Non-Debate thread on Reformation History

[Anto9us]

My aquaintance with Arminianism for 45 years has been nearly exclusively limited to the writings of Wesley or Arminius himself, with the exception of one book by modern Arminian author Robert Shank.

I have only recently discovered Roger Olson as an Arminian author, go to his blogs but have not obtained any of his books -- ironically Olson is a professor at Truett Seminary at Baylor University in my hometown, and goes to a General Baptist church across the street from the Methodist church that I grew up in. General Baptist Convention as opposed to Southern Baptist Convention.

Early Baptists were divided between General Baptists (Arminians) and Particular Baptists (Calvinists, ones who came over on the Mayflower)

 

[Anto9us]

Arminius made a trip to Rome as a student. Of course later his theological opponents would use this against him -- accuse him of "kissing the Pope's slipper" -- when in reality he only saw th ePope from a distance.

 

[Anto9us]

Since I have considered myself Arminian for decades, reading only Arminius himself, Wesley, and the one book by Shank -- I now get to look forward to what modern authors say Arminius said -- and I hope it won't be too much different from I think Arminius said.

Arminianism does not take a super firm position on the issue of Once Saved Always saved vs Once Save NOT Always Saved; but to paraphrase Arminius crudely -- It is not possible for a believer TO FALL FROM GRACE, BUT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO cease being a believer. bOTH wESLEY AND aRMINIUS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE possibility OF A PERSON rejecting faith, Arminians as a whole are divided on the issue.

 

[zippy2006]

I should note that middle knowledge allows a type of predestination that goes beyond foreknowledge. It allows God to determine what is going to happen without violating free will. What I haven't been able to tell is whether Arminius thought that's actually the way God worked. This article suggests that he comes very close: http://evangelicalarminians.org/arminius-on-middle-knowledge/. It's possible that when people say Arminius based predestination on foreknowledge, what they actually mean is middle knowledge. The difference is significant, because if it's just foreknowledge then God isn't responsible for the overall path of history, whereas if it's middle knowledge, he is.

That was precisely the point of my question, but it seems that the answer is unclear.

Foreknowledge is technically insufficient for predestination. Like you say, the difference is significant.

 

[Anto9us]

Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism -- these theologies, IMO, make things way more complicated than is needed.

I can remember Senator Sam Irvin in the Watergate hearings asking "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

Theologians seem to me to try to climb back into the mind of God in Eternity past, asking "What did God know and when did He know it?"

Elaborate sets of DECREES that God supposedly gave are laid down by Calvin and/or his followers and by Arminius. To me the first primordial DECREE that God gave was "Let there be light". But regardless of how allegorical and metaphorical, OR how literal -- were the creation accounts in Genesis -- we deduce that there were some things in creation that happened before the Genesis accounts.

Angels were created and already exist before our creation accounts. Satan was created, and fell. Some of the angels fell and sided with Satan.

The ancient church simply repudiated Pelagius and his idea that "man could save himself" but they also rejected the Double Predestination of Augustine -- that God, sitting there in Eternity past, decreed that person X would be forever saved, regardless of what he came to think, believe or do; and that person Y would be forever damned/reprobated, regardless of what he came to think, belive or do.

That 'absolute decree to eternal reprobation with no regard whatsoever for what a person did, thought or believed' is an idea about God that I find intensely repugnant. I reject it - the ancient church rejected it - Arminius rejected it. So I call myself an Arminian, though I cannot claim to understand every little thing taught in Calvinism or Arminianism.

The BIG DEAL is that to me God does not arbitrarily doom a person to hell or arbitrarily destine them for heaven.

The Reformation brought all this up again after a thousand years because Calvin brought out Augustine's double predestination, long ago rejected by the ancient church.

Other things in Arminius' writings on chapter seven of Romans confirmed to me answers to things I had long been uncomfortable about and wondered about. How could Paul - 'brought up at the feet of Gamaliel' - say autobiographically of himself that he was 'alive without the law once'?

Well Arminius explained that Paul was NOT speaking autobiographically in Romans 7, but hypothetically putting himself in the position of an unregenerate man.

This and other statements by Arminius in his commentary on Romans 7 and Romans 9 blew out of the water for me this 'O wretched man that I am" theology where even the apostle Paul, saved and saving others, starting churches and overseeing them, remains in a state where 'the good he would he is unable to do'.

So now as I just now begin to read modern Arminian authors and sometimes think "where did they get THAT out of what Arminius wrote?" -- I fear I will see that more and more, the more I read of the modern Arminians.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luther wrote early on on BONDAGE OF THE WILL, not affirming a free will, I think he initially pled for a REAL PRESENCE in eucharist; I dunno if he changed his mind slightly over time on both these subjects.

Luther was a sacramental realist, similar to Catholics. As are Lutherans today. That's why there was so much disagreement with Zwingli at Marburg in 1529. The dispute was simply an outgrowth of differences that were already emerging between the two traditions.

 

[Anto9us]

Did Zwingli think the eucharist was just symbolic?

 

[FireDragon76]

Did Zwingli think the eucharist was just symbolic?

Yes.

 

[FireDragon76]

Other things in Arminius' writings on chapter seven of Romans confirmed to me answers to things I had long been uncomfortable about and wondered about. How could Paul - 'brought up at the feet of Gamaliel' - say autobiographically of himself that he was 'alive without the law once'?

Well Arminius explained that Paul was NOT speaking autobiographically in Romans 7, but hypothetically putting himself in the position of an unregenerate man.

A Lutheran would understand it as autobiographical. That is possible because we don't see an inherent problem in recognizing that a Christian, though justified by faith, is still a sinner.

This and other statements by Arminius in his commentary on Romans 7 and Romans 9 blew out of the water for me this 'O wretched man that I am" theology where even the apostle Paul, saved and saving others, starting churches and overseeing them, remains in a state where 'the good he would he is unable to do'.

Paul is exposing the dialectic between sin and grace. He's being unusually introspective, perhaps, in a way that would be hard for some American evangelicals to understand, but it's part of his larger argument against legalism.

 

[Anto9us]

Where Paul's statements against legalism are confusing to me is that his main opponents were Judaizers and he speaks much about a Christian being set free from OT Law and now under the law of Christ Jesus that has set us free from the Law of Sin and Death.

we don't see an inherent problem in recognizing that a Christian, though justified by faith, is still a sinner.

well, I agree with that

I just don't see how it is autobiographical for Paul to speak of himself when he says "I was alive without the Law once" when he also speaks of being "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel", iow brought up under the Law.

In certain passages of Romans I think Paul speaks metaphorically about being an unregenerate man.

As far as history about the Reformation -- much politics was going on at the time -- I understand that Zwingli was involved in actual warfare and died with sword in hand on the battlefield. Luther and Calvin and Melancthon would never be involved in that sort of thing, imo.