What do you think?
Rate this book
The Works Of Jacobus Arminius #2
The Works of James Arminius, D. D., Formerly Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden; Volume 2
Experience the wisdom of James Arminius with this comprehensive collection of his works. From religious doctrine to philosophical musings, it's an essential read for anyone interested in theology and the history of Christianity. This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
- GenresTheology
550 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2010
2 people are currently reading
22 people want to read
About the author
Jacobus Arminius
54 books6 followersDutch theologian Jacobus Arminius, originally Jakob Harmenszoon founded Arminianism.
In the theology, followers of Jacobus Arminius rejected the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and election and believed in compatible human free will with sovereignty of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus...
In the theology, followers of Jacobus Arminius rejected the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and election and believed in compatible human free will with sovereignty of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 28, 2024
THE SECOND VOLUME OF THE WRITINGS OF THE FAMED DEFENDER OF "FREE WILL"
James [Jacobus] Arminius (1560-1609; actually was named "Jakob Harmenszoon") was a Christian theologian who became famous for his opposition to Calvinism. (Interestingly, most of his works were published posthumously.) The other volumes in the series are The Works Of James Arminius V1 and The Works Of James Arminius V3. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 3-volume hardcover set, of which Volume 2 has 754 pages.]
In one of his “Twenty-Five Public Disputations,” he states, “we do not deny, that the apostles delivered to the churches some things which related to the external discipline, orders and rites to be observed in them, and which have not been written, or at least are not comprehended in those of their books which we call ‘Canonical.’ But these things do not concern the substance of saving doctrine; and are neither necessary to salvation, perpetual, immutable, nor universal, but accommodated to the church as it now exists, and to its present circumstances.” (Disp. II, XXV, pg. 103)
In another, he explains, “We assert, that the Reformed Churches have not seceded from the Church of Rome; and that they acted properly in refusing to hold and profess a communion of faith and of divine worship with her… We call ‘Reformed Churches’ those congregations professing the Christian Faith which disavow every species of Presidency whatever assumed by the Roman Pontiff, and profess to believe in and to perform acts of worship to God and Christ, according to the Canons which each of them has comprised in its own Confession or Catechism; and they approve of such Canons, therefore, only because they consider them to be agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, though they yield to the Primitive Church and the Ancient Fathers severally their proper places, but always in subordination to the Scriptures.” (Disp. XXII, III, pg. 275)
He adds, “This is the hinge of the entire controversy… If the Reformed Churches place their beginning of the defection at the true point, then their separation from the modern church of Rome is not a secession from the church of Christ, but it is the termination and completion of a separation formerly made, and merely a return and conversion to the true and pure faith, and to the sincere worship of God… and to the primitive and truly apostolical church, nay to the ancient church of Rome itself.” (XII, pg. 281)
In one of his “Seventy-Nine Private Disputations,” he states, “Evangelical faith is an assent of the mind, produced by the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel, in sinners, who through the law know and acknowledge their sins, and are penitent on account of them: By which they are not only fully persuaded within themselves, that Jesus Christ has been constituted by God the author of salvation to those who obey Him, and that He is their own Saviour is they have believed in Him; and by which they also believe in Him as such, and through Hum on God as the Benevolent Father in Him, to the salvation of believers and to the glory of Christ and God.” (Disp. XLIV, III, pg. 400)
In his “Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” he says, “We now begin to make some observations on those hypotheses, whether secret or avowed, which are injurious to piety, and which obtain among Christians themselves, whether they be publicly defended or otherwise. Among them, the first which comes under enumeration, is the dogma of ‘Unconditional Predestination,’ with those which depend on it by a necessary connection; and, in particular, to so highly extolled ‘Perseverance of the Saints,’ in a confidence in which such things are uttered as we dread to recite, for they are utterly unworthy of entering into the ears of Christians. It is no small impediment which these dogmas place in the way of piety.” (Pg. 474)
He explains, “since it is impossible that there should be only a single genus of volition and nolition, or one mode of WILLING and NOT WILLING, by which a man wills the good and does not will the same wood, and by which he does not will the evil and wills the same evil; this phrase, ‘to will that which is good’ and ‘not to will that which is evil,’ must have a two-fold meaning, which we will endeavor now to explain… the judgment itself, with reference to its cause, is two-fold: For it either proceeds from the mind and reason approving the law that it is good, and highly esteeming the good which the law prescribes, and [contra] hating the evil which it forbids: Or it proceeds from the senses and affections… But the same will, when it follows the judgment of particular approbation, wills the delectable or useful evil which the law forbids, and does not will the troublesome and hurtful good which the law prescribes.” (Pg. 536)
He argues, “I say that the state of man described in this chapter is not a consistent one, but is rather a grade or step from the one to the other---from a state of impiety and infidelity to a state of regeneration and grace---from the old state in Adam to the new state in Christ: According to this grade or step, the man is denominated by some persons renascent [or in the article of being born again]. And, truly, the distance of one of these states from the other is far too great, for a man to be able to pass from one to the other without some intermediate steps. I deny that there is any absurdity in laying down a three-fold state of man, regard being had to the different times; that is, a state BEFORE or without the law, one UNDER THE LAW, and another UNDER GRACE. For the Apostolical Scriptures make mention of such a three-fold state in the two chapters now under consideration, and in Romans 6 & 7, and Galatians 4 & 5.” (Pg. 591)
He suggests, “There may be some question among real and pious Christians, whether there has ever been in this world, is now, or can possibly be, any man who lives so righteously as to have no sin whatsoever. Yet he is assuredly void of understanding who entertains any doubt whether it is possible for a man to be without sin after this life. But I do not wish to enter into a contest about this question.” (Pg. 634)
He asserts, “It is an illogical mode of expression to say, ‘I will to lust,’ and ‘I will not to lust’; because actual concupiscence is prior to volition and nolition, and the act of concupiscence does not depend upon the choice or determination of the will… we must say, ‘I could wish not to lust, that is, ‘I could wish to be free from the impulse of concupiscence.’ And this is an expression of desire, not tending or going out towards the performance or omission of our act, but earnestly demanding the act of another person for our liberation from that evil which impels us to an evil act, and which hinders us from a good act—we approving of the good act and disapproving the bad one.” (Pg. 674)
In his letter to Hippolytus A. Collibus, he says, “With respect to the article of Predestination, my sentiments upon it are the following: It is an eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which He determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with life eternal, but to condemn unbelievers, and impenitent persons; as I have explained in the Theses on the same subject… it was the opinion of some persons, that those Theses did not contain all the things which belong to this decree; nay, that the predestination about which there is the greatest controversy at this time, is not the subject of investigation in those Theses. This indeed I confess: For I considered it the best course to discuss that decree of predestination which is the foundation of Christianity, or our salvation, and of the assurance of salvation; and upon which the apostle treats in the Eighth and Ninth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, and in the First chapter of that to the Ephesians.” (Pg. 698)
In his “Certain Articles to be Diligently Examined and Weighed,” he states, “The first in order of the Divine Decrees is not that of Predestination, by which God foreordained to supernatural ends, and by which He resolved to save and to condemn, to declare his mercy and his punitive justice, and to illustrate the glory of his saving grace, and of his wisdom and power which correspond with that most free grace… The OBJECT of predestination … is not rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, and capable of salvation, of damnation, of creation, of falling, and of reparation, or of being recovered… It is a horrible affirmation, that ‘God has predestinated whatsoever men He pleased not only to damnation, but likewise to the causes of damnation.’ [Theodore Beza]… It is a horrible affirmation that ‘men are predestinated to eternal death by the naked will or choice of God, without any demerit… on their part.’ [Calvin, Institutes]… Permission for the fall [of Adam] into sin, is not the means of executing the decree of p, or predestination, or of election, or of reprobation…” (V, pg. 710-711)
He observes, “The opinion which DENIES, ‘that true believers and regenerate persons are either capable of falling away, or actually do fall away, from the faith totally and finally,’ was never, from the very times of the Apostles down to the present day, accounted by the contrary as a catholic verity: Neither has that which AFFIRMS the contrary ever been reckoned as an heretical opinion; nay, that which affirms it possible for believers to fall away from the faith, has always had more supporters in the church of Christ, than that which denies its possibility or its actually occurring.” (XXI, pg. 725) He adds, “1. QUERIES: Is it possible for any believer, without a special revelation, to be certain or assured that he will not decline or fall away from the faith? 2. Are those who have faith bound to believe, that they will not decline from the faith?... The affirmative of either of these questions was never accounted in the church of Christ as a catholic doctrine; and the denial of either of them has never been adjudged by the Church Universal as a heresy.” (XXII, pg. 726)
Arminius is one of the most important Christian theologians, and his works belong in every serious theological library.
James [Jacobus] Arminius (1560-1609; actually was named "Jakob Harmenszoon") was a Christian theologian who became famous for his opposition to Calvinism. (Interestingly, most of his works were published posthumously.) The other volumes in the series are The Works Of James Arminius V1 and The Works Of James Arminius V3. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 3-volume hardcover set, of which Volume 2 has 754 pages.]
In one of his “Twenty-Five Public Disputations,” he states, “we do not deny, that the apostles delivered to the churches some things which related to the external discipline, orders and rites to be observed in them, and which have not been written, or at least are not comprehended in those of their books which we call ‘Canonical.’ But these things do not concern the substance of saving doctrine; and are neither necessary to salvation, perpetual, immutable, nor universal, but accommodated to the church as it now exists, and to its present circumstances.” (Disp. II, XXV, pg. 103)
In another, he explains, “We assert, that the Reformed Churches have not seceded from the Church of Rome; and that they acted properly in refusing to hold and profess a communion of faith and of divine worship with her… We call ‘Reformed Churches’ those congregations professing the Christian Faith which disavow every species of Presidency whatever assumed by the Roman Pontiff, and profess to believe in and to perform acts of worship to God and Christ, according to the Canons which each of them has comprised in its own Confession or Catechism; and they approve of such Canons, therefore, only because they consider them to be agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, though they yield to the Primitive Church and the Ancient Fathers severally their proper places, but always in subordination to the Scriptures.” (Disp. XXII, III, pg. 275)
He adds, “This is the hinge of the entire controversy… If the Reformed Churches place their beginning of the defection at the true point, then their separation from the modern church of Rome is not a secession from the church of Christ, but it is the termination and completion of a separation formerly made, and merely a return and conversion to the true and pure faith, and to the sincere worship of God… and to the primitive and truly apostolical church, nay to the ancient church of Rome itself.” (XII, pg. 281)
In one of his “Seventy-Nine Private Disputations,” he states, “Evangelical faith is an assent of the mind, produced by the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel, in sinners, who through the law know and acknowledge their sins, and are penitent on account of them: By which they are not only fully persuaded within themselves, that Jesus Christ has been constituted by God the author of salvation to those who obey Him, and that He is their own Saviour is they have believed in Him; and by which they also believe in Him as such, and through Hum on God as the Benevolent Father in Him, to the salvation of believers and to the glory of Christ and God.” (Disp. XLIV, III, pg. 400)
In his “Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” he says, “We now begin to make some observations on those hypotheses, whether secret or avowed, which are injurious to piety, and which obtain among Christians themselves, whether they be publicly defended or otherwise. Among them, the first which comes under enumeration, is the dogma of ‘Unconditional Predestination,’ with those which depend on it by a necessary connection; and, in particular, to so highly extolled ‘Perseverance of the Saints,’ in a confidence in which such things are uttered as we dread to recite, for they are utterly unworthy of entering into the ears of Christians. It is no small impediment which these dogmas place in the way of piety.” (Pg. 474)
He explains, “since it is impossible that there should be only a single genus of volition and nolition, or one mode of WILLING and NOT WILLING, by which a man wills the good and does not will the same wood, and by which he does not will the evil and wills the same evil; this phrase, ‘to will that which is good’ and ‘not to will that which is evil,’ must have a two-fold meaning, which we will endeavor now to explain… the judgment itself, with reference to its cause, is two-fold: For it either proceeds from the mind and reason approving the law that it is good, and highly esteeming the good which the law prescribes, and [contra] hating the evil which it forbids: Or it proceeds from the senses and affections… But the same will, when it follows the judgment of particular approbation, wills the delectable or useful evil which the law forbids, and does not will the troublesome and hurtful good which the law prescribes.” (Pg. 536)
He argues, “I say that the state of man described in this chapter is not a consistent one, but is rather a grade or step from the one to the other---from a state of impiety and infidelity to a state of regeneration and grace---from the old state in Adam to the new state in Christ: According to this grade or step, the man is denominated by some persons renascent [or in the article of being born again]. And, truly, the distance of one of these states from the other is far too great, for a man to be able to pass from one to the other without some intermediate steps. I deny that there is any absurdity in laying down a three-fold state of man, regard being had to the different times; that is, a state BEFORE or without the law, one UNDER THE LAW, and another UNDER GRACE. For the Apostolical Scriptures make mention of such a three-fold state in the two chapters now under consideration, and in Romans 6 & 7, and Galatians 4 & 5.” (Pg. 591)
He suggests, “There may be some question among real and pious Christians, whether there has ever been in this world, is now, or can possibly be, any man who lives so righteously as to have no sin whatsoever. Yet he is assuredly void of understanding who entertains any doubt whether it is possible for a man to be without sin after this life. But I do not wish to enter into a contest about this question.” (Pg. 634)
He asserts, “It is an illogical mode of expression to say, ‘I will to lust,’ and ‘I will not to lust’; because actual concupiscence is prior to volition and nolition, and the act of concupiscence does not depend upon the choice or determination of the will… we must say, ‘I could wish not to lust, that is, ‘I could wish to be free from the impulse of concupiscence.’ And this is an expression of desire, not tending or going out towards the performance or omission of our act, but earnestly demanding the act of another person for our liberation from that evil which impels us to an evil act, and which hinders us from a good act—we approving of the good act and disapproving the bad one.” (Pg. 674)
In his letter to Hippolytus A. Collibus, he says, “With respect to the article of Predestination, my sentiments upon it are the following: It is an eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which He determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with life eternal, but to condemn unbelievers, and impenitent persons; as I have explained in the Theses on the same subject… it was the opinion of some persons, that those Theses did not contain all the things which belong to this decree; nay, that the predestination about which there is the greatest controversy at this time, is not the subject of investigation in those Theses. This indeed I confess: For I considered it the best course to discuss that decree of predestination which is the foundation of Christianity, or our salvation, and of the assurance of salvation; and upon which the apostle treats in the Eighth and Ninth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, and in the First chapter of that to the Ephesians.” (Pg. 698)
In his “Certain Articles to be Diligently Examined and Weighed,” he states, “The first in order of the Divine Decrees is not that of Predestination, by which God foreordained to supernatural ends, and by which He resolved to save and to condemn, to declare his mercy and his punitive justice, and to illustrate the glory of his saving grace, and of his wisdom and power which correspond with that most free grace… The OBJECT of predestination … is not rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, and capable of salvation, of damnation, of creation, of falling, and of reparation, or of being recovered… It is a horrible affirmation, that ‘God has predestinated whatsoever men He pleased not only to damnation, but likewise to the causes of damnation.’ [Theodore Beza]… It is a horrible affirmation that ‘men are predestinated to eternal death by the naked will or choice of God, without any demerit… on their part.’ [Calvin, Institutes]… Permission for the fall [of Adam] into sin, is not the means of executing the decree of p, or predestination, or of election, or of reprobation…” (V, pg. 710-711)
He observes, “The opinion which DENIES, ‘that true believers and regenerate persons are either capable of falling away, or actually do fall away, from the faith totally and finally,’ was never, from the very times of the Apostles down to the present day, accounted by the contrary as a catholic verity: Neither has that which AFFIRMS the contrary ever been reckoned as an heretical opinion; nay, that which affirms it possible for believers to fall away from the faith, has always had more supporters in the church of Christ, than that which denies its possibility or its actually occurring.” (XXI, pg. 725) He adds, “1. QUERIES: Is it possible for any believer, without a special revelation, to be certain or assured that he will not decline or fall away from the faith? 2. Are those who have faith bound to believe, that they will not decline from the faith?... The affirmative of either of these questions was never accounted in the church of Christ as a catholic doctrine; and the denial of either of them has never been adjudged by the Church Universal as a heresy.” (XXII, pg. 726)
Arminius is one of the most important Christian theologians, and his works belong in every serious theological library.
Displaying 1 of 1 review