TO THE MOST DISTINGUISHED MAN, FRANCIS JUNIUS, D.D., A BROTHER IN CHRIST, WORTHY OF MY MOST PROFOUND. In my former letter I laid down three views held by our doctors in reference to the decree of Predestination and Reprobation, diverse, not contrary.
SECOND PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
In a wider sense, if you consider the whole subject of the divine counsel from preterition, as the antecedent and commencement, to. For non-election is the first limit of the divine purpose, dependent on his will alone.
THIRD PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
It seems proper, according to the rule of demonstration, that this order should be preserved; the glory of God consists in the. Mercy and justice, the former saving from possible misery, the latter rewarding good conduct can be exercised towards one and the same object, as is manifest in the case of the elect angels, who are saved from possible misery, and have obtained from the divine goodness the reward of right conduct.
FOURTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Human beings I say in their original condition, both in the fact that nothing supernatural or divine has been bestowed upon them, and that they have not yet fallen into sin. Moreover the end, which I have proposed, is expressed in your second Thesis, “to the praise of his glorious grace,” and again, in the second Thesis of the tenth disputation, “to the praise of his most glorious grace,”.
FIFTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
In respect to the former, it is an affection of the will, according to which it freely tends towards its one object; in respect to the latter, it is the power and authority over its own act. But freedom is limited, or, which is the same thing, it is effected that any act should not be in the power of the agent in three ways, by natural and internal necessity, by external force and coaction, and by the interposition of law.
SIXTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Himself what He, of Himself is able to do
All things possible what can be done by those beings which He can make
All things which shall exist by the act of creation
All things which shall exist by the act of creatures and especially of rational creatures. Whether moved by those actions of His
What He Himself especially of His rational shall do. creatures;
He who ordained that man should fall and become depraved, is the author of the fall and of sin;. Did it not pertain to the nature of the bones of Christ, (which they present as an example,) to be broken.
SEVENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
For it remains valid, that “God is made the author of sin, if He is said to have ordained that man should fall and become depraved that He might open to Himself a way for the declaration of His own glory, in the way in which He had already determined by eternal decree.” Yet, that no one may think that my promise was vain, I will attempt by other arguments also the refutation of that theory, which presents, as an object to God, in the act of predestination, man not yet created or to be created. If creation is prior, man is considered by God, in the act of predestination, as existing, not as to be created. So also in reference to goodness and mercy, the former of which, in the act of creation, was illustrated in reference to Nothing, the latter, in the act of predestination, concerning that which was subsequent to Nothing.
To the same purpose can all the arguments be used, by which it was proved that “sin is a condition requisite in the object of predestination.”.
EIGHTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Did God elect from eternity, of human beings, considered in their natural condition, some to supernatural felicity and glory, and non-elect or pass
Did God prepare for those whom He elected, that is, for human beings to be raised from a natural to a supernatural state, and to be translated to a
For the term reprobation, as it is used by me, I will substitute preparation of punishment or.
NINTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Therefore, the affirmation stands, that God, in the case of election and reprobation made from eternity,. In Book 1, to Simplicianus, he excludes sin as a cause that God should elect or reprobate, but includes it as a cause that He might have the power to pass by or reprobate, or as a condition requisite in the object of election and. The first chapter to the Ephesians clearly affirms the same thing, as it asserts that the election is made in Christ, because it is of the grace, by which we have redemption in the blood of Christ, etc.
For in the first place, “the election is made in Christ,” therefore, it is of sinners, as will be hereafter proved at greater length.
TENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Whatever absurdity may be connected with this subject, you will perceive, (if you examine it closely,) that it pertains as much to the former
This absurdity is not to be passed by, but rather to be religiously and suitably removed. True: yet it is attributed to the will of God alone, not to any condition in us. Every condition in us is excluded, even that of sin; the will of God, alone, His purpose, alone, is considered in the matter.
Whatever is more consistent with the wisdom and grace of God, wouldbe performed by the Deity, and is to be believed by us, rather than that.
Whatever is more consistent with the wisdom and grace of God, would be performed by the Deity, and is to be believed by us, rather than that
Let supernatural qualities be embraced in the definition of the image of God, in which man was made, and I have obtained what I desire. You say “the image of God is knowledge, according to the image of God, therefore, the image of God is denied to be either knowledge or image.”. The image of God, renewed in us by the regenerating Spirit, is the knowledge of God, according to the image of God, in which, at the beginning, we were created.
This, also, is according to the declaration of the Scripture that Seth was begotten in the image and likeness of Adam, not in the image of God.
ELEVENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Election is said to have been made in Christ, who was ordained as mediator for sinners, and was called Jesus, because He should save, not
Election is said to have been made of grace, which is distinguished from nature in a two fold manner, both as the latter is pure and considered
In the second place, Christ himself is not considered by God as Mediator of Redemption, unless in view of the fact, that he is ordained as such for those who have sinned. The subject of discussion, then, in the mode in which he is the Mediator for men. For, in election, He regarded man in the Redeemer, and the Redeemer is such only of the fallen.
If man was considered in general, then he was elected in the Mediator not considered generally, but considered particularly as Redeemer.
TWELFTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Because sin is the meritorious cause of that act of the divine pleasure, by which He determined to deny, to some, spiritual or supernatural
Many negative acts of the Deity precede the act of sin; therefore, also the negative act of preterition precedes sin. A positive and a negative act precede every act of the creature, but not the act of election and that of preterition. That the example of the angels, in this case, is not analogous, I show in a word.
Also, if it is the negative act of preterition, then all men have sinned irretrievably, and without hope of pardon and remission, as in the case of the angels who sinned.
THIRTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Concerning the state of the question, as you propose it, I will not contend with you. Not only does the affirmative of this question please you, but, from your Theses and other writings, you seem to me to incline to it so strongly that you seem even to have. I have every where denied, and still deny, that God, in the act of predestination and of preterition, had reference also to men, considered in a merely natural state; but I assert that He had reference only to men, as considered in their sins.
FOURTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Your second argument, from the appendix of the law, is plainly in the same condition. In reference to the antecedent of the Major, I will say nothing; I have already spoken often on that point. Sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4.) The law can not be transgressed by him for whom it was not enacted.
But that law could not be obeyed without supernatural grace.” You grant this in reference to the general law, you deny it concerning that in which the eating of the fruit of that tree was forbidden.
FIFTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
If any one should argue thus, “Evangelical grace was prepared for man in the abstract and in common;. But the grace, prepared for man in predestination, is Evangelical grace; Therefore, grace was prepared in predestination for man, considered in the abstract and in common,” he will, on more than one account, be chargeable with fallacy. For the grace prepared for man in predestination is Evangelical grace, in the concrete, and understood in respect to us.
For I explained it, not in the abstract, (if it is ever so used), but in the concrete.
SIXTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Of the ordination of sin, and the decree of God, and what is signified by ordination, properly understood, we have spoken, in answer to the sixth proposition. But there has been, in the answer to the sixth proposition, a sufficient discussion of this whole subject. Nor is it to the purpose to say that “if he sinned in a matter pertaining to nature, (in which grace was not due,) his own will alone was in fault, not destitution of grace”; who denies that statement, if that law could be observed by the powers of nature.
We have also remarked, at sufficient length, in the sixth proposition, concerning the ordination of sin, and how it is made, according to the view of Calvin and Beza, the basis of the divine decree.
SEVENTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
Again, a distinction is to be made between the preparation of punishment, made by the just Providence of God, and that made by the decree of divine predamnation, which is the opposite of election. The latter is avoided by none, since the decree of predamnation is irrevocable and peremptory. The question is not whether God prepared punishment for those passed by in a mode in harmony with the wisdom of God”; for who denies that, if any are passed by, they are passed by in a manner in harmony with the wisdom of God.
But the question is, whether God, foreseeing the sin of those, so passed by and left in their natural state, as has been explained, prepared punishment for them by the decree of predamnation, which does not seem very probable to me.
EIGHTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
- that Adam was, to speak in general terms, passed by and left in a state of nature by God, but, according to the mode of nature, he was left to
- This does not affect us, who affirm that God, in election, has reference to man in general
- Though Aquinas uses that form of expression, yet it must be correctly understood, since there may be ambiguity here, for the relation of election
- Because the act of reprobation has reference to some men, not to all, for not all are reprobates
- If sin exists from the act of reprobation, or not without it, then only some men commit sin, and the rest do not commit it, that is, they sin, to
- If sin exists from the negative act of reprobation, it then follows that Adam and all men in him are reprobates, for Adam, and, in him, all men
- By converse reasoning, if the sin of man resulted from the negative act of preterition, then, from the affirmative act of predestination, which exists
- To those, to whom God once, by the negative act of reprobation, denies efficacious aid, He finally denies efficacious aid, otherwise the reprobate
The negative act of the Deity, which preceded the sin of man, pertained either to. Therefore, also, the sin of man is not from the negative act of reprobation or. But some negative act of the Deity preceded the sin of man, for otherwise man would not have sinned.
The former depends on the infinity of the knowledge of God, the latter on the act of His will.
NINETEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
I used the word reprobation in the sense in which you use it, as I have several times already stated and proved. Predestination, preterition, pre-damnation, as acts remaining in the agent, or as internal acts, produce no feeling in an external. To the first part, I make the answer, which your foresight has anticipated that we are discussing, not the predestination and reprobation of angels, but those of men, the term grace being restricted to that which was prepared for man, in the act of predestination.
To the second part of your argument, which charges my proposition with absurdity, I reply, that there is an ambiguity in the phrase, saving grace.
TWENTIETH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
You affirm that this freedom “is declared in the very creation and arrangement of things.” You would infer then, that it was unnecessary that
Besides, if God is, absolutely, justice, and the principle of justice, he punishes not according to the justice of the law, but according to His own justice, which the law adumbrates to human. It is indeed destroyed by the very definition of the terms, without any argument on my part. Nothing, and of the beings created out of it, according to the mode of communication, adopted by the internal act of His will, both to the single parts of Nothing, and to the individual creatures.
If it should be asked in what other way the freedom of the divine goodness.
TWENTY-FIRST PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS
