From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: 5 points of Arminius
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:08:17 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

I've seen it said (on talk.religion.misc) that Calvin's 5 points were
constructed in response to 5 points proposed in Arminian theology.  What
are these 5 points of Arminian thought?

  -- Scott @Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
					 who need no repentance." 
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]

[They're not Calvin's.  The five points are based on the second
generation at Geneva: Beza rather than Calvin.  Arminius actually
studied under Beza.  Some Dutch theologians objected to Beza's ideas.
Because Arminius had studied under Beza, there was an attempt to get
him to write a defense of Beza's views.  He found that he couldn't.
(This is not necessarily the beginning of the disagreements though.
Even when he was studying in Geneva, there were tensions with Beza,
though not necessarily over these issues.)  Over time, Arminius came
to be one of the best-known champions of the Dutch opponents of Beza.
But he certainly didn't originate the views.  Note by the way that all
of the people involved in the discussions considered themselves
Calvinists in one way or another.  From the comments in "The History
and Character of Calvinism", I get the impression that the actual
formulation of the 5 points is after Arminius' time, though certainly
their substance was present from the beginning of the debates.  After
Arminius' death, his follower Simon Episcopius wrote the
/Remonstance/.  It can be summarized as the 5 points of Arminianism:

 the eternal decree of salvation refers to those who shall believe
	and persevere in the faith
 that Christ died for all men, though believers only are benefitted
 that man can do nothing truly good until he is born again through
	the Holy Spirit
 that grace is not irresistible
 that the faithfrul are assisted byh grace in temptation and are kept
	from falling if they desire Christ's help and are "not inactive"

The Synod of Dort formulated a response.  The five points can be
found there:

 that election if founded on God's purpose "before the foundation
	of the world"
 that the efficacy of Christ's atonement extends to the elect only
 that the Fall has left man in a state of corruption and helplessness; his 
	gleams of natural light are of no value for salvation
 that regeneration is an inward renewal of the soul and of the will and is
	wholly a work of God
 that God so preserves the elect that despite their sins, they do not 
	finally fall away from grace

That is: uncondiational election, limited atonement, total depravity,
irresistible grace, and the perseverence of the saints.  I don't know
when this precise list of 5 terms was first formulated.

The following probably contains more than you ever wants to know
about Arminius:

The following summary is based on Carl Bangs, "Arminius: A Study in
the Dutch Reformation".  Quotations are from pp. 338-343.  They are in
turn quoted from Arminius, except in one case what Bangs is speaking.

Arminius' intent was to be consistent with both the Reformed
confessions and the Church Fathers.

Original sin (a term which he almost never used) was the result of
Adam's sin.  As a result, mankind was deprived of the perfection which
would have allowed us to remain righteous.  He saw original sin
primarily as a deprivation, i.e. as an absence of something that would
have been necessary to give us the ability to be righteous.

We still have free will of a sort, but not one that does us any good
for salvation.  It's free in the sense that it is still capable of
making choices.  But without the righteousness that is missing, it is
unable to accomplish any spiritual good.  "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 whatsoever except such as are
excited by divine grace."  That is, his free will is in bondage to
sin.  Arminius quotes from Bernard: "Take away free will, and nothing
will be left to save.  Take away grace, and nothing will be left as
the source of salvation.  This work cannot be effected without two
parties -- one, from whom it may come; the other, to whom or in whom
is may be wrought.  God is the author of salvation.  Free will only is
capable of being saved."

He talks of grace and free will cooperating.  But the cooperation is a
result of renewal by grace.  Cooperation has sometimes been used to
imply that the fall is not complete, and thus that man can still
contribute something to his salvation.  Arminius uses the term to
refer to a response, which can exist only because of grace.  He seems
to use the term because he does not want to refer salvation either
entirely to grace or entirely to man.  He does not want to refer it
entirely to grace, because it requires our response.  God deals with
us as people, not as an irresible force.  Bangs summarizes: "Man in
sin is unable to exercise his will to do any good at all except he be
regenerated and continually aided by grace.  The grace of God is a
gratuitous affection, infusion of the gifts of the Spirit, and
perpetual assistance which is "the commencement, the continuance, and
the consummation of all good," but it is not an "irresistible force"".
[p 313]

He believes that grace can be resisted.  "Whomsoever God calls, he
calls them seriously, with a will desirous of their repentance and
salvation."  Thus God does not predestine some to destruction.  "The
whole controversy reduces itself to this question, 'Is the grace of
God a certain irresistible force?' ... I believe that many persons
resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered." Bangs
comments "For him grace is not a force; it is a Person, the Holy
Spiit, and in personal relationships there cannot be the sheer
overpowering of one person by another."

I believe this position is roughly similar to that of modern
evangelicals and also to the treatments by Orange and Trent.

For more information, I refer you to Bangs' book.  For a more
general history of Calvinish, I refer you to John McNeill's
"The History and Characaer of Calvinism."

--clh]