The Works Of James Arminius V1 Part 2 download epub

Kessinger Publishing's Rare Reprints (2006) offers James Nichols' 1986 English translation (from the Dutch original) of "The Works of James Arminius" with three volumes in four bindings. First published in the months after his death Arminius' "Works" (1610) continue, today, to offer biblically based "free will" religious conviction. Nichols presents Arminian theology in the reformer's own words.

Part 2 of Volume 1 (450-pages) presents Arminius' "Oration" (portions of which date to his earliest university teaching days at Leiden in 1603). This volume contains the most primitive published Arminian academy theology. From this initial offering the good pastor turned professor posits truth that continues to resonate with believers, 400 years later.

Consider some of the gems Arminius poses in Part 2. "God cannot be known except through himself, to whom also there can be no approach but through himself" (page 374). "There are two methods...by which it might be possible for [humanity] to arrive at... righteousness before God...by works (of debt)... and according to mercy (`by grace through faith')" (page 417). Sin "totally destroys the freedom of the will" (page 630). God "moves sin by an act that is unavoidable, and according to his own purpose and primary intention...for [humanity] is impelled by an irresistible force to commit sin" (page 630).

Refuting predestinarianism Arminius says, "Christ... is... the foundation of election (page 630). Explaining biblical "free will" he says, "nothing can be done without the will of God... God wills and performs good acts. He only freely permits those which [Sic.] are evil..." but is not "the cause of evil" (page 658). Interestingly, Arminius believes that doing good requires regeneration (renewal in Christ by the Holy Spirit) and delivery from sin (pages 659-660) as a foundation for grace (page 664).

Finally, and perhaps most controversially, in refuting irresistible grace he witnesses, "I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered" (page 664). Ultimately in 1608, Arminius was called to state trial (in which we was exonerated) for teaching such opposition to Calvinism.

Of course, there is much more to discover in Volume 1 part 2. It is recommended that you soon make that discovery.

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 V2) and The Works Of James Arminius V3. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 3-volume hardcover set, of which Volume 1 has 770 pages.]

In his “An Oration on the Life and Death of the Reverend and Very Famous Man James Arminius, D.D.” [1609], Rev. Peter Bertius pointed out, “The truly evangelical system of religious belied which is known in modern days under the name ‘Arminianism,’ has acquired that appellation, not because Arminius was the sole author of it, but… because he collected those scattered and often incidental observations of the Christian Fathers, and of the early Protestant Divines, which have a collateral relation to the doctrines of General Redemption, and because he condensed and applied them in such a manner as to make them combine in one grand and harmonious scheme, in which all the attributes and perfections of the Deity are secured to him in a clearer and more obvious manner than by Calvinism, and in which man is still left in possession of his free-will, which alone places him in the condition of an accountable being.” (Pg. 84)

In his “Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius” he explains, “I reject this Predestination for the following reasons… Because it is not the foundation of Christianity, of Salvation, or of its Certainty… Predestination is not that decree of God by which Christ is appointed by God to be the Saviour, the Head, and the Foundation of those who will be made heirs of salvation: Yet that decree is the only foundation of Christianity… Nor is it the foundation of the Certainty of salvation: For that is dependent upon this decree, ‘They who believe, shall be saved.’ I believe, therefore I shall be saved. But the doctrine of this Predestination embraces within itself neither the first nor the second member of the syllogism… the gospel consists partly of an injunction to repent and believe, and partly of a promise to bestow forgiveness of sins… But this Predestination belongs neither to the injunction to repent and believe, nor to the annexed promise. Nay, this doctrine does not even teach what kind of men in general God has predestinated … but it embraces within itself a certain mystery, which is known only to God who is the Predestinator.” (Pg. 618-620)

He continues, “This doctrine was never admitted, decreed, or approved in any Council, either General or Particular, for the first 600 years after Christ… None of the Doctors or Divines of the Church who held correct and orthodox sentiments for the first Six Hundred years after the birth of Christ, ever brought this doctrine forward or gave it their approval.” (Pg. 620-621)

He argues, “this doctrine is repugnant to the nature of God, but particularly to those attributes of his nature by which he performs and manages all things---his wisdom, justice, and goodness… It is repugnant to his wisdom in three ways. (1) Because it represents God as decreeing something for a particular end [or purpose] which neither is nor can be good: Which is, that God created something for eternal perdition to the praise of his justice. (2) Because it states, that that the object … is that decree of God in which he determined that man should sin and be rendered miserable. (3) Because it … asserts that God had absolutely predetermined to save men by the mercy and wisdom that are comprehended in the doctrine of the cross of Christ, without have foreseen this circumstance---that it was impossible for man… to be saved by the wisdom which was revealed in the law and by which was infused into him at the period of this creation.” (Pg. 623-624)

He points out, “in this doctrine the following act is attributed to God---that, of himself, and induced to it by nothing external, he wills the greatest evil to his creatures; and that from all eternity he has pre-determined to impart it them, even before he resolved to bestow upon them any portion of good. For this doctrine states, that God willed to d_mn¬; and, that he might be able to do this, he willed to create---although creation is the first egress [or going forth] of God’s goodness toward his creatures. How vastly different are such statements as these from that expansive goodness of God by which he confers benefits not only on the unworthy, but also on the evil, the unjust, and on those who are deserving of punishment---which trait of Divine Beneficence … we are commanded to imitate.” (Pg 624-625)

He notes, “This doctrine is inconsistent with the freedom of the will, in which and with which man was created by God. For it prevents the exercise of this liberty, by binding or determining the will absolutely to one object---that is, to do this thing precisely, or to do that. God, therefore, according to this statement, may be blamed for one or the other of these two things… either for creating man with freedom of will, or for hindering him in the use of his own liberty after he had formed him a free agent.” (Pg. 626)

He observes, “This Predestination is inconsistent with the Nature and Properties of sin, in two ways: (1) Because sin is called ‘disobedience’ and ‘rebellion,’ neither of which terms can possibly apply to any person who by a preceding Divine decree is placed under an unavoidable necessity of sinning. (2) Because sin is the meritorious cause of damnation. But the meritorious cause which moves the Divine will to reprobate… induces God, who holds sin in abhorrence, to will reprobation.” (Pg. 628)

He states, “This doctrine is also hurtful to the salvation of man… Because it prevents that saving and godly sorrow for sins that have been committed, which cannot exist in those who have no consciousness of sin, But it is obvious, that the man who has committed sin through the unavoidable necessity of the decree of God, cannot possible have this kind of consciousness of sin.” (Pg. 631)

He asserts, “It takes away all that most salutary fear and trembling with which we are commanded to work out our own salvation. [Phil 2:12] For it states, ‘that he who is elected and believes, cannot sin with that full and entire willingness with which sin is committed by the ungodly; and that they cannot either totally or finally fall away from faith or grace.’” (Pg. 632)

He says, “This doctrine completely subverts the foundation of religion in general, and of the Christian Religion in particular… The foundation of Religion … is a two-fold love of God; without which their neither is nor can be any Religion: The First of them is a love for righteousness [or justice] which gives existence to his hatred of sin: The Second is a love for the creature who is endowed with reason, and… it is a love for man… it is not his will and pleasure to bestow eternal life on any except on ‘those who seek Him.’ God’s love of man consists in his being willing to give him eternal life, if we seek him…” (Pg. 634)

He summarizes, “I. The First absolute decree of God concerning the salvation of sinful man, is that by which he decreed to appoint his Son Jesus Christ for a Mediator, Redeemer, Saviour, Priest and King… II. The Second … is that in which he decreed to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and, in Christ, for his sake and through him, to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as persevered to the end; but to leave in sin and under wrath all impenitent persons and unbelievers… III. The Third… is that by which God decreed to administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith… IV. To these succeeds the Fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and d mn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the fore knowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who WOULD, through his preventing grace, BELIEVE, and, through his subsequent grace WOULD PERSEVERE… and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.” (Pg. 653-654)

He explains, “This is my opinion concerning the Free-will of man. In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his Creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness, and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace---But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit… When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable or thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.” (Pg. 659-660)

He clarifies, “I never taught that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [or Unconditional Perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration… With regard to the certainty [or assurance] of salvation, my opinion is, that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn him not, he is now in reality assured, that if he is a Son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ. Such a certainty is wrought in the mind, as well by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly actuating the believer…” (Pg. 667)

In his “Apology Against Thirty-one Defamatory Articles,” he points out, “a distinction ought to be made between POWER and ACTION. For it is one thing to declare, that ‘it is possible for the faithful to fall away from faith and salvation,’ and it is another to say, that ‘they DO actually fall away.’” (Pg. 741)

Arminius is one of the most important Christian theologians, and his works belong in every serious theological library.