Dan ("GodIsMyJudge") has an interesting post in honor of the 400th anniversary of Arminius' death (link). One criticism I have, is that I think he overstates the significance of the infralapsarian wording of Dordt's discussion of election. In fact, one could walk away from GodIsMyJudge's post thinking that Arminius was an infralapsarian Calvinist who prevailed at Dordt against the supralapsarians, rather than having his errant views condemned by that synod. In context, the point of Dordt is to deny foreseen merit, something upon which both supralapsarians and infralapsarians agree.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
5 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
Thanks for the link... and your comments. I agree with you, that it seems to me that the essence of Dort was to deny foreseen merit; that, in the past has taken me a paragraph or two to attempt to explain, which you did in the very last sentence. Well done.
ReplyDeleteWe live and learn.
Blessings,
jon
I agree that the focus of the language of the Canons of Dort in Article 7 was overstated. It's not as if supralapsarianism was something official. In fact, weren't the majority of the Reformed Creeds either explicitly infralapsarian or at least the language implied a infralpsarian view?
ReplyDeleteThe article kind of came off as if supralapsarianism was, I guess, "defeated" and Arminius played some role in this "defeat". Undoubtedly, based on reading his Works, I do think Arminius' biggest issue was with supralapsarianism (the third part of his "On Predestination" speaks volumes on this). However, there was nothing ever there to "defeat" in regards to the lapsarian positions.
Interesting read, none the less.
The historical fact of the matter is that Dordt was called to respond to the Remonstrants. Their five points are obviously not compatible with the infralapsarian Calvinist position.
ReplyDeleteArminius was already dead by that time (by the time of the Dordt). Thus, Arminius did not have the three forms of unity at his disposal. When the Westminster Assembly (still later) adopted their confession and catechisms they were actually more careful (I'd say) to avoid making the Supra/Infra distinction a confessional matter.
So, I'd be hesitant to characterize the matter in terms of "the Reformed confessions" (although there were other confessions before those major ones).
Surely many of Arminius' attacks are aimed at folks like Perkins and Gomarus (who were supralapsarian), but Arminian theology is not able to peacefully co-exist with infralapsarian Calvinism either.
Glancing through Dan's article, he seemed to suggest that Dordt essentially ratified some of the positions or formulations of Arminius.
ReplyDeleteThis assumes, among other things, that the positions Dordt took weren't already within the range of Reformed theological options or variants prior to Arminius.
Is it Dan's contention that Arminius *originated* some of the positions or formulations which were later adopted by Dordt?
It seems to me the most rational answer to Steve's question, is "yes".
ReplyDeleteI have to say, one who does concur that I too am wretched so I equally concur with Paul's answer:
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Just the little I am able to comprehend of Arminianism, I tremble at the thought of having any, any, any responsibility for my safe passage out of here to Heaven!
One would be an idiot, albeit, some, intelligent, knowledgable idiots, to boot to rely upon our own self for our own salvation granted us as a most gracious and merciful Gift!
I bow my head in shame!!
Luk 1:14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth,
Luk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
Luk 1:16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God,
Luk 1:17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."