Dan Chapa

The book begins with a brief but helpful account of the life and times of Jacob Arminius, but points readers to Bangs work for a more detailed biography (Bangs, Carl.  Arminius – A Study in the Dutch Reformation.  Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1998).  Then it dives into the foundation of Arminius’ theology - his explanations of God’s attributes.  On the simplicity of God, Aquinas taught God’s attributes are distinct only in the way we think about them, but are really united in God, but Arminius disagreed and rather followed John Dun Scottus who taught God’s attributes really are distinct in God even though they are absolutely inseparable.   On omniscience, Arminius followed Luis De Molina in affirming middle knowledge – and this book is the first I have seen to acknowledge that Arminius’ view of predestination is based on God’s middle knowledge of faith rather than so called simple foreknowledge.  Then in a rare low point in the book - Arminius is accus...

I recently was reading a book that accused James Arminius of a Trinitarian heresy:  denying Christ’s aseity (self existence).  This relates to the “auto-theos” controversy in which Arminius denied a specific sense in which Christ is God “from Himself”.  ( Works of James Arminius.  Apology Article 21 )  That is to say, Arminius defended the doctrine in the Nicene creed: ” And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds , Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father ”. In short, Arminius defended the Father’s eternal generation of the Son.  In this post, I will briefly provide the biblical basis for eternal generation and then defend it from a specific charge: that affirming the eternal generation of the Son implicitly denies the aseity of the Son. 1 John 5:18 says “  We know that everyone who has been born of God do...

All quotes from Eef Dekker’s Was Arminius a Molinist? The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Summer, 1996), pp. 337-352.  Arminius: The knowledge of God is a faculty of his life, which is the first in nature and order, by which he distinctly understands each and every thing, whatever entity they have, will have, have had, can have, or might hypothetically have, and of each and every thing their order, connection, and various aspects that they have or can have; not even excluded that entity which belongs to reason, and which only in the mind, imagination or enunciation exists or can exist. (Public Disputation IV.30) Dekker: … "Hypothetical entity" may sound just the same as "possible entity." There is, however, a weighty reason not to regard it as such. It is one of the characteristic features of Molinism to distinguish that which is possible from that which can hypothetically exist. In the first case it is about things that can exist, in the seco...

All quotes from Richard Muller’s God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy. Baker Book House, 1991. By way of repudiating the Reformed view, Arminius would not only adopt a concept of scientia media, he would also argue an alternative view of concurrence…. Walaeus notes, however, that this hypothetical knowing is not necessarily to be understood as a third kind of knowledge separate from the scientia simplicis intelligentiae.  Arminius argues precisely the point that the definitions offered by his Reformed contemporaries have purposely excluded.  After his basic set of definitions, Arminius presents the thesis that: The Scholastics say besides, that one kind of God’s knowledge is natural and necessary, another free, and a third intermediate (mediam).  (1) Natural or necessary knowledge is that by which God understands himself and all possibilities; (2) free know...

Several years ago, when Dr. Olson first published Arminian Theology and I noted his objection to the idea that Arminius held to middle knowledge 1 (the idea that God knows what we would freely do under any circumstance), I wrote a brief post quoting Arminius’ use of middle knowledge. ( link ) At the time I thought it was a simple matter of pointing out the people that Arminius used the concept of middle knowledge. Surprisingly, this has not been the case; some Arminians are still reluctant to agree that Arminius held to middle knowledge. This, I think, is to their loss, since according to William Lane Craig, middle knowledge is one of the most fruitful theological concepts he has come across and according to Eef Dekker, Arminius introduced middle knowledge into protestant theology. I recently went through Arminius’ response to Perkins again, which I really enjoyed. Below is a list of eleven quotes from just Arminius response to Perkins where he uses the concept of middle knowledge...

Here's a good post on how Arminius dealt with some of the wild accusations brought against him written by Derek Ouellette at Covenant of Love .

Many years ago this statement by Arminius about Augustine caught my eye and I have been passively looking for it ever since: Are those who are thus the reprobate necessarily damned, because either no grace at all, or not sufficient, has been destined to them, that they may assent to it and believe, Or rather, according to St. Augustine, Are those who are thus the elect assuredly saved, because God decreed to employ grace on them as he knew was suitable and congruous that they might be persuaded and saved; though if regard be had to the internal efficacy of grace, they may not be advanced or benefited by it ( link ) This sounds like congruism - a variant of Molinism that holds to both unconditional election libertarian free will (advocated by Suarez and the Jesuits).  ( info on Congruism ) Early in life Augustine strongly advocated libertarian freedom. Latter in life, Augustine sounded more like a Calvinist, but was he really a proto-congruist?

Certainty properly is not an affection of an existing thing or of one about to happen, but of the mind certainly knowing or foreknowing that the thing exists or is about to exist: whence a transference is made to the event, -for it is the same that a thing will happen, and that it will certainly happen, -but that it may be signified to another that there is no reason to doubt of the event coming to pass. But necessity is an affection of the being, and adds a mode to the event, by which it is said that a thing will happen necessarily, and is opposed to the mode which is called "contingency". Therefore the same idea is not expressed, when it is said that a thing will happen certainly and necessarily; for the one word is only about futurition, the other about the mode also of futurition. This necessity is that of the consequent, by which a thing exists from its antecedent beginning and cause, so that it cannot not-exist from it: to which is opposed the contingency of the consequ...

The purpose of the post is to so demonstrate that Arminius taught that God had middle knowledge. Recently several authors, who are otherwise adherents to Arminian theology, have made claims that Arminius did not in fact teach middle knowledge. 1 I hope to demonstrate that Arminius taught that God had middle knowledge, and it was fundamental to his view on predestination and providence. Since the purpose of this paper is the clarification of Arminius’ views and not a defense of the doctrine itself, I will use far more quotes from Arminius than from scripture. What is Middle Knowledge? Middle knowledge is important in being able to explain the co-existence of God’s decrees and providence, and man’s freewill. Simply put, middle knowledge is the view that God knows that if X happen, Y would happen. Middle knowledge gets the name middle, because it is logically in-between two other types of knowledge. If comes after natural knowledge and before free knowledge. Natural knowledge is th...

During Arminius' day Calvinists used six distinctions to hold God decreed Adam's fall while denying God is the author of sin. Below are my paraphrases and summaries of the distinctions and Arminius’ responses. Here’s a link to the original text. ( link ) The Act and the Sin The first distinction is " in sin there are two things, the act and its sinfulness. God, by his own ordination, is the author of the act, not of the sinfulness in the act . Arminius argues that the distinction works for sins of omission (i.e. giving money to the church for public praise is a good act done for the wrong reasons) but not for sins of commission, because the acts themselves are against the law. But Adam's fall was a sin of commission, so the distinction is unhelpful. Also, since God's goal was to illustrate His glory and justice, the fall was decreed in that it was evil, not just in that it was an act, since sin (not the act) is forgiven or punished. Even if God predetermined someon...

The purpose of this paper is to delineate Arminius’ view on regeneration. The Arminian view on regeneration is frequently been mischaracterized, both by Calvinistic opponents, as well as adherents to his views. His view is often mischaracterized as semi-Pelagian (the view that man initiates salvation, but God completes) and sometimes go as far as to say Arminius denied original sin. Since to goal of this paper is to outline Arminius’ view, and not to defend the doctrines themselves, there will be a large number of quotations from Arminius and only a limited amount of scriptural exegesis. We will begin with a brief explanation of Arminius view of pre-fallen Adam, showing that his view was that Adam required grace to avoid sin. Next, we will show Arminius’ view of the disabling effects of the fall. Then we will cover the restorative nature of regeneration. Then we will cover the most controversial part, the order of salvation, in which we will outline Arminius’ view of the three states ...