Jacob Arminius at the outset of establishing his theology on salvation made it clear first by zeroing in on the decrees of God which he distinguished in four logical pronouncements. The first three of these decrees set forth the general divine intention to appoint Christ as the mediator of salvation to fallen mankind and the fourth decree refers to particular persons and rests on the prescience and foresight/foreknowledge of God by which he foreknew, from all eternity, who would believe by the aid of prevenient grace and would persevere by the aid of subsequent grace; and who would not believe and persevere.[1]
Arminius underscored that man being under the wrath of God is able to instigate salvation but only after God had granted him the primary grace to enable his will to oblige with God.[2]
He believed that the grace sufficient for salvation is conferred both on the elect, and on the non-elect, and that their response on that grace will determine if they may be saved or not.[3] Arminius believes that God elects to salvation, on the basis of the foreknowledge of God on the response of the person, all those who have come to belief. The human choice to believe precedes the divine choice to save individuals.[4] Arminius’ understanding is that there is a prior general divine determination for the salvation of mankind and to provide sufficient means to this end and he assumes that based on God’s foreknowledge of human response to grace, he elects or rejects people to salvation.
Arminius nullifies the idea of predestination as the decree of God choosing certain people to eternal life, and others to everlasting destruction purely out of his good pleasure instead, he believed that predestination is an eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which he determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with eternal life, but to condemn unbelievers and impenitent persons.[5] Salvation and the giving of faith to particular persons do not exclude anybody. For him, predestination is primarily of Jesus Christ to be the Savior of sinners.[6] He insists that predestination must be understood "in Christ". In his Declaration of Sentiments of 1608, he sets forth his predestination theory in terms of four decrees. These contain the familiar "Arminian" ingredient of foreseen faith, but it is significant that the first of the decrees has to do neither with faith nor foreknowledge and is not "conditional." Rather, Jesus Christ is the object of this absolute decree.[7] Thus, Christ was appointed as the Mediator and there is no predetermination that only some will be saved for the number of the elect in Christ is open and indefinite. Thus, there is no place for the idea of an explicit number of elect for election is based on the foreknowledge of God of how humans treat his offer of saving grace.
By election, Arminius meant that it is a decree by which God resolves to justify believers and to condemn unbelievers, which is the purpose of God according to election. He believed in the election of classes: election unto salvation and election unto damnation. If God was going to predestinate, it would be in the way of class or group predestination rather than individual election. God would choose the class and man would decide his own free participation in that class of believers.[8] The foreknowledge then of God is on the response of the person to whom the gospel is presented thus man’s free will is accounted for in the process.
Arminius did not deny the doctrine of election but he insisted that it is conditional since that it should be understood as divine foreknowledge of what individuals would freely do with the liberty given to them.[9] God knows in advance who will and who will not believe (Rom. 8:29).
Arminius asserts that the saving effects of Christ’s death and resurrection are limited to the elect in the following sense: salvation extends only to those who freely choose to believe. The limited effect does not imply that he died for some and not for others; Christ died to atone for all the sins of humanity. But salvation is limited for those who believe and does not include those who reject Christ. To be damned is to reject God’s salvation. Thus, salvation becomes sufficient for all yet only efficient to those who are elected to salvation.[10]
Arminius believed that grace is resistible and that many even in Scripture resisted the grace of God. But how can salvation be “all of grace” if humans are free to either accept or reject it? Arminius answered this question with prevenient grace”, grace that goes before salvation. God is always courting his creation, extending grace and love to everyone. So long as one does not resist this prevenient grace but allows it to work, it becomes justifying grace. That change is “conversion” and is not good work but simple acceptance.
The human will liberated by prevenient grace must cooperate by accepting the need of salvation and allowing God to give the gift of faith. God will not impose it. Neither can the sinner earn it. It can only be freely accepted, but even the ability to accept is made possible by grace.[11] Since God knows everything, God knows who will accept grace and who will turn it down. In that sense salvation and damnation are predestined. Along this line, Arminius denied what Calvin had affirmed: That God determines who will accept grace and who will refuse it.[12] Arminius believed that true believers necessarily do persevere unto the end. Christians are kept by the power of God through faith- an uncompromised and persevering faith that kept him eternally.[13]
[1] Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991), 162-163.
[2] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, A History of the Christian Church, Third Edition, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House,1996), 317.
[3] James Nichols, translator, The Works of James Arminius, Volume 2, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1986), 53.
[4] David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz editors, The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 139.
[5] Roger E. Olsen, Arminian Theology Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2006), 181.
[6] Roger E. Olsen, 184.
[7] Bangs, Carl, Arminius and the Reformation, ATLA Religion Database 184. Church History 30 no 2 Je 1961, p 155-170
[8] Charles A. Mcllhenny, “Case of Professor James Arminius and the Synod of Dort”, Reformed Theological Journal v.18 (year): 79.
[9] Earle E. Cairns, 317.
[10] Earle E. Cairns, 317.
[11] Roger E. Olsen and Adam C. English, Pocket History of Theology, (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press , 2005), 83-84.
[12] William C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction, (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1993), 226.
[13] Reformed Theological Journal v.18, McIlhenny, Charles A. Case of professor James Arminius and the synod of dort 85.
No comments:
Post a Comment