstrants, it was possible that Christ, after having paid the ransom, should see no seed, be a king without any kingdom of grace, and everlasting Father without any children, a bridegroom without a bride, a head without a body. All of which are most abominable.
 
Arminius wrote:
"God required of Christ, that he should make his soul an offering for sin, give his flesh for the life of the world, pay the price of redemption for the sins and captivity of mankind; and promised, if he did so, that he should see his seed, and become an eternal priest. The priest accepted this condition," Christ, relying on this infallible promise, did willingly give himself to death. But from this assertion of Arminius and the Remonstrants, it was possible that Christ, after having paid the ransom, should see no seed, be a king without any kingdom of grace, and everlasting Father without any children, a bridegroom without a bride, a head without a body. All of which are most abominable.
In other words, that Christ took a risk, a gamble? "—for [maybe] the joy set before him, endured the cross..." "🎶There's a new name, written down in pencil..."

Anyhow, I don't see there anything specifically mentioning "fruit of Christ's death".
 
Arminius is inconsistent with theological truth.

The scriptures nowhere declare, that the fruit of Christ's death is a possibility of the remission of sins: nor did Arminius produce any passage of scripture to that purpose. But to speak of the fruit of Christ's death without scripture is untheological.

Scripture asserts the contrary which can be easily proven.
Why are Arminianism and Calvinism connected?

Thanks!
 
He was certainly right about one thing and that is the big 'T'!
------------------
Arminius Disputation 11; Sections 7 and 8


VII. In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.


VIII. The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. For "the animal man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God;" (1 Cor. ii. 14;) in which passage man is called "animal," not from the animal body, but from anima, the soul itself, which is the most noble part of man, but which is so encompassed about with the clouds of ignorance, as to be distinguished by the epithets of "vain" and "foolish;" and men themselves, thus darkened in their minds, are denominated "mad" or foolish, "fools," and even "darkness" itself. (Rom. i. 21, 22; Ephes. iv. 17, 18; Tit. iii. 3; Ephes. v. 8.) This is true, not only when, from the truth of the law which has in some measure been inscribed on the mind, it is preparing to form conclusions by the understanding; but likewise when, by simple apprehension, it would receive the truth of the gospel externally offered to it. For the human mind judges that to be "foolishness" which is the most excellent "wisdom" of God. (1 Cor. i. 18, 24.) On this account, what is here said must be understood not only of practical understanding and the judgment of particular approbation, but also of theoretical understanding and the judgment of general estimation.
 
Why are Arminianism and Calvinism connected?

Thanks!
Two reasons:

  1. Theologically speaking, they came from the exact same reference point, the Reformation. Arminius was Reformed and had been an apologist for Calvin and Beza (who was Calvinist, soteriologically speaking).
  2. The debate about the Christian soteriology in a Protestant dominated forum is predominantly couched in the doctrines asserted by Calvin and Arminius, which is fundamentally about whether or not salvation is monergistic (God is the sole causal agent) or synergism (there is a synergy, or combination, of God and the sinner acting causally in salvation). In forum where the membership is largely Protestant the non-Prot views are statistically marginal (whether the holders of those views consider their views normatively marginal or not).

The latter is changing with more and more synergists becoming Traditionalists or Provisionists. Some boards have a Soteriology or Doctrines of Salvation board. Some forums have a Calvinism board (but not an Arminianism board), and some boards do not permit non-Cals to join. Some don't have a dedicated board for soteriology. Denominationally specific forum, like a Catholic forum, will be structured accordingly.
 
He was certainly right about one thing and that is the big 'T'!
------------------
Arminius Disputation 11; Sections 7 and 8


VII. In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.


VIII. The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. For "the animal man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God;" (1 Cor. ii. 14;) in which passage man is called "animal," not from the animal body, but from anima, the soul itself, which is the most noble part of man, but which is so encompassed about with the clouds of ignorance, as to be distinguished by the epithets of "vain" and "foolish;" and men themselves, thus darkened in their minds, are denominated "mad" or foolish, "fools," and even "darkness" itself. (Rom. i. 21, 22; Ephes. iv. 17, 18; Tit. iii. 3; Ephes. v. 8.) This is true, not only when, from the truth of the law which has in some measure been inscribed on the mind, it is preparing to form conclusions by the understanding; but likewise when, by simple apprehension, it would receive the truth of the gospel externally offered to it. For the human mind judges that to be "foolishness" which is the most excellent "wisdom" of God. (1 Cor. i. 18, 24.) On this account, what is here said must be understood not only of practical understanding and the judgment of particular approbation, but also of theoretical understanding and the judgment of general estimation.
Except that Arminius also taught "prevenient grace", by which Total Depravity is, allegedly, annulled, with respect to believing the gospel. This means that his description of man's will towards true good, is, in practice, rendered irrelevant, as regards the gospel.

Arminius re. man's will and the gospel:

Total Depravity - lip service

In Practice - Pelagian
 
Back
Top