Arminius departed from the Reformed faith on a number of important points. After Arminius's death, forty-three of his ministerial followers drafted and presented their views to the States General of the Netherlands on five of these points in the Remonstrance of 1610.
The “Remonstrants,” taught
(1) election based on foreseen faith,
(2) the universal merits of Christ,
(3) the free will of man due to only partial depravity,
(4) the resistibility of grace, and
(5) the possibility of a lapse from grace
Canons-of-Dort-with-Intro.pdf
Yep.
Yes, the
Five Article of Remonstrance are different than TULIP.
But.... the Remonstrance intentionally appeals to the differences and neglects the common ground. As Disputation 11 proves, Arminius was all in with Total Depravity, but no one would fathom that simply by reading Article 3 of the Remonstrance. If the word "unless" and everything after it were left out then Article 3 and the "T" in TULIP agree wholly. Furthermore, when prevenient grace is taken in its "generic" form (God acting to prepare the individual for salvation), there is no disagreement. It is only when they explain the
specific prevenient grace (which is not disclosed in the Articles of Remonstrance) does the fact and difference come out. I sometimes wonder if the Remonstrance is honest.
But.... Calvin would agree with three of the five
as written. It is only AFTER the words are defined by the Arminian do we find common language is used differently. The Calvinists believes election is based on foreseen faith because God gave the sinner his/her faith. The two are not sequentially conditional and point 1 of the Remonstrance does not explicitly state the conditional nature (or the potential problem of a compromised omniscience). The "devil" is in what is NOT stated. For example, in
Philip Schaff's commentary of the Remonstrance, we read Article 1 of the Remonstrance to say,
"Conditional Predestination.—God has immutably decreed, from eternity, to save those men who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus Christ, and by the same grace persevere in the obedience of faith to the end; and, on the other hand, to condemn the unbelievers and unconverted (John iii. 36).
Election and condemnation are thus conditioned by foreknowledge, and made dependent on the foreseen faith or unbelief of men."
The Calvinist will agree...
- God has immutably decreed from eternity to save those who by the grace of God's Spirit believe in Jesus soteriologically.
- God has likewise immutably decreed by the same grace perseverance in the obedience of the faith to the end.
- God has likewise immutably decreed to condemn unbelievers and unconverted.
- Election and condemnation are [both] thus conditioned by foreknowledge.
- Election and condemnation are [both] thus conditioned on the foreseen faith or unbelief of [the dead and enslaved sinner].
As written, we'd agree. The problem arises when the Arminian explains what he means. The same condition exists in TULIP. The concepts in TULIP do not mean what they actually state in the ordinary usage of the words. First, the are ALL (with the possible exception of the "T") intended to be read as God-centric, not human-centric, or sinner-centric. The "I" of Irresistible Grace does OT mean a finite sinful human can resist the grace of the Infinite Almighty God. It means, instead, God's grace accomplishes what God purposes it to accomplish. That is a point with which Arminius and most Arminians could agree
as written. Of course God's grace accomplishes what He intends and purposes it to accomplish. If He did not accomplish His purpose, then that would be a failure and the sovereign almighty infinite Creator does not and cannot fail. The question is does He purpose His grace to save a person....... apart from that sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's sinfully dead and enslaved will?
No.
The will is irrelevant.
It's worth noting that the Remonstrance never actually explicitly mentions the will of the sinner
.
I won't deconstruct the entire Remonstrance (unless asked). Once the fact volition is irrelevant is grasped then the faults in synergism become increasingly obvious, or if not obvious then recognizable with a modicum of critical reasoning. There will prove to be a host of voids in scripture and a growing list of eisegetic inferences, all of which serve in evidence to prove the faultiness of Arminianism (and the more volitional soteriologies).
Btw, for those with an interest, the
works of Arminius can be found at CCEL, especially the aforementioned
Disputation 11. It's a great resource.
