For instance the 5 points of Calvinism, basically came as a response to the 5 points of Arminianism.
That is true of the “5 points” that are said to summarize Calvinism, but Calvinism itself, stemming from Augustine, and continuing with Calvin and Calvin's student Beza were all teachings that were around before the Remonstrance. In fact, Arminius himself wrote against many of the claims that the calvinists of his time were making – yes, Calvinists before the Synod of Dort, before the “5 points.”
If I am understanding what you are saying (maybe in not so many words) is that the 5 points of Calvinism, were actually created from a misunderstanding of the 5 points of Arminianism. Am I correct on that accessment?
What I was saying is that the statements that Pilgrim was making about Arminianism were incorrect. I am not as familiar with the Synod of Dort as Pilgrim is, and so I do not whether they themselves were right or wrong about Arminianism (though it is certainly true that they did not allow any Arminians to be part of that counsel when discussing it).
If I am correct, please show us where the writers of the 5 points of Calvinism misunderstood the 5 points of Arminianism.
Well, as I said, I am not as familiar with the original Calvinist beliefs about Arminians 400 years ago. I am more familiar with the works of Arminius and Arminians themselves.
Therefore, I will tell you at which points Pilgrim misunderstands Arminianism, and will try to support each counter-point with both modern and ancient texts.
________________________________________________________________________
From the discussion:
Claim about Arminianism #1 Knowledge (of faith) alone causes God to act in election. He has no desires or volition of His own in the matter.Claim denied:
“The freedom of the goodness of God is declared... when He communicated it only on the condition, which He has been pleased to impose.” - Arminius
“That predestination is the decree of the good pleasure of God, in Christ, by which he determined, within himself, from all eternity, to justify believers, to adopt them, and to endow them with eternal life, 'to the praise of the glory of his grace,' and even for the declaration of his justice.” - Arminius
“The decree of election, by which God determines to justify and save believers, precedes the decree concerning the bestowment of faith. For faith is unnecessary, nay it is useless, without this previous decree.” - Arminius
Remonstance: “That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Christ Jesus His Son, before the foundations of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christs's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe...”
“What seems clear is that God unconditionally (sovereignly) decreed to administer salvation conditionally... When God decreed the plan of salvation, He did so with nothing outside Himself imposing any conditional on Him. Whatever He decreed, He did so in absolute sovereignty, being under no obligations to any consideration except those reflecting His own nature.” - Robert Picirilli
I deny the first claim on the basis that Arminius, the Remonstrants, and modern Classical Arminians hold that God's election is not caused by God's knowledge, but rather comes from God's good pleasure, decrees, and determination which He set forward from His position in absolutely Sovereignty. Arminians hold that God's will and good pleasure, not His knowledge, motivates His to elect believers.
Claim about Arminianism #2 Infants are an exception to the rule that God cannot, is not able to, and is completely powerless to save those who do not have faith“...Not impelled by necessity, as if He was unable to complete his own work without the aid of the creature; but through a desire to demonstrate his manifold wisdom.” - Arminius
“That is, God has made a decree for electing only believers, and for condemning unbelievers.” - Arminius
“Whatever He decreed, He did so in absolute sovereignty, being under no obligations to any consideration except those reflecting His own nature.” - Robert Picirilli
These three statements spell out clearly that God IS able to save those without faith, but that He chooses to act according to His own wisdom. Wisdom, therefore, not a lack of power, is cited as the reason for God not saving those without faith. Similarly, God's decree (and not a lack of power) is cited as explanation for why not all are saved. And finally, it is clarified (again) that any of God's decrees do not stem from coercion, necessity, a lack of choices, or a lack of power – but rather all decrees are made from God's position of all-powerful Sovereign in the universe.
Claim about Arminianism #3 God does NOT have the power to save everyone. If He does not save everyone, it is not due to sovereign choice, but due to a lack of power. As we saw above, from Arminius, God's choice IS said to be due to sovereign choice. But I will not simply cite the same quotations again (you can simply go back and read them again if there is still any confusion about whether God's decree stemmed from a lack of power or from “absolute sovereignty). Here are some other ones:
“'[faith] is a condition prescribed and required by God...' and: 'This is the will of God, that whosoever believeth in the God hath eternal life...'” - Arminius [The reason God only saves those with faith is God's will]
“There is therefore in God no other will, by which he wills anyone to be absolutely saved without consideration of faith.” - Arminius [God does not will to save anyone without faith]
Plain English: “my God is big, so strong and so mighty, there's nothing my God cannot do.”
The condition of faith stems from God's will, God's will stems from His Sovereignty (not a lack of power). Nowhere is lack of power or ability given as a reason for which God does not save unbelievers -EVERY explanation points to the will and good pleasure of God.
Claim about Arminianism #4 Unregenerates have unfettered free-will, and are no longer considered slaves to sin."[Free will] is flexible by it's own nature, and as it is addicted to evil in it's sinful state.” - Arminius
“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.” - Arminius
The Remonstrance, in fact, speak specifically to say that born-again believers still do not have unfettered free will: “...the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and co-operating grace, can neither think, nor will, not do good, not withstanding any temptations to evil...”
“This is not absolute freedom... this freedom is therefore a limited, conditioned, 'governed' freedom.” - Robert Picirilli
“Free-will” to choose either this or that in a given situation (which Arminians hold to) is NOT the same as unfettered free-will. Free-will is still said to be limited, conditioned, governed in all cases, imprisoned destroyed and lost in the case of the unregenerate, and unable (without grace) in the case of the believer. To sum up this belief as “unfettered” would be a gross error.
Claim about Arminianism #5 Salvation itself (not faith, but justification and regeneration) is synergistic. Man accomplishes part of the process of justifying or regenerating himself.This claim is denied: “I am not conscious to myself, of having taught or entertained any other sentiments concerning the justification of man before God, than those which are held unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches, and which are in complete agreement with their expressed opinions.” - Arminius
“Salvation is wholly the gracious work of God, thus yielding no credit or merit to man. There is no room for 'synergism' (the view that God and man work together to accomplish salvation.” - Robert Picirilli
“It is God who justifies.” - Romans 8:33 [Affirmed by all Arminians]
“...that we may distinguish [faith] from Regeneration which is 'the act of God.'” - Arminius
Arminius agreed publicly with the normal reformed/protestant Christian understanding of justification – that is entirely 100% a work of God. Synergism (the term) is explicitly denied by modern Classical Arminian author Picilli. Specific works are cited to show that justification and regeneration are believed to be solely works of God – not a case of man and God working together.
Claim about Arminianism #6 Man has free-will such that God cannot know for CERTAIN what man will do at any specific point in time. “I wish that you would consider, that certainty of an event results properly from the prescience of God.” - Arminius
“[Arminius] also insisted that God's foreknowledge of man choices did not cause or make those choices necessary [but rather certain].” - Robert Picirilli
“The question is not... about the certainty of moral actions, that is, whether they will happen or not; but about the nature of them [whether contingent or necessary].” - Richard Watson
“[to distinguish] between what is done infallibly[meaning “certainly”] and what is done necessarily. The former depends on the infinity of the knowledge of God, the latter of the act of His will.” - Arminius
[This in contrast to the view of Richard Rice, who claims that decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known ever by God.]
“All things that occur are certainly foreknown by God. Every happening is certain and known as such by God from all eternity.
Everything that will happen will happen; and if I add 'certainly' to the statement – 'everything that will happen will certainly happen' – I have added nothing. The so-called 'certainty' of an event means nothing more than it's 'eventness,' the simple face that it will occur – and God knows it will.
The free acts of a morally responsible persons are contingent (as opposed to necessary). A contingency is anything that really can take place in more than one way. This freedom to choose does not contradict certainty. Certainty relates to the 'factness' of an event, to whether it will be or not; contingency relates to its nature as free or necessary. The same event can be both certain and contingent at the same time.
Events that can transpire in just one way, that must inevitably be the way they are, is said to be necessary. For such events there were causes leading to the event that allowed no freedom of choice, causes that necessarily produced the event...
An event can be certain without being necessary: 'Shall be' (certainty) is not the same as 'must be' (necessary). Some events are 'necessary'; that is, they are inevitable cause by a prior influence. Others are 'contingent;' that is, they are free, capable of more than one possibility depending on an unforced choice. Both kinds are equally certain, as known to God.” - Robert Picirilli
It's hard to wrap ones mind around, but Arminus believes that facts (which are certain, by definition) can be either necessary or contingent. If a fact can be contingent, then it (being a fact) is still certain and known by God from outside of time.
All facts are certain; all facts are known by God; it does not matter whether the fact is necessary or contingent in this case – insomuch as a fact has 'factness' it has 'certainty' and will infallibly happen in (from our viewpoint) the past, present, or future. To God, the future is full of facts just like the past is.
