DOCSLIB.ORG

The Christological Problem in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Christological Problem in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius THE CHRISTOLOGICAL PROBLEM IN THE THOUGHT OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS by RICHARD A. MULLER Pasadena,CA Virtually all discussions of the theology of Jacobus Arminius (1559- 1609) have viewed his theology retrospectively in the light of the Remonstrance of 1610 and of the debate over the ordo salutis which ultimately led to the Synod of Dort'. That there is a validity both historical and theological in this approach is undeniable, but the approach is clearly problematic when the topics of the Remonstrance, the Contra-Remonstrance and the Canons of Dort are used restrictively as a grid through which to determine the essential elements of the theology of Arminius himself. In short, Arminius ought not to be viewed simply as a Reformed theologian who departed from the early Reformed orthodoxy of his teachers over the primary issue of predestination and its relation to the ordo salutis and who produced no important variations of doctrine in the other theological loci". 1 Cf. Gerard Brandt, TheHistory of theReformation and otherEcclesiastical Transactions in and about theLow Countries: from the Beginning of theEighth Century, down to theFamous Synod of Dort, 4 vols. (London, 1720-23;repr. New York: AMS Press, 1979), vol. 2, pp. 25-55, where Arminius theologyis presentedvirtually entirely in terms of the debate over predestination. This approach is typicalalso of the biographiesof Arminius: e.g., Petrus Bertius, De vitaet obitu...D. lacobi Arminii oratio,in Jacobus Arminius, Operatheologica (Leiden, 1629),fol. i-iv; Caspar Brandt, Historiavitae Jacobi Arminii(Amsterdam, 1724); Carl Bangs,Arminius: A Study in the DutchReformation (Nashville, 1971). Despite his recognitionof the importance of the doctrine of God to the developmentof Arminius' thought and despite his careful analysisof the chronologyof Arminius' theologicaldebates, Bangs elaborates theologicallyonly on Arminius' doctrinesof thechurch, sin, free will and grace, synergism,the order of salvation and predestination-with no discussionof other central issuessuch as Christology,the doc- trine of Godand the workof Christin the two statesand threefoldoffice (cf. pp. 253 332-55). A similar situation obtains in theologicalstudies of Arminianismlike A. W. Harrison, The Beginningsof Arminianismto the Synodof Dort(London, 1926); idem., Arminianism(London, 1937);and Howard Slaatte, TheArminianArm of Theology(Washington, D.C., 1979);and also in the standard historiesof Protestant theology:cf. I.A. Dorner, Historyof ProtestantTheology, trs. GeorgeRobson and SophiaTaylor, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1871),vol. 1, pp. 417-426;Otto Ritschl, DogmengeschichteProtestantismus, des 4 vols. (Leipzigand Göttingen, 1908-27),vol. 3, pp. 314-39;Hans Emil Weber, Reformation,Orthodoxie und Rationalismus (Gütersloh, 1937-51; repr. Darmstadt, 1966),vol. 2, p. 98-110.The soleexception known to me is Dorner's brief commenton the problemof Arminius' conceptsof Trinity and Atonementin History,I, pp. 423-24. G.J. Hoenderdaal, "Arminius, Jacobus," s.v. in TRE supplies excellent bibliographicalresources but is all too brief in its survey of doctrine. 2 Cf. Richard A. Muller, "The Federal Motif in Seventeenth Century Arminian 146 The early orthodox system and the confessional basis of Reformed theology had been so fully developed by the time of Arminius' tenure at Leiden that a variation of doctrine in one part of the system implied a fairly massive alteration of other interrelated doctrinal topics. The Armi- nian position represents a systematic alternative to the Reformed. To view it as anything less is to do it considerable injustice 3. In calling for this new perspective on Arminius' theology, we encounter a major methodological problem: Arminius tells us virtually nothing of the positive sources of his views. When he differs with the positions of his Reformed teachers, the theological antecedents of his views can, at best, only be surmised on the basis of doctrinal similarities. The attempt to ascertain some of these sources is crucial, however, once it is recognized that the usual interpretation of Arminius' thought as generated entirely in reaction to the surpralapsarianism of a "Bezan orthodoxy" is untenable. Not only is this thesis incapable of explaining Arminius' departures from the paradigm of Reformed orthodoxy on topics other than predestination, such as the highly important topic of Christology, it is also based on a misunderstanding of Arminus' education in theology in Leiden and Geneva and cannot explain even the predestinarian side of Arminius' thought 4. Theology,"in Nederlands Archief Kerkgeschiedenis,voor 62/1 (1982),pp. 102-122.The editors of NAK have graciouslyallowed me to providea list of errata for "The FederalMotif": they are as follows:p. 104, 11. 3, 14, religioaltera; p. 104, n. 7, promissionesMosaicœ; p. 107, 1. 4, facientibusquod...; p. 109, 11. 17-18, "Nihil enim in tota theologiaest, quod non dirigitur in actionem"; p. 113, 1. 7-8, foedusMosaicum; p. 114, 1. 20, lex Mosaica;p. 115, 1. 3 from below,praecepta novifoederis; p. 118, 11. 17-18,idem; p. 119, 1. 13, idem; p. 121, 1. 5 from below, lex primaeva. 3 Ibid., pp. 102-3, 121-22. 4 Cf. Bangs,Arminius, pp. 68-80, 139-41.Although Bangs' arguments represent a major revision of Bertius' account of the origins of Arminius' views, particularlyconcerning the role playedby pre-CalvinisticDutch theologyand by the controversialposition held by Dirck Coornhert, Banga nonetheless retains the assumption, based on Bertius' account, that Arminius' own theology stands opposed primarily to the Bezan, supralapsarian view of predestination:cf. Bertius, De vita et obitu, p. iii verso. I have argued elsewherethat the Reformed doctrine of predestinationdeveloped in the sixteenthcentury not as a "central dogma" but as part of an interrelatedset of doctrinal interests,and that the developingpat- terns of Christologyin fact influencedthe language of predestination.This essaycarries for- ward a similar point with respect to Arminius' theology-but at the same time recognizes a further need to examine in the detail other lociin Arminius' theologyfor their impact on and relation to his teaching on predestination. Concerning the Reformed development,see Richard A. Muller, Christand the Decree: Christology and Predestinationin Reformed Theology from Calvinto Perkins(Durham, N.C., 1986)and idem., "Perkins' A GoldenChaine: Predestinarian Systemor SchematizedOrdo Salutis?" in The SixteenthCentury Journal,IX/1 (1978),pp. 69-81. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wesleyan Beliefs
    WESLEYAN BELIEFS Formal and Popular Expressions of the Core Beliefs of Wesleyan Communities Ted A. Campbell £201O An Imprint ofAbingdon Press ~J KINGSWOOD~Tç4~/1~, Tennessee BOOKS ~thodist CHAPTER 2 rted the ~tions to I ils, as he JOHN WESLEY’S CLAIMS since been ABOUT DISTINCTIVELY ns we if you METHODIST BELIEFS aptiSt rdinal ~,the of the -‘ there InnS of ~JNTRODUCTION - The previous chapter began to describe the core beliefs of listinctive ~Wes1eyan communities in the works of John Wesley by asking justifica ~:about his understanding of common Christian faith, examining in ~ted to the v-particular his understanding of common “essential” or “fundamen mess. The ~ tal” Christian beliefs affirmed in the Methodist movement. I turn in Wesleyan ~this chapter to consider John Wesley’s claims about distinctive y. The next I ~. beliefs of the Methodist movement. As noted above, we have to dis a Wesley’s :tinguish, in the context of the eighteenth century, between the S. Wesleyan movement, the movement led by John and Charles ;~:Wesley,1 and the broader Evangelical or “Methodist” movement that denoted the Evangelical revival including Calvinistic preachers and leaders as well as the Wesleys.2 The distinctive teachings of the - or Evangelical movement in the eighteenth century i:focused around the Christian’s pilgrimage from sin to salvation, the ~ pilgrimage described in the Reformed tradition as the ordo salutis, ~. the “order of salvation,” and which John Wesley preferred to call ~“the way of salvation” or “the way to heaven.”3 But as we shall see :in this chapter, there were some other critical nuances to distinctly ~Methodist and Wesleyan teachings that will also be considered here, namely, a distinctive emphasis on religious experience (“per ;ceptible inspiration”) as a grounds for claims about the religious ~e, and the teaching of entire sanctification as a very distinctive I::ma~ of the Wesleyan branch of the Evangelical movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Biblical Trinity Doctrine and Christology Translation of L
    Ludwig Neidhart: Biblical Trinity Doctrine and Christology translation of L. Neidhart, Biblische Trinitätslehre und Christologie, published on http://catholic-church.org/ao/ps/Trinitaet.html, 2017, translated by the author, published online on http://catholic-church.org/ao/ps/downloads/TrinityChristology.pdf, 2017, © Dr. Ludwig Neidhart, Hannover 1990 (original German Version), © Dr. Ludwig Neidhart, Augsburg 2017 (extended German Version and English translation, both issued on September 15, 2017) Contents: 1. Unity in Essence and Personal Distinction between Father and Son.......................................................3 2. The Unity in Essence between the Father and the Son: Ten Biblical Arguments...................................8 3. The Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost...................................................................................................................18 4. The Triune God...........................................................................................................................................21 5. Trinity and Incarnation..............................................................................................................................29 6. Development of the Doctrine of Trinity and Incarnation.......................................................................31 7. Summary and Graphic Presentation of the Concepts of Trinity and Incarnation...............................48 8. Discussion: Is the Son subordinated to the Father?................................................................................50
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    TULIP: A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE PART 1: TOTAL DEPRAVITY ANTHONY B. BADGER Associate Professor of Bible and Theology Grace Evangelical School of Theology Lancaster, Pennsylvania I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of doctrine due to continued hybridization has pro- duced a myriad of theological persuasions. The only way to purify our- selves from the possible defects of such “theological genetics” is, first, to recognize that we have them and then, as much as possible, to set them aside and disassociate ourselves from the systems which have come to dominate our thinking. In other words, we should simply strive for truth and an objective understanding of biblical teaching. This series of articles is intended to do just that. We will carefully consider the truth claims of both Calvinists and Arminians and arrive at some conclusions that may not suit either.1 Our purpose here is not to defend a system, but to understand the truth. The conflicting “isms” in this study (Calvinism and Arminianism) are often considered “sacred cows” and, as a result, seem to be solidified and in need of defense. They have become impediments in the search for truth and “barriers to learn- ing.” Perhaps the emphatic dogmatism and defense of the paradoxical views of Calvinism and Arminianism have impeded the theological search for truth much more than we realize. Bauman reflects, I doubt that theology, as God sees it, entails unresolvable paradox. That is another way of saying that any theology that sees it [paradox] or includes it is mistaken. If God does not see theological endeavor as innately or irremediably paradoxical, 1 For this reason the author declines to be called a Calvinist, a moderate Calvinist, an Arminian, an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Pelagian, or a Semi- Pelagian.
    [Show full text]
  • Christian Theologians Views on the Doctrine of Trinity in the Islamic Philosophical Criticism
    International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 2017, Vol. 7, Special Issue – Islam and Contemporary Issues) ISSN: 2222-6990 Christian Theologians Views on the Doctrine of Trinity in the Islamic Philosophical Criticism Mohammad Nashief S. Disomimbaa, Kalsom Alib, Abdussalam s. Disomimbac a Akidah and Religion Program, Faculty of Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia. bDa῾wah and Islamic Management Program, Faculty of Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia. cKing Faisal Center for Asian and Arabic Studies, Mindanao State University, Philippines DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i13/3195 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i13/3195 ABSTRACT This article discusses the views of Christian theologians on the doctrine of trinity in the light of Islamic philosophical criticism. It focuses the oneness of God through Islamic philosophical criticism, understanding the proofs and evidences of Christian theologians based on their Holy Bible, Athanasius Creed and Nicene Creed. The tendency of giving priority of this study is to show the views of Christian theologians on the doctrine of trinity with Islamic philosophical criticism in order to justify and confirm the oneness of God. The objectives of the study is to identify and trace the historical background of the oneness of God as Creator, to confirm that Jesus Christ is not God and creator, to confirm that God is not three persons and the three persons is not same substance and nature of the Son and Holy Spirit, to analyze and summarize the views of the Christian theologians on the doctrine of Trinity with Islamic philosophical criticism.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism Vs Wesleyan Arminianism
    The Comparison of Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism by Carl L. Possehl Membership Class Resource B.S., Upper Iowa University, 1968 M.C.M., Olivet Nazarene University, 1991 Pastor, Plantation Wesleyan Church 10/95 Edition When we start to investigate the difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism, the question must be asked: "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Many Christians answer the question with these Scriptures: (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) JOH 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV) We believe that "whoever" means "any person, and ...that any person can believe, by the assisting Spirit of God." (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) 1Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, (4) who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (NIV) 2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (NIV) REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (NIV) (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
    [Show full text]
  • REFLECTIONS on the DOCTRINE of the TRINITY Faith in the Living
    REFLECTIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY RAOUL DEDEREN Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan Faith in the living God has been rejected time and again by the ignorant and the indifferent, as well as by many of the learned and the thoughtful. It has been especially chal- lenged today. Such theologians as Bishop John A. T. Robinson of Woolwich, honestly seeking to be Honest to God, urge Christians to abandon most of the phrasing which historically has been used to convey Christian thought. Similarly, the late Bishop James A. Pike of California dismisses many traditional doctrines as old bottles which will inevitably burst and whose bursting should occasion no regrets. In this kind of context many men, even ministers, feel uneasy when they think about the Trinity. The question before us is whether it is time to renounce a doctrine which, by affirming that there are three persons in God, seems to have produced confusion rather than clarification, or whether it was designed to embody values that are a vital and necessary part of the Christian faith. From the days of Arius it has been a chosen scheme with his disciples to represent the doctrine of the Trinity as an artificial theological construct, and consequently unimportant. To a large number of Christians, however, it is a doctrine fundament4 to Christianity since it deals with a correct knowledge of God. Related to the divine Being, his nature and mode of being, this knowledge affects every man's understanding of God as the object of his worship, whether he regards him as one in essence and one in person, or admits that in the unity of the Deity there are three equally divine persons.
    [Show full text]
  • Wesleys Trinitarian Ordo Salutis
    JOURNAL A Quarterly for Church Renewal VOLUME 14 . NUMBER 4 . 2005 Wesleys Trinitarian Ordo Salutis Corrie M. Aukema Cieslukowski Elmer M. Colyer INTRODUCTION .If)ne of the curious facts evident to anyone who spends ~ even a brief amount of time examining the secondary lit­ erature on John Wesley (the founder of Methodism) and his theology is how little has been written on Wesley's doctrine of the Trinity, save for a spate of recent articles.} Indeed, there is scant discussion of the Trinity in many books devoted to Wes­ ley's theology. This dearth of attention to the Trinity is especially clear in the area of Wesley's soteriology, his understanding of the ordo salutis (order of salvation). A classic example of this is The Scripture Way of Salvation: The Heart of John Wesley's Theology, a significant work by one of the premier contemporary experts on Wesley's theology.2 There is no chapter, and not even a subsection of a chapter, that deals with the Trinitarian deep­ structure of Wesley's understanding of salvation.3 In fact, there is no reference to the Trinity in the index and hardly any mention of the Trinity anywhere in the book despite the fact that Wesley understood the ordo in Trinitarian terms. Another example is Randy Maddox's book, Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology.4 Maddox's study is out­ standing, possibly the best summary of Wesley's theology to WESLEY'S TRINITARIAN ORDO SALUTIS 107 106 WESLEY'S TRINITARIAN ORDO SALUTIS THE TRADITIONAL READING come into print in the past twenty years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trinity and the Freedom of God
    Journal for Christian Theological Research Volume 8 Article 1 2003 The rT inity and the Freedom of God Paul D. Molnar St. John's University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/jctr Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Molnar, Paul D. (2003) "The rT inity and the Freedom of God," Journal for Christian Theological Research: Vol. 8 , Article 1. Available at: http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/jctr/vol8/iss2003/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal for Christian Theological Research by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal for Christian Theological Research 8 (2003) 59–66 The Trinity and the Freedom of God Paul D. Molnar St. John’s University A contemporary doctrine of the immanent Trinity is essential for recognizing, upholding and respecting divine freedom as the basis of relevant theological activity and genuine human freedom. In this article I contend that divine freedom will be recognized and respected only if and to the extent that such recognition is grounded in God’s actual freedom for us exercised in the history of Jesus Christ and through the action of his Holy Spirit.¹ Hearing this thesis in a vacuum one could perhaps wonder why anyone would bother to say this at all since most contemporary theologians would agree with this thesis, at least formally. But this thesis is in fact loaded because, while most Christian theologians would agree that a doctrine of the immanent Trinity should help us recognize, uphold and respect God’s freedom as the basis, meaning and goal of human freedom, very many contemporary theologians tend to read back their experiences and concepts into God instead of allowing God the eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit to defi ne the content of those concepts and experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesus and Salvation: an Essay in Interpretation
    Theological Studies 55 (1994) JESUS AND SALVATION: AN ESSAY IN INTERPRETATION ROGER HAIGHT, S.J. Weston School of Theology HE CONCEPT of salvation is central to Christianity. From a historical T perspective, the experience of Jesus as savior is the basis from which the Christian movement sprang. This religion arose and contin­ ues to exist because people experience Jesus as a bringer of God's salvation. Christology in its narrow sense of defining the status of Jesus before God and human beings depends upon soteriology. Yet despite this centrality and importance, the Church has never formu­ lated a conciliar definition of salvation nor provided a universally ac­ cepted conception. This is not necessarily something negative, but it still leaves us with a pluralism in the domain of the theology of sal­ vation, the meaning of which remains open and fluid. Salvation is also elusive: like time, every Christian knows its meaning until asked to explain it. Because of its centrality, the problems that surround the concept of salvation are rendered more grave. Many of the traditional expres­ sions of how Jesus saves are expressed in myths that no longer com­ municate to educated Christians; some are even offensive. Some of the traditional theological "explanations" of salvation through Christ do no better. Often treatments of salvation are largely devoted to rehears­ ing traditional theories or presenting models or types which seem to inject some order into the disarray.1 But one cannot assume that these 1 Perhaps the most famous study of the typologies is Gustav Aulen's Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Types of the Idea of Atonement, trans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius
    JETS 53/4 (December 2010) 773–85 THE NATURE OF ATONEMENT IN THE THEOLOGY OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS j. matthew pinson* Jacobus Arminius is one of the best known and least studied theologians in the history of Christianity. His writings have been neglected by Calvinists and Arminians alike. Calvinists have disliked him because of his opposition to scholastic predestinarian theology. Most Arminians have neglected him because what little they have read of him reminds them more of Calvinism than they like. Arminius scholar Carl Bangs is correct when he says that most modern treatments of Arminius assume a definition of Arminianism that does not come from Arminius. Bangs states that most interpreters of Arminianism begin with a preconception of what Arminius should be expected to say, then look in his published works, and do not find exactly what they are looking for. They show impatience and disappointment with his Calvinism, and shift the inquiry into some later period when Arminianism turns out to be what they are looking for—a non-Calvinistic, synergistic, and perhaps semi-Pelagian system.1 This is the approach many scholars have taken toward Arminius regard- ing his doctrine of atonement. For example, the Calvinist scholar Robert L. Reymond has said that the Arminian theory of atonement is the governmental theory, which “denies that Christ’s death was intended to pay the penalty for sin.” He claims that the governmental theory’s “germinal teachings are in Arminius.”2 Similarly, well-known Wesleyan-Arminian scholar James K. Grider states: “A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades.
    [Show full text]
  • About Trinity International University 1
    About Trinity International University 1 world while acknowledging that He is Lord in the natural and social ABOUT TRINITY sciences, humanities, fine arts, and every aspect of experience. It is the reason Trinity International University can offer a fine education to INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY undergraduate and graduate students alike---an education for service to God in the workplace, family, church, and community. The Origins of Trinity International Governance University Preservation of a legacy calls for wise and careful leadership. We Trinity International University is composed of a liberal arts college, are governed by a 31-member Board of Regents (15 elected by the a divinity school, a graduate school, and a law school. TIU is the Evangelical Free Church of America Conference delegates, 13 appointed educational ministry of the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA). by the Board of Regents, two EFCA ex officio, and the TIU president) who The university’s main campus is located in Bannockburn, Illinois, with carry the responsibility for the successful conduct of the school and for a campus in Santa Ana, California (Trinity Law School) and additional cooperation with local congregations of the EFCA. locations in Miami and North Lauderdale, Florida (Trinity International 1 University - Florida). Trinity International University is an Illinois not-for-profit institution of higher education affiliated with the Evangelical Free Church of Trinity’s History America. Trinity International University traces its roots to a ten-week Bible course begun by the Swedish Evangelical Free Church in 1897.This soon developed into the Bible Institute of the Swedish Evangelical Free Church of America.
    [Show full text]
  • T.F. Torrance's Realistic Soteriological Objectivism and the Elimination of Dualisms
    MJT 19 (2008) 165-194 T. F. TORRANCE'S REALISTIC SOTERIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVISM AND THE ELIMINATION OF DUALISMS: UNION WITH CHRIST IN CURRENT PERSPECTIVE by James J. Cassidy Introduction ON DECEMBER 2, 2007 the theological world lost one of its most articulate thinkers and prolific writers in recent memory. Born in August of 1913 Thomas F. Torrance was a man constantly between places. He was a Scotsman, but was born in China to Scottish Presbyterian missionaries.1 He studied German in Marburg, then under Karl Barth in Basel for two semesters2, and then taught in the United States at Auburn Theological Seminary (later turning down positions at McCormack Theological Semi- nary and Princeton University).3 He was a theologian, but knew his sci- ence so well that he had became the authority on the relation between science and theology. He was called to replace Karl Barth at the Univer- sity of Basel, but ended up teaching back in Scotland. He was an aca- demic and served 27 years at New College, but was also a churchman who served many years in the pastorate. He was a Presbyterian minister, but was consecrated a Protopresbyter in the Patriarchate of Alexandria.4 He was active in writing during his teaching career, but his greatest work came after his retirement when he penned The Christian Doctrine of God. It is perhaps ironic, in light of his life and dual (evenly multiple) resi- dences, callings, and interests, that he is so well known for his disdain of dualisms5. In his search for a “rigorous scientific theology”6 he found a unified theory of knowledge in Christology.
    [Show full text]