Calvinism and Arminianism

SOVEREIGNTY, FREEWILL 

AND 

SALVATION 

PROF. M. M. NINAN 

CONTENTS 

PREFACE 

CHAPTER ONE AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO 1 

CHAPTER TWO PELAGIUS 12 

CHAPTER THREE SEMI PELAGIANISM 23 

CHAPTER FOUR CALVINISM 37 

CHAPTER FIVE JACOB ARMINIUS 56 

CHAPTER SIX MOLINISM AND METHODISM 110 

CHAPTER SEVEN SOME DETAILS 119 

CHAPTER EIGHT SOME PARADOXES AND THEIR SOLUTIONS 140


AND 

SALVATION 


PREFACE 

What we have received from our Fathers, this we proclaim to you without hesitation, that 

“God is Love”. There is no other definition of God. This God who is love, is our Father. 

Adam was the son of God, and all mankind thus are the children of God. We call Him, “Our 

Father, Who is in Heaven”. God so loved the world that he gave. His love is fully 

expressed on the cross. Father awaits the return of the prodigals. Love never fails. 

“He who sat on the throne, the Sovereign said: “Behold, I am making all things New.” 

He also said “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” Rev. 21:5. 

Yes indeed, the whole creation itself will be renewed, regenerated and made new. 

We do not proclaim a tyrant king. 

We proclaim a loving God who incarnated on the earth to carry the lost sons back home. 

In Jesus, He taught us what we are and how we are related. He lived and died leaving us a 

way back to the Father. His mercy because of his love will follow us all the days of life and 

even beyond our earthly life. 

He poured out his glory to provide me space to live as son. This included his limiting himself 

of his Omni attributes of Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient because He is Omnibenevolent. 

He breathed into me to give me life. Even when I was lost, he came searching 

after me to carry me home. He wants me to be like him to go and die for my brothers as 

he himself did. 

We are witnesses to the Father’s Love. 

Prof. M.M.Ninan 

Normal, IL 

2017

SOVEREIGNTY, FREEWILL AND SALVATION 



AND 

SALVATION 


CHAPTER ONE 

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO 

As the early church began to establish as institutional churches, it became necessary to 

make it clear what Christianity means. One of the major problem they faced was the 

problem of God’s sovereignty, the freedom of will of man and how salvation of man is 

related to them. 

If God alone existed with total sovereignty over all with the Omni properties, it leaves no 

place for a human (for that matter for any being) to exist 

If God is Omni-Present and He fills all dimensions of existence, where will man exist? 

If God is Omni-Scient, If He knows the past, present and the future and everything must be 

predestined even long before you were born, then where is the freedom of choice. 

If there is no freedom of choice that leaves no responsibility on man with respct to his 

action. 

1



Even every act including sin is determined before all creation, leaves no responsibility on on 

the person who does it -(He has to do it) and it will be injustice to punish the person for 

something on which he had no power. It is the Omni-potent God who does everything 

including sinning; indirectly through his creation. God will then become the author of 

sin even though it is done by man. Thus we see that if God is Sovereign with all the Omni, 

then humans are simply robots and are not really responsible to their actions. It is all 

preprogrammed into the creation, planned even before creation by the creator. 

The 4 robots from the University of Bremen (Germany), Rajesh, Penny, Sheldon and Leonard, are all 60 cm 

high and are members of the soccer team that won the Robot Football World Cup in Austria in 2009. 

If this is the reality, then the whole story of human fall, cross, resurrection, heaven and hell 

are only a child play. God himself turns into a cruel monster and the creation reduces to a 

machine. Heaven and hell are nothing but a cock and bull story play acted by an old kid. 

In the 8 th c AD an Indian theologian found a way out. Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta proposed 

that “all that we see as real are really only a dream in the mind of Brahman”. May be 

Brahman is having a bad dream. 

2



Christians have asserted all through history that God is real and all that he created is also 

real. At least as far as the creatures are concerned all that they live and experience are 

real. The pain, the suffering, the emotions, joy and sorrow are all real to the ones that are 

involved. 

The bible, the Christian scripture as we have it today, defined through generations, do 

support both the sovereignty of God and the freewill of man. Bible is clear that “We move 

and have our being in Him.” It is this paradox that was being grapled by theologians through 

the ages. They form two groups: Predestinarians and Freewillians. If God is real and the 

creation is real how can we maintain sovereignty of God and Freedom of the real Sons of 

God?. It is this struggle that is being traced in this book. 

3



AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO 

St. Monica the mother of Augustine and St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430) 

Christianity came to North Africa in the Roman era. According to historian Theodor 

Mommsen what is now Mediterranean Algeria was fully Christian by the fifth century. A 

notable Berber Christian of Algeria was Saint Augustine (and his mother Saint Monica), 

important saints of Roman Catholicism. Christianity's influence declined during the chaotic 

period of the Vandal invasions but was strengthened in the succeeding Byzantine period. 

After the Arab invasions of the 7th century, Christianity began to gradually disappear 

Berber Algeria 

The traditional Berber religion is the ancient and native set of beliefs and deities 

adhered to by the Berber autochthones of North Africa. Many ancient Berber beliefs were 

developed locally whereas others were influenced over time through contact with other 

traditional African religions (such as the Ancient Egyptian religion), or borrowed during 

antiquity from the Punic religion, Judaism, Iberian mythology, and the Hellenistic religion. 

The veneration of saints which exists among the modern Berbers in the form of 

Maraboutism was absorbed into Roman Churches through the influence of Augustine. 

4



The life of St. Augustine began in 354 AD, born at Thagaste, Numidia (now Souk Ahras, 

Algeria). on Nov l3 as the son of a Roman official in North Africa. His father, Patricius, 

was a Roman pagan and of a violent disposition but got baptized just before his death 

(apparently because of the belief that baptism is washing away of sin. His mother, 

Monica, (who was later made a saint in the Catholic Church) was astrong Roman Catholic 

and brought Augustine in Christian faith. (As a child, Augustine himself fell dangerously ill, 

he desired baptism and his mother got everything ready for it: but he suddenly grew better, 

and it was put off.) 

He went to Carthage in 370 AD when he was still 17. He studied rhetoric and fell into loose 

living. At Carthage, he entered into relations with a woman (to whom he remained 

faithful until he sent her away from him 15 years later). She bore him a son, Adeodatus, in 

372AD. His father had died in 371AD, but he continued at Carthage and switched to 

philosophy He studied the Scriptures but from a subjective attitude. It was during this 

period he joined the Gnostic heretic group of Manichaean - the Mani who came to India 

and reduced Christianity there into Hinduism - a combination of pagan religions and 

philosophy. 

In 383AD he departed to Rome, and opened a school or rhetoric. He was appointed by 

the government as a teacher in Milan. His mother joined him there. In Milan, Saint 

Augustine came under the influence of Saint Ambrose the bishop. During his 

philosophical journey, Augustine experienced a great deal of pain and suffering in his life. 

He went through phases of severe depression and debilitating grief. He witnessed things 

that just couldn’t be reconciled with theological doctrine. It was this irreconcilable tradeoff 

between truth and evil that kept Augustine jumping from philosophy to philosophy for over 

a decade. 

At the age of 31, Augustine had a supernatural experience Soon after, Pontitian, an 

African, came to visit Augustine and his friend Alipius; he told them about two men who 

had been suddenly turned to the service of God by reading about the life of Saint Anthony. 

Augustine said to Alipius: "What are we doing to let the unlearned seize Heaven by force, 

whilst we with all our knowledge remain behind, cowardly and heartless, wallowing in our 

sins? Because they have outstripped us and gone before, are we ashamed to follow them? 

Is it not more shameful not even to follow them?" As he spoke these words he heard a 

child's voice singing "Tolle lege! Tolle lege!" (Take up and read! Take up and read!). He took 

the bible and openned it and read the first chapter that met his eyes: "Let us walk 

honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, 

not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for 

the flesh, fulfil the lusts thereof." (Romans 13:13-14). This was his turning point. 

Augustine continued to struggle with the obvious pain, suffering and evil allowed by God. In 

his first book, On Order (386 AD), Augustine wrote: 

5



“There is nothing that even the most gifted people desire more than to finally 

understand how, taking into account the amount of evil in this world, one can still 

believe that God cares about human affairs.” 

For the next forty years, Augustine grappled with the reality of this paradox. He focused on 

God’s nature in scripture and God’s apparent desire for humanity. He determined that God 

created us for a relationship with him, and that authentic relationship is impossible with 

puppets. Apparently, God wanted us to have the capacity to freely choose or reject him. Of 

course, if we have free will, we have the capacity to choose love or hate -- good or evil. 

Apparently after several years he reversed his theology to exclude freewilll and assign God 

as predetermining everyone’s life arbitrarily. 

From that time, Saint Augustine went back to Tagaste, his native city, and lived for three 

years with his friends and shared a life of prayer, study and poverty. All things were in 

common and were distributed according to everyone's needs. He had no idea of becoming 

a priest, but in 391 he was ordained as an assistant to Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, and he had 

to move to that city. 

He established a sort of monastery in his house, living with Saint Alipius, Saint Evodius, 

Saint Possidius and others according to the rule of the holy Apostles. Valerius who had an 

impediment in speaking appointed Saint Augustine to preach in his own presence and he 

has not interrupted the course of his sermons until his death (nearly 400 sermons). He 

vigorously opposed the Manicheans and the Donatists. 

In 395 AD he was consecrated bishop as co-adjutor to Valerius, and succeeded him in the 

see of Hippo on his death soon after. 

He established regular and common life in his episcopal residence, and required all the 

priests, deacons, and subdeacons to renounce property and come together and live as a 

commune as in the early Apostolic period and established the "Rules of Saint Augustine". 

Augustine died on August 28, 430, after having lived 76 years 

Augustine wrote over 100 works in Latin, many of them texts on Christian doctrine and 

apologetic works against various heresies. 

He is best known for the "Confessiones" ("Confessions", a personal account of his early life, 

completed in about 397), 

"De civitate Dei" ("The City of God", consisting of 22 books started in 413 and finished in 

426, dealing with God, martyrdom, Jews and other Christian philosophies) and 

"De Trinitate" ("On the Trinity", consisting of 15 books written over the final 30 years of his 

life, in which he developed the "psychological analogy" of the Trinity). 

6



THEOLOGY OF AUGUSTINE 

It was Augustine who practically determined the Catholic doctrines as the church freed 

from persecution and came to its own in Rome. 

According to Rome the theological stand of Augustine on predestination and free will is 

given as follows: 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm 

https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.HTM 

Massa damnata theory, which says that the whole human race has the original sin 

transmitted to them from Adam and they are all guilty of sin and are worthy of hell 

without any personal sin. 

God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will; 

man remains free, even under the action of grace; 

the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government. 

Absolute sovereignty of God over the will 

…... that not only does every meritorious act require 

supernatural grace, but also that every act of virtue, 

even of infidels, should be ascribed to a Gift of God, 

to a specially efficacious providence which has 

prepared this good movement of the will 

(Retractations, I, ix, n. 6). ……that the will cannot 

accomplish that act of natural virtue, but it is a fact 

that without this providential benefit it would not. …. 

The fact has been too much lost sight of that Augustine distinguishes very explicitly two 

orders of grace: 

7



the grace of natural virtues (the simple gift of Providence, which prepares efficacious 

motives for the will); and grace for salutary and supernatural acts, given with the first 

preludes of faith. This is the grace of all men, a grace which even strangers and infidels 

(filii concubinarum, as St. Augustine says) can receive (De Patientiâ, xxvii, n. 28). 

The latter is the grace of the sons, gratia fliorum; 

Man remains free, even under the action of grace 

The second principle, the affirmation of liberty even under the action of efficacious grace, 

has always been safeguarded, and there is not one of his anti-Pelagian works even of the 

latest, which does not positively proclaim a complete power of choice in man; 

"not but what it does not depend on the free choice of the will to embrace the faith or 

reject it, but in the elect this will is prepared by God" (De Prædest. SS., n. 10). 

This is an evasive way of reconciling freewill and sovereignty. 

choice is prepared by God” 

In the elect the “free 

De gratia Christi 25, 26: "For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He 

even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do 

not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it" 

De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: "It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings 

it about that we will good. . . . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it 

about that we act, providing most effective powers to the will." 

The reconciliation of these two truths 

But is there not between these two principles an irremediable antinomy? 

If the freewill is dead, what else can God do. He mercifully gives the salvation by giving 

some the ability to choose to believe in Jesus. 

De gratia et libero arbitrio 6. 15: "If then your merits are God's gifts, God does not crown 

your merits as your merits, but as His gifts." 

On the one hand, there is affirmed an absolute and unreserved power in God of directing 

the choice of our will, of converting every hardened sinner, or of letting every created will 

harden itself; and on the other hand, it is affirmed that the rejection or acceptance of grace 

or of temptation depends on our free will. Is not this a contradiction? 

8



Reconciliation of of the freewill and God’s action: 

The Theory of Divine Government of wills 

Here are the main lines of this theory: 

The will never decides without a motive, without the attraction of some good which it 

perceives in the object. God manipulates the situation by providing the right motive to 

force the will to decide. It is like the provision of a haystack on one side for a hungry 

donkey. What will donkey do? 

“St. Augustine has remarked that man is not the master of his first thoughts; he can exert an 

influence on the course of his reflections, but he himself cannot determine the objects, the 

images, and, consequently, the motives which present themselves to his mind. Now, as 

chance is only a word, it is God who determines at His pleasure these first perceptions of 

men, either by the prepared providential action of exterior causes, or interiorly by a Divine 

illumination given to the soul. — let us take one last step with Augustine: 

Not only does God send at His pleasure those attractive motives which inspire the will with 

its determinations, but, before choosing between these illuminations of the natural and the 

supernatural order, God knows the response which the soul, with all freedom, will make to 

each of them.” 

It is this aspect that Molinists developed later in history. 

The spiritually dead man comes to the point of choice. The 

Sovereign picks him up and puts him in some where which God 

knew the dead man would have chosen, 

”predestination by the choice of the vocation which is foreseen as 

efficacious.” “Grace helps him to the right choice for the elect”. 

9



There is an inherent contradiction in the theory of predestination in Augustine. 

Speaking to the Manichæans he says: "All can be saved if they wish"; 

and in his "Retractations" (I, x) he affirms "It is true, entirely true, that all men can, if they 

wish." 

In his sermons he says to all: 

"It depends on you to be elect" (In Ps. cxx, n. 11, etc.); 

"Who are the elect? You, if you wish it" (In Ps. lxxiii, n. 5). 

Double Predestination as Divine Will 

Ad Simplicianum 1, 2, 16: "Therefore all men are . . . one condemned mass [massa damnata] 

of sin, that owes a debt of punishment to the divine and supreme justice. Whether it [the 

debt] be exacted, or whether it be condoned, there is no injustice." 

City of God 21, 12: "Hence there is a condemned mass of the whole human race . . . so that 

no one would be freed from this just and due punishment except by mercy and undue 

grace; and so the human race is divided [into two parts] so that in some it may be shown 

what merciful grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it [punishment] 

there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this way there may be shown what is due to 

all." 

(4) Epistle 190. 3. 12: He said that reprobates are so much more numerous than the saved 

that "by an incomparable number they are more numerous than those whom He deigned 

to predestine as sons of the promise to the glory of His kingdom; so that by the very 

number of those rejected, it might be shown that the number, howsoever large, of the 

justly damned is of no importance with a just God. . . ." Which implies that God does not 

will all to be saved: hence Augustine's explicit denial, several times, of the words of 1 Tim 

2:4. Hence too, as we said above, God does not really love anyone: He merely uses a few to 

show mercy.” 

On the predestination of the saints 17: "Let us, then, understand the call by which the elect 

are made elect: they are not persons who are chosen because they have believed, but they 

are persons who are chosen so that they may believe. For even the Lord Himself made this 

call sufficiently clear when He said: 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.’” 

On the merits and remission of sins 2, 17, 26: "Men are not willing to do what is right either 

because the fact that it is right is hidden from the, or because it does not please them. It is 

from the grace of God, which helps the wills of man, that that which was hidden becomes 

known, and that which did not please become sweet. The reason why they are not helped 

[by grace] is in themselves, not in God, whether they are predestined to damnation 

because of the wickedness of their pride, or whether they are to be judged and emended, 

contrary to the wickedness of their pride if they are sons of mercy." [written 411]. 

10



Augustine on Free Will 

“Tiny babies are not weighed down by their own sin, but they are being burdened with the 

sin of another.” 

“A man’s free will avails for nothing except to sin.” 

"It is, therefore, in the power of the wicked to sin; but that in sinning they should do this or 

that by that wickedness is not in their power, but in God's, who divides the darkness and 

regulates it; so that hence even what they do contrary to God's will is not fulfilled except it 

be God's will.“ 

“Men’s evil wills are prepared by God and predestination. 

God, in his timeless wisdom had decided to prepare only the will of a few.” 

Original Sin on children and need of baptism 

Death came from sin, not man's physical nature. 

Infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin. 

No good works can come without God's grace. 

Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal 

life. 

No one can escape the struggle within Augustine once the theory of Original Sin was firmly 

assumed by him. There is no other way than a double predestination. Freewill is a myth. 

11



CHAPTER TWO 

PELAGIUS 

“God is completely holy and perfectly just”, 

he argued: 

”God wouldn’t command us to do something that He knows we don’t have the ability to 

do.” (“Be ye holy even as I am holy,”) “For God to command us to do something that He 

knows we can’t do is simply cruel.” 

12



In Celtic Art, Celtic knots (also known as 'endless knots' or 'mystic knots') are series of 

overlapping or interwoven knots which have no clear start or end. 

Pelegius 

Pelagius was an early British theologian that lived toward the end of the Fourth century and 

the beginning of the fifth century (c.354 - c, 420 AD). Of the origin of Pelagius almost 

nothing is known. He is certainly of Celtic Origin and belonged to the Celtic Christianity 

which is considered as a Church independent of the Catholic Church which probably were 

taken over by the Roman Catholic Church after the Roman conquest of Britain. 

The word "Celtic" refers to people who lived in Britain and Western Europe from 500 BC 

and 400 AD. Celts were of the Iron Age and lived in small villages which were led by warrior 

chiefs. What we know of are only through the time honored oral traditions. These tells of 

the bravery and magic of the Celts, and celebrate their rich history. 

The name Pelegius is supposed to be a Hellenized form of the Cymric Morgan (sea 

begotten). His contemporaries understood that he was of British (probably of Irish) birth, 

and gave him the appellation Brita. He was a large ponderous person, heavy both in body 

and mind (Jerome, "stolidissimus et Scotorum pultibus praegravatus"). 

Pelagius was influenced by the monastic enthusiasm which had been kindled in Gaul 

(modern day France) by Saint Athanasius (A.D.336), and which, through the energy of Saint 

Martin of Tours (A.D. 361), rapidly communicated itself to the Briton and Scots. For, though 

Pelagius remained a layman throughout his life, and though he never appears in any strict 

connection with a cenobite fraternity, yet he adhered to monastic discipline ("veluti 

monachus"), and distinguished himself by his purity of life and exceptional sanctity 

("egregie Christianus"). Even his opponents could not find any fault in his life. 

13



Celtic Warrior 

He went to Rome in the beginning of the 5th century (his earliest known writing is of date 

405) as a Christian monk and found a scandalously low tone of morality prevalent in all the 

Rome. This he attributed to the total predestination teachings of Augustine who taught that 

irrespective of the way one lived, the destiny of every person was determined even before 

he was even born and nothing could change that. He wanted to correct the fallacy of 

Augustinian double pre-destination theology. 

Pelegius while living in Rome, was actively involved in teaching and exhorting Christians to 

live a righteous and holy life. His teachings were aimed at pointing out, godly conduct 

versus evil conduct. As a monk, Pelagius was a strong proponent of a rigorous lifestyle, and 

therefore, he was highly devoted to controlling his personal conduct and doing only those 

things which were good to do. 

As an ascetic monk, Pelagius believed that the Christian life consisted of a continued 

struggle with oneself even in the midst of a society which forces man to be selfish to 

overcome sin and attain salvation by deliberately choosing good over evil. 

During his sojourn in Rome he composed several works: 

"De fide Trinitatis libri III", now lost; 

"Eclogarum ex divinis Scripturis liber unus", 

"Commentarii in epistolas S. Pauli", 

Augustinian theology gave the feeling that it does not matter what you do, you have got 

the end as predetermined by God before even you were thought of. It is to remove this 

Pelegius presented the remonstrations . But his remonstrations were met by the plea of 

human weakness. 

To remove this plea by exhibiting the actual powers of human nature became his first 

object. 

14



It seemed to him that the Augustinian doctrine of total depravity and of the consequent 

bondage of the will both cut the sinew of all human effort and threw upon God the blame 

which really belonged to man. His favorite maxim was, "If I ought, I can." God will not and 

cannot ask anything from man, if it cannot be done by him. Hence his insistence on the 

freedom of the will. 

The need for free will of every person in contrast to double predestination is based on the 

obvious condition that a man is responsible for his action only based on his ability. 

“Ability limits Obligation” 

“God cannot ask Man that which he cannot perform” 

“Man is not responsible to his actions unless he has the choice and the ability” 

“It is not justice to punish for actions or non actions that are beyond the ability of 

the person” 

These are the basic premises of Pelegianism. 

According to the Pelagian theology, Adam had the choice, he violated the law which he 

could have avoided and so incurred sin on his own. According to the scriptures, Adam’s 

sin does not cause punishment to the children, and the freedom which Adam enjoyed in 

the choice and his ability did not cause damage to his children. 

Here is the clear statement: 

Will God charge Adam’s sin to his children? 

Ezekiel 18:19- 21 

"Yet you say, 

'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' 

When the son has practiced justice and righteousness 

and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 

"The person who sins will die. 

The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, 

nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; 

the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, 

and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 

"But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and 

observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely 

live; he shall not die.…” 

It follows that we are uninjured by the sin of Adam, save in so far as the evil example of our 

predecessors misleads and influences us (non propagine sed exemplo). There is, in fact, 

15



no such thing as original sin, sin being a thing of will and not of nature; for if it could be of 

nature, our sin would be chargeable on God the creator. There seems to be confusion 

between individual responsibility and the collective responsibility in all this free will 

predestination debate. It all seems to be based on individuals whereas there are reasons 

that are communal than individual. Even when Jesus established his communities, they all 

went selfish and the communes failed very often, because of one person (as in the case of 

Judas Iscariot) or a couple (as in Ananias and Saphira). As far as we know none of the 

early communities survived. When it emerged it was in the form of a hierarchial system of 

power and authority as in the Catholic Church. Instead of being servants of one another, 

all Christian Church and the saved believers formed a structure, based on power and 

authority, based on “who rules over whom.” 

These are the teachings of Pelegius 

The first assumption of Pelegius was the rejection of the concept of Original Sin and the 

conseqent teaching that man lost his freewill as a result. If anything is transmitted 

genetically according to Pelegius it is this freedom upon which Adam acted in partaking of 

the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Even God agrees that their eyes 

were openned and Adam and Eve became like God. 

According to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, 

who charged Coelestius the disciple of Pelegius as holding. 

(1) that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned; 

(2) that the sin of Adam injured himself alone, not the human race; 

(3) that newborn children are in the same condition in which Adam was before the fall; 

(4) that the whole human race does not die because of Adam's death or sin, nor will the 

race rise again because of the resurrection of Christ; 

(5) that the law gives entrance to heaven as well as the gospel; 

(6) that even before the coming of Jesus Christ there were men who were entirely 

without sin. 

To these propositions a seventh is sometimes added, "that infants, though unbaptized, 

have eternal life", a corollary from he third. 

16



Man can make the choice = Man still has the freewill even after Adam’s fall 

Every human being today has the choice 

To follow God or to Go to hell. It is his choice. Bible clearly sets these choices before 

people in the OT and in the NT. 

Joshua 24:14-15 (ESV) Choose Whom You Will Serve 

“Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the 

gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 And if 

it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the 

gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in 

whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” 

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 (NIV) See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and 

destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to 

him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the 

LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. 

But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow 

down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be 

destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and 

possess. 

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you 

life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may 

live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For 

the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your 

fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

17



Joshua 24:15 Choose for yourselves "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, 

choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers 

served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are 

living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." 

Those who have chosen God’s way in the OT 

Psalm 119:30 I have chosen the faithful way; I have placed Your ordinances before me. 

Psalm 119:173 Let Your hand be ready to help me, For I have chosen Your precepts. 

Job 34:4 "Let us choose for ourselves what is right; Let us know among ourselves what is 

good. 

Job 34:33 "Shall He recompense on your terms, because you have rejected it? For you must 

choose, and not I; Therefore declare what you know. 

Luke 21:14 "So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves; 

Jesus said: 

John 11:25-26 "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in me, though he were 

dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever lives and believeth in me shall never die. Do you 

believe this?" 

Matthew 6:25 "Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My 

sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own 

soul?" 

John 5:39-40 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and 

these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may 

have life." 

Galatians 6:7 "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he 

will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who 

sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." 

Colossians 3:5-7 "Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: 

fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because 

of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you 

yourselves once walked when you lived in them." 

Romans 5:17 "For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more 

those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life 

through the One, Jesus Christ." 

James 1:12"Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, 

he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him." 

18



"We distinguish three things - 

the ability, the will, the act 

(posse, velle, esse). 

the ability is in nature, and must be referred to God, 

who has bestowed this on His creature; 

the other two, the will and the act, must be referred to individual person, 

because they flow from the fountain of free will" (Aug., Degr. ch. 4). 

Celestius the disciple of Pelegius 

Celestius, (flourished 5th centuryc. 401 - c. 500), was one of the first and probably the most 

outstanding of the disciples of Pelagius. It was probably because of Celestius, Pelegius’ 

teachings were heard far and wide. Celestius was practicing law in Rome when they met. 

Celestius, probably was an Italian, who had been trained as a lawyer, one who later 

abandoned his profession for an ascetic life. 

When Rome was sacked by the Goths (410) the two friends crossed to Africa. there Pelagius 

once or twice met with Augustine, but very shortly sailed for Palestine, where he justly 

expected that his opinions would be more cordially received. 

Celestius remained in Carthage with the view of receiving ordination. But Aurelius, bishop 

of Carthage, being warned against him, summoned a synod, at which Paulinus, a deacon of 

Milan, charged Celestius with holding the six errors mentioned above. 

Celestius did not deny that he held these opinions, but he maintained that they were open 

questions, on which the Church had never pronounced. The synod, notwithstanding, 

condemned and excommunicated him. Celestius, after a futile appeal to Rome, went to 

Ephesus, and there received ordination. 

In Palestine Pelagius lived unmolested and revered, until in 415 Orosius, a Spanish priest, 

came from Augustine, who in the meantime had written to warn Jerome against him. The 

result was that in June of that year Pelagius was cited by Jerome before John bishop of 

Jerusalem, and charged with holding that ‘man may be without sin, if only he desires it”. In 

December of the same year Pelagius was summoned before a synod of fourteen bishops at 

Diospolis (Lydda). Pelagius repudiated the assertion of Celestius, that "the divine grace 

and help is not granted to individual acts, but consists in free will, and in the giving of the 

law and instruction." At the same time he affirmed that a man is able, if he likes, to live 

without sin and keep the commandments of God, inasmuch as God gives him this ability. 

The synod was satisfied with these statements, and pronounced Pelagius to be in 

agreement with Catholic teaching. 

North African Church as a whole resented the decisions of Diospolis, and in AD 416 sent up 

from their synods of Carthage and Mileve (in Numidia) an appeal to Innocent, bishop of 

19



Rome, who, flattered by the tribute thus paid to the see of Rome, decided the question in 

favor of the African synods. 

When the Goths menaced Rome about 409AD, the two men went first to Sicily and then, 

about 410AD, to North Africa, where Celestius remained after Pelagius left for Palestine in 

411AD. During a visit to Carthage, Paulinus, a deacon of Milan, accused Celestius of denying 

the existence of original sin and the remission of sins by baptism. Celestius was condemned 

at the Council of Carthage (412AD). It was presided over by Bishop St. Aurelius. Soon after 

Celestius left for Ephesus (near modern Selçuk, Turkey). 

Celestius’ propaganda and Pelagius’ writings succeeded in making many converts. It also 

evoked strong reaction also. St. Jerome, the great Latin biblical scholar, and Bishop St. 

Augustine of Hippo were among them. 

St. Jerome, in one of his passionate invectives, calls Celestius 

“a blockhead swollen with Scotch portage.” He goes on to describe Celestius a “great, 

corpulent. barking dog, fitter to kick with his heels than to bite with his teeth: a Cerberus, 

who, with his menter Pluto (so Pelegius is designated), deserved to be knocked on the 

head, and so put to eternal silence." 

The Councils and Condemnations 

http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/council-of-rome-ad-417-2/ 

This eventually led to the condemnation of Celestius and Pelagius at the Council of 

Diospolis (modern Lod, Israel) in 415AD and at two African councils in 416. Although they 

were excommunicated in 417 ADby Pope St. Innocent I, the succeeding pope, St. Zosimus, 

was sympathetic to them 

Date 

Location 

Chaired by 

Number of 

Participants 

Key Participants 

Purpose 

Key Events 

415 AD 

Diospolis (=Lydda) 

John II of Jerusalem 

14 

Council of Milev (AD 416) 

Date 416 

Location 

Number of 

Participants 


Pelagius; Deacon Anianus 

To address the accusations against Pelagius 

Pelagius condemned the theses attributed to him by the accusation of Eros of Arles 

and Lazzarus of Aix; Pelagius restored to communion 

Milev 

61 provincial bishops 

Silvanus of Numidia; Alypius; St. Augustine; Severus of Milev; Fortunatus of Citha; 

Possidius 

20



Key Events 

Letter sent to Innocent I requesting the condemnation of Caelestius and Pelagius’ 

heresies 

Council of Carthage (AD 416) 

Date 416 

Location 

Key 

Participants 

Key Events 

Carthage 

Bishops of Proconsularis; Aurelius; Alypius; Augustine; Euodius; Possidius 

Confirmation of the conclusions come to at Carthage in 412; condemnation of Pelagius 

and Caelestius; synodal letter sent to Innocent 

Council of Rome (AD 417) 

Date 417 

Location 

Summoned by 

Chaired by 


Purpose 

Key Events 

Rome 

Innocent 

Innocent 

Caelestius; Pelagius; Innocent 

To condemn Caelestius and Pelagius 

Innocent confirmed the condemnation of Caelestius and Pelagius but allowed for future 

forgiveness and reinstatement 

Celestius visited Pope Zosimus, whom he impressed and who, after receiving a profession 

of faith from Pelagius, accused the African bishops in 417 AD of having acted precipitately. 

Violent outbreaks by the Pelagians in Rome caused the Western Roman emperor Flavius 

Honorius to condemn Pelagianism and exile Celestius from Italy. Meanwhile, Celestius, who 

had been commanded to appear before the pope, ignored the summons and fled from 

Rome. Thereupon, Zosimus excommunicated him and condemned Pelagianism. The Council 

of Ephesus (431AD) also condemned him. 

Pelagians—whose proponent Pelagius had been excommunicated on Jan. 27, 417AD, by 

Innocent and who in general were condemned by the African bishops—appealed to Rome, 

being successfully represented by Celestius (Caelestius). After receiving a profession of faith 

from Pelagius, Zosimus sent a strongly worded letter to the African bishops on Sept. 21, 

417AD, accusing them of having acted precipitately in their condemnation. However, the 

next year Zosimus, again doubting Pelagius’ orthodoxy, read his commentary on Romans; 

shocked by its doctrine, he commanded Celestius to appear before him for examination. 

Celestius fled Rome, thereby appearing self-condemned, and Zosimus issued the Epistola 

tractoria (“Epistolary Sermon”) that excommunicated Pelagius and Celestius and 

condemned their doctrine. Pelagius, horrified by his excommunication, departed, probably 

for Egypt. 

21



Though Innocent's successor, Zosimus, wavered for some time, he at length fell in with the 

rest. For, simultaneously with the largely attended African synod which finally condemned 

Pelagianism in the West, an imperial edict was issued at Ravenna by Emperor Honorius on 

the 30th of April 418, enacting that not only Pelagius and Celestius but all who accepted 

their opinions should suffer confiscation of goods and irrevocable banishment. 

Council of Rome (418AD) 

Date 

Location 

Chaired by 

418AD 

Rome 

Zosimus 

Purpose To reexamine the conclusion of Rome in 417 

Key Event 

Condemnation of Pelagianism; publication of Epistola tractoria 

Thus prompted the Roman bishop, Zosimus, drew up a circular petition inviting all the 

bishops of Christendom to subscribe to a condemnation of Pelagian opinions. Nineteen 

Italian bishops refused, among them Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, a man of good birth, 

approved sanctity and great capacity, came forward in support of Pelegian thought. But 

the Eastern Churches confirmed the decision of the West in Ephesus 431AD. Pelagius 

himself disappeared from the scene after 420AD; Celestius was last seen at Constantinople 

seeking the aid of the Patriarch, Nestorius in 428AD. 

22



CHAPTER THREE 

SEMI PELAGIANISM 

John Cassian of Marseilles (Massilia)(360-435 AD) 

Saint John Cassian, John the Ascetic, or John Cassian the Roman, was a Christian monk and 

theologian celebrated in both the Western and Eastern Churches 

St. John was born in the Danube Delta in what is now Dobrogea, Romania, in about 360 

(some sources instead place him as a native of Gaul). In 382 he entered a monastery in 

Bethlehem and after several years there was granted permission, along with his friend St. 

Germanus of Dobrogea, to visit the Desert Fathers in Egypt. They remained in Egypt until 

399, except for a brief period when they returned to Bethlehem and were released from 

the monastery there. 

Upon leaving Egypt they went to Constantinople, where they met St. John Chrysostom, who 

ordained St. John Cassian as a deacon. He had to leave Constantinople in 403 when 

23



Chrysostom was exiled, eventually settling close to Marseilles, where he was ordained 

priest and founded two monasteries, one for women and one for men. 

St. John's most famous works are the Institutes, which detail how to live the monastic life, 

and the Conferences, which provide details of conversations between John and Germanus 

and the Desert Fathers. 

St.John Cassian was a comtemporary of both Augustine and Pelegius and he proposed a 

median mode of the two extreme teachings. He wrote The Institutes and Conferences 

where he proposed a modiified form of Pelegius’ teaching. The advocates of this system 

were known as Massilians 

who rejected the doctrine of predestination as a vain speculation of mischievous tendency. 

"The Semi-Pelagian doctrine taught by John Cassian (d. 440) admits that divine grace 

(assistance) is necessary to enable a sinner to return unto God and live, yet holds that, from 

the nature of the human will, man may first spontaneously, of himself, desire and attempt 

to choose and obey God. They deny the necessity of prevenient but admit the necessity of 

cooperative grace and conceive regeneration as the product of this cooperative grace." A.A. 

Hodge 

Faustus, bishop of Priez, in France, from A. D. 427 to A. D. 480, was one of the most 

distinguished and successful advocates of this doctrine, which was permanently accepted 

by the Eastern Church, It was widely disseminated throughout the West, until it was 

condemned by the synods of Orange and Valence, A. D. 529. However it was in effect 

accepted by the Roman Church as is evident in their statement of faith. 

He teaches that the grace of God always invites, precedes and helps our will, and whatever 

gain freedom of will may attain for its pious effect is not its own desert, but the gift of 

grace." This is none other than the historical error of Semi-pelagianism/Arminianism, call it 

what you will. See his writing, On Grace and Free Will: his famous Conference XIII. 

B.B. Warfield said: 

"But Pelagianism did not so die as not to leave a legacy behind it. "Remainders 

of Pelagianism" soon showed themselves in Southern Gaul, where a body of 

monastic leaders attempted to find a middle ground on which they could 

stand, 

by allowing the Augustineian doctrine of assisting grace, 

but retaining the Pelagian conception of our self-determination to good. 

We first hear of them in 428, through letters from two laymen, Prosper and 

Hilary, to Augustine, as men who accepted original sin and the necessity of 

24



grace, but asserted that men began their turning to God, and God helped 

their beginning. They taught that all men are sinners, and that they derive 

their sin from Adam; that they can by no means save themselves, but need 

God's assisting grace; and that this grace is gratuitous in the sense that men 

cannot really deserve it, and yet that it is not irresistible, nor given always 

without the occasion of its gift having been determined by men's attitude 

towards God; so that, though not given on account of the merits of men, it is 

given according to those merits, actual or foreseen. The leader of this new 

movement was John Cassian, a pupil of Chrysostom (to whom he attributed 

all that was good in his life and will), and the fountain-head of Gallic 

monasticism; and its chief champion at a somewhat later day was Faustus of 

Rhegium (Riez)." 

Led by John Cassian, Hilary of Arles, Vincent of Lerins, and Faustus of Riez, joined in the 

controversy. These men objected to a number of points in the Augustinian doctrine of sin 

and grace, namely, the assertion of the total bondage of the will, of the priority and 

irresistibility of grace, and of predestinarian thought. They partly agreed with Augustine as 

to the seriousness of sin, yet they regarded his doctrine of predestination as new, therefore 

in conflict with tradition and dangerous because it makes all human efforts superfluous. 

In opposition to Augustinianism, Cassian taught that though a sickness is inherited through 

Adam's sin, 

human free will has not been entirely obliterated. 

Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, 

but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the 

weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God. In other words, 

divine grace and human free will must work together in salvation. 

In opposition to the stark predestinarianism of Augustine, Cassian held to the doctrine of 

God's universal will to save, and that predestination is simply divine foreknowledge of who 

will chose God. 

Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Arminians are in full agreement. 

All three reject 

the teaching of monergistic regeneration 

believing that man has retained the free willl to choose God and turn to God even 

after Adam’s fall. 

Even Augustine discovered that the monks of Adrumetum found themselves 

either sunk to the verge of despair or provoked to licentiousness by his 

predestinarian teaching. he wrote two elaborate treatises to show that when God 

25



ordains the end He also ordains the means, and if any man is ordained to life 

eternal he is thereby ordained to holiness and zealous effort. 

The disputes (419-428) of St. Augustine with Julian of Eclanum 

Through the vigorous measures adopted in 418, Pelagianism was indeed condemned, but 

not crushed. Among the eighteen bishops of Italy who were exiled on account of their 

refusal to sign the papal decree, Julian, Bishop of Eclanum, a city of Apulia now deserted, 

was the first to protest against the "Tractoria" of Zosimus. 

Julian of Eclanum (Latin: Iulianus Aeclanensis, Italian: Giuliano di Eclano) (c. 386 – c. 455) 

was bishop of Eclanum, near today's Benevento (Italy). He was a distinguished leader of the 

Pelagians of 5th century 

When the cases of Pelagius and Coelestius were reopened by Zosimus, shortly after the 

death of Innocent, Julian seems to have expressed himself strongly in their favour in the 

hearing of Mercator; and when Zosimus issued his Epistola Tractoria 577 against the 

Pelagians (417 CE) and sent it to the bishops of the East and West for subscription, Julian 

was among those who refused. He was accordingly deposed, and afterwards exiled under 

the edicts issued by the emperor Honorius in March 418. 

Highly educated and skilled in philosophy and dialectics, he assumed the leadership 

among the Pelagians. But to fight for Pelagianism now meant to fight against 

Augustine.who seems to have been a close family friend of Julian.The literary feud set in at 

once. After a long series of defence by letters and books Julian and his friends were then 

driven from Constantinople by an imperial edict. A comprehensive account of Pelagianism, 

which brings out into strong relief the diametrically opposed views of the author, was 

furnished by Augustine in 428 in the final chapter of his work, "De haeresibus" (P.L., XLII, 21 

sqq.). Augustine's last writings published before his death (430) were no longer aimed 

against Pelagianism but against Semipelagianism. 

After the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia (428), Julian of Eclanum left the hospitable city 

of Cilicia and in 429 we meet him unexpectedly in company with his fellow exiles Bishops 

Florus, Orontius, and Fabius, and the Court of the Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, 

who willingly supported the fugitives. It was here, too, in 429, that Caelestius emerged 

again as the protégé of the patriarch; this is his last appearance in history; for from now on 

all trace of him is lost. But the exiled bishops did not long enjoy the protection of Nestorius. 

When Marius Mercator, a layman and friend of St. Augustine, who was then present in 

Constantinople, heard of the machinations of the Pelagians in the imperial city, he 

composed towards the end of 429 his "Commonitorium super nomine Caelestii" (P.L., XLVIII, 

63 sqq.), in which he exposed the shameful life and the heretical character of Nestorius' 

wards. The result was that the Emperor Theodosius II decreed their banishment in 430. 

26



Towards the close of 430 Celestine convened a council at Rome, which condemned Julian 

and others once more 

Julian: “You [ie. Augustine] think that your Lord is capable of committing a crime against 

justice such as is hardly conceivable even among the barbarians.” 

Julian accused Augustine of Manicheism and of making God the creator of both good and 

evil. 

“We maintain that men are the work of God, and that no one is forced unwillingly by His 

power either into evil or good, but that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that 

in a good work he is always assisted by God’s grace, while in evil he is incited by the 

suggestions of the devil.” 

Last traces of Pelagianism (429-529) 

After the Council of Ephesus (431), Pelagianism no more disturbed the Greek Church, so 

that the Greek historians of the fifth century do not even mention either the controversy or 

the names of the Peleginists. 

But the heresy continued to smoulder in the West and died out very slowly. The main 

centres were Gaul and Britain. About Gaul we are told that a synod, held probably at Troyes 

in 429, was compelled to take steps against the Pelagians. It also sent Bishops Germanus of 

Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes to Britain to fight the rampant heresy, which received 

powerful support from two pupils of Pelagius, Agricola and Fastidius (cf. Caspari, "Letters, 

Treatises and Sermons from the two last Centuries of Ecclesiastical Antiquity", pp. 1-167, 

Christiana, 1891). 

Almost a century later, Wales was the centre of Pelagian intrigues. For the saintly 

Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its 

attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he 

himself convened a synod against them. 

In Ireland also Pelagius's "Commentary on St. Paul", was in use long afterwards. 

With the Second Synod of Orange (529) Pelagianism ceased to be an issue with 

the western churches. Augustine's doctrine of sin and grace was adopted as 

the anthropology, or teaching on sinful man of the Western Church. They 

stood with Augustine in his classical position that God could not have chosen 

men based on their decision for good, because they would never have chosen 

the good, being unable to do so. However his double pre-destination came in 

disrepute in time. This stand is known as Semi-Augustinianism which became 

the accepted stand of the Roman Catholic Church. 

27



Declaration was approved by Pope Boniface ll in 531 

“This indeed we salubriously profess and believe. that in every good work we 

do not embark by ourselves and only later are assisted by the pity of God, but 

that he himself inspires faith and love of him in us beforehand. without any of 

our good deeds preceding.“ Regarding the role of human labor. The Definitio 

declared. “After grace has been accepted through baptism. all of the baptized. 

if they wish to labor faithfully. can and ought to fulfil that which pertains to the 

salvation of the soul. with the assistance and cooperation of Christ." 

This declaration was approved by Pope Boniface ll in 531. and was indeed the 

final word on the role of grace. It affirmed that salvation was available to all, 

and conclusively rejected full Augustinian predestination. These doctrines were 

repressed during the early Medieval period, and would become prominent 

again in the Gottschalk controversy in the 9th century, again repressed and 

would return in the teachings of Wycliff and Hus, precursors to the 

Reformation 

http://www.instonebrewer.com/visualSermons/originalSin/_Sermon.htm 

Semi-Pelagianism proposed that:· 

Human nature is neither good nor bad, but sick. 

Just as a sick person can’t quite do whatever he’d like to do, so likewise through the fall into 

sin man’s capacities became restricted. His free will remained, but was weakened by the fall. 

Man, then, can still decide to request and receive help. · 

Man’s need for grace: 

Although Semi-Pelagianism believes in man’s need for God’s grace (for man is too sick to 

help himself), man by his free will is able to decide whether he wants God’s grace. 

28



Whereas Pelagius taught that salvation is totally man’s own doing, and 

Augustine taught that salvation is totally from God, 

Semi-Pelagianism teaches that salvation is a combination of the efforts of BOTH man and 

God. 

According to Semi-Pelagianism, salvation = God’s grace + man’s acceptance of grace. 

Man can only be saved if man decides to co-operate with God and accepts the grace God 

offers him. · 

God’s sovereignty: 

Semi-Pelagianism restricts the sovereignty of God in that it is limited by man’s decision to 

co-operate with God or not. 

God’s offer of salvation can be refused by man and so return to God empty. 

Though God may wish to save someone, He can only do so if that person is interested in 

taking Him up on the offer. 

Over the course of time, Semi-Pelagian or Semi-Augustine doctrine became the 

official theology of the Roman Catholic Church, and remains so even today. 

Middle Ages 

Thomas Aquinas (c1225–1274) : William of Ockham (1288- 1347): 

(1266-1308) : 

Duns Scotus 

Thomas Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian of the Middle Ages, taught that, 

from man’s fallen state, there were three steps to salvation: 

1. Infusion of grace (infusio gratiae)- God infuses grace into the human soul - the 

Christian now has faith and, with it, the ability to do good - this step is entirely God’s 

work and is not done by man, and once a man has faith, he can never entirely lose it - 

however, faith alone is not enough for salvation; 

29



2. Faith formed by charity (fides caritate formata)- with man’s free will restored, man 

must now do his best to do good works in order to have a faith formed by charity; 

and then 

3. Condign merit (meritum de condigno) - God then judges and awards eternal life on 

the basis of these good works which Aquinas called man’s condign merit. 

Aquinas believed that by this system, he had reconciled 

Ephesians 2:8 "By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift 

of God" and 

James 2:20,24 "faith without works is dead" "by works a man is justified and not by faith 

only", and had provided an exposition of the Bible's teaching on salvation compatible with 

Augustine's teachings. 

A second stream of medieval thought, commonly referred to as the Ockhamists after 

William of Ockham (English Franciscan friar 1285-1347) and also including Duns Scotus 

(John Duns died 1308) and Gabriel Biel(1425 –1495) rejected Aquinas’ system as 

destroying man’s free will. 

The Ockhamists argued that if a man loved God simply because of "infused grace", then 

man did not love God freely. They argued that before a man received an infusion of grace, 

man must do his best in a state of nature (i.e. based on man’s reason and inborn moral 

sense). They argued that just as God awards eternal life on the basis of man’s condign merit 

for doing his best to do good works after receiving faith as a gift from God, so too, the 

original infusion of grace was given to man on the basis of "congruent merit", a reward for 

man’s doing his best in a state of nature. (Unlike condign merit, which is fully deserved by 

man, congruent merit is not fully deserved, and includes a measure of grace on God's part. 

Congruent merit is therefore also sometimes called "semimerit". According to the 

Ockhamists, a gracious God awards an individual with congruent merit when he or she does 

the best that he or she is able to do.) 

30



http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality12.php by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P. 

https://www.academia.edu/30914487/Thomism_and_Predestination 

Aquinas believed in free will and not a strict monergism. 

“God, therefore, is the first cause, who moves causes both natural and voluntary. 

And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their actions from being 

natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being 

voluntary; but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them, for He operates in 

each thing according to his own nature.” 

Thomists generally hold, includes these four elements: 

a) God wills, as purpose of the universe, the manifestation of His goodness. 

b) Among possible worlds known to Him by simple intelligence, anterior to any 

decree of His will, He selected as suited to that purpose this present world, which 

involves, 

first, an order of nature subordinated to the order of grace, 

second, the permission of sin, 

third, the hypostatic order of redemptive Incarnation. 

31



c) He freely chooses, as means suited to manifest His divine goodness, this present 

world with all its orders and parts. 

d) He commands the execution of this choice of decree by the imperium, an 

intellectual act, which presupposes two efficacious acts of will, one the intention of 

purpose, the other the choice of means. Divine providence consists, properly and 

formally, in this imperium, whereas divine government is the execution in time of 

that eternal plan which is providence. 

Hence we see that providence presupposes, not merely God's conditional, inefficacious, 

antecedent will, but also God's consequent, absolute, efficacious will, to manifest His 

goodness through His own chosen ways and means, by the present orders of nature and of 

grace, which includes permission of sin with the consequent order of redemptive 

Incarnation. 

This order manifestly presupposes, 

first, God's antecedent will to save all men in virtue of which He makes really and truly 

possible to all men the fulfilling of His precepts. 

Secondly, God's consequent will to save all men who will in fact be saved. Thus 

predestination, by its object, is a part, the highest part of providence. 

Is providence infallible? 

Thomists in general answer Yes, with a distinction. 

Providence, inasmuch as it presupposes God's consequent will, is infallible, both in the end 

to be obtained and in the ways and means that lead to that end. But in as far as it 

presupposes solely God's antecedent will, it is infallible only with regard to ways and means. 

Here lies the distinction between general Providence, which makes salvation genuinely 

possible for all men, and predestination, which infallibly leads the elect to their preordained 

good. 

All creation down to tiniest detail is ruled by providence. 

"Not a sparrow falls to earth without your Father's permission." 

"The very hairs of your head are numbered." 

Hence the question arises: How can providence govern these multitudinous details, without 

suppressing contingency, fortune, and liberty, without being responsible for evil? 

St. Thomas answers: "Since every agent acts for an end, the preordaining of ways and 

means to reach that end extends, when the First Cause is in question, as far as extends the 

efficient causality of that First Cause. Now that causality extends to all created things, not 

only as regards their specific characters, but also to their utmost individual differences. 

Hence all created reality must be preordained by God to its end, must be, that is, subject to 

providence." Even the least detail of the material world is still a reality, hence known by 

32



God, since He is cause not only of its form, but also of its matter, which is the principle of all 

individual differences. 

When we talk of events which men ascribe to fortune, good or evil, we must remember that 

we are dealing only with the second causes of those events. In relation to the First Cause 

such events are in no wise accidental and fortuitous, since God eternally foresees all results, 

however surprising to men, that come from complicated series of created causes. 

Evil as such is not a positive something, but is the privation of good in the created thing. 

God permits it only because He is strong enough and good enough to draw from evil a 

higher good, the crown of martyrdom, say, from persecution. And God's causality, as we 

saw above, far from destroying, actualizes liberty. The mode of contingency, and the 

mode of liberty, says St. Thomas, being modes of created being, fall under divine 

Providence, the universal cause of being. A great poet expresses with equal perfection 

sentiments the strongest or the sweetest. God, who can do all things He wills as He wills, 

can bring it about that the stone falls necessarily and that man acts freely. God moves each 

creature according to the nature which He gave to that creature. 

Here emerges a rule for Christian life. We must work out our salvation, certainly. But the 

chief element in that work is to abandon ourselves to providence, to God's wisdom and 

goodness. We rest more surely on God's design than on our own best intentions. Our only 

fear must be that we are not entirely submissive to God's designs. To those who love God, 

who persevere in His love, all things work together unto good. [430] This abandonment 

evidently does not dispense us from doing our utmost to fulfill the divine will signified by 

precepts, counsels, and the events of life. But, that done, we can and should abandon 

ourselves completely to God's pleasure, however hidden and mysterious. Such 

abandonment is a higher form of hope; it is a union of confidence and love of God for His 

own sake. Its prayer unites petition and adoration. It does not pray, indeed, to change the 

dispositions of providence. But it does come from God, who draws it forth from our heart, 

like an earthly father, who, resolved on a gift to his child, leads the child first to ask for the 

gift. 

Predestination 

What we here attempt is a summary of the principles which underlie Thomistic doctrine on 

the high mystery of predestination. 

1. Scriptural Foundation 

St. Thomas studied deeply those texts in St. John and St. Paul which express the mystery of 

predestination, its gratuitousness, and its infallibility. Here follow the chief texts. 

33



a) "Those whom Thou gavest Me have I kept: and none of them is lost but the son of 

perdition that the Scripture may be fulfilled." 

b) "My sheep hear My voice. And I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them life 

everlasting: and they shall not perish forever. And no man shall pluck them out of My hand. 

That which My Father hath given Me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of 

the hand of My Father." 

c) "For many are called, but few are chosen." 

St. Thomas, based on tradition, interprets these texts as follows: There are elect souls, 

chosen by God from all eternity. They will be infallibly saved; if they fall, God will raise them 

up, their merits will not be lost. Others, like the son of perdition, will be lost. Yet God never 

commands the impossible, and gives to all men genuine power to fulfill His precepts at the 

moment when these precepts bind according to the individual's knowledge. Repentance 

was genuinely possible for Judas, but the act did not come into existence. Remark again the 

distance between potency and act. The mystery lies chiefly in harmonizing God's universal 

will of salvation with the predestination, not of all, but of a certain number known only to 

God. 

This same mystery we find often affirmed by St. Paul, implicitly and explicitly. Here are the 

chief texts. 

a) "For what distinguisheth thee? or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if 

thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received? " [435] This is 

equivalent to saying: No one would be better than another, were he not more loved and 

strengthened by God, though for all the fulfillment of God's precepts is genuinely possible. 

"It is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will." 

b) "He chose us in Him [Jesus Christ] before the foundation of the world that we should be 

holy and unspotted in His sight. He hath predestinated us to be His adopted children 

through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, to make shine forth the 

glory of His grace, by which He has made us pleasing in His eyes, in His beloved son." 

This text speaks explicitly of predestination. So St. Augustine. So St. Thomas and his school. 

St. Thomas sets in relief both the good pleasure of God's will and the designs of God's mind, 

to show the eternal freedom of the act of predestination. 

c) "We know that to them who love God all things work together unto good, to those who 

are called according to His designs. For those whom He foreknew, these also He 

predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His son, that His son might be the 

firstborn among many brethren. And whom He predestinated, these He also called, and 

whom He called, these He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified." 

"Those whom He foreknew, these also He predestinated." How does St. Thomas, following 

St. Augustine, understand these salient words? Nowhere does he understand them of 

34



simple prevision of our merits. Such a meaning has no foundation in St. Paul, and is 

excluded by many of his affirmations. [439] The real meaning is this: "Those whom God 

foreknew with divine benevolence, these He predestinated." And for what purpose? That 

His Son might be the first among many brethren. This is the genuine meaning of 

"foreknew." 

d) This same idea appears clearly in the commentary on Romans, [ where St. Paul is 

magnifying the sovereign independence of God in dispensing His graces. The Jews, the 

chosen people of old, have been rejected by reason of their unbelief, and salvation is being 

announced to the pagans. St. Paul sets forth the underlying principle of God's predilection, 

applicable both to nation and to individuals: 

"What shall we say? Is there injustice in God? Far from it. For He says to Moses: 'I will have 

mercy on whom I will, I will have compassion on whom I will. ' This then depends not on 

him who wills, not on him who runs, but on God who shows mercy." [441] If predestination 

includes a positive act of God, hardening of the heart, on the contrary, is only permitted by 

God and comes from the evil use which man makes of his freedom. Let no man, then, call 

God to account. Hence the conclusions: "Oh unsounded depth of God's wisdom and 

knowledge! How incomprehensible are His judgments, how unsearchable His ways!. Who 

hath first given to Him, that recompense should be made? For of Him and by Him and in 

Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen." 

Definition of Predestination 

The Scripture texts just quoted are the foundation of the doctrine, Augustinian and 

Thomistic, of predestination. 

The definition of St. Augustine runs thus: Predestination is God's foreknowledge and 

preparation of those gifts whereby all those who are saved are infallibly saved. By 

predestination, he says elsewhere, God foreknew what He Himself would do. . 

The definition of St. Thomas runs thus: That plan in God's mind whereby He sends the 

rational creature to that eternal life which is its goal, is called predestination, for to 

destine means to send. 

This definition agrees with that of St. Augustine. In God's mind there is an eternal 

plan whereby this man, this angel, reaches his supernatural end. This plan, divinely 

ordained and decreed, includes the efficacious ways and means which lead this man, 

this angel, to his ultimate goal. This is the doctrine of Scripture. This is the doctrine 

of the two saints, Augustine and Thomas. 

35



Martin Luther (1483-1541) 

Augustinian Monk 

“Free will is really a fiction… everything takes place by absolute necessity.” 

(Luther, Assertio, 36) 

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it 

was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; 

who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and 

who should be justified and who should be condemned." 

36



CHAPTER FOUR 

CALVINISM 

Romans 9:15 

"I (God) will have mercy on whom I have mercy, 

and I 

will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 

"It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, 

but 

on God's mercy. 

Although there had been significant earlier attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church 

before Luther – such as those of Jan Hus, Peter Waldo, and John Wycliffe – Martin Luther is 

widely acknowledged to have started the Reformation with his 1517 work The Ninety-Five 

Theses. 

37



Luther began by criticizing the sale of indulgences, insisting that the Pope had no authority 

over purgatory and that the Catholic doctrine of the merits of the saints had no foundation 

in the gospel. The Protestant position, however, would come to incorporate doctrinal 

changes such as a complete reliance on Scripture as a source of proper belief (sola scriptura) 

and the belief that only faith, and not good deeds, bring salvation (sola fide). The core 

motivation behind these changes was theological, though many other factors played a part, 

including the rise of nationalism, the Western Schism that eroded faith in the Papacy, the 

perceived corruption of the Roman Curia, the impact of humanism, and the new learning of 

the Renaissance that questioned much traditional thought. 

A generation divided John Calvin from Martin Luther, whom he never met. Yet they were 

almost always referred together in the context of protestant reformation. 

“This man, John Calvin undoubtedly the greatest of Protestant divines, and perhaps, after St. 

Augustine, the most perseveringly followed by his disciples of any Western writer on 

theology, was born at Noyon in Picardy, France, 10 July, 1509, and died at Geneva, 27 May, 

1564. 

38



“http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm 

Citation: C N Trueman "John Calvin" 

historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 16 Mar 2015. 22 Jul 2017. 

Jean Calvin was raised in a staunch Roman Catholic family. The local bishop employed 

Calvin’s father as an administrator in the town’s cathedral. The father, in turn, wanted John 

to become a priest. Because of close ties with the bishop and his noble family, John’s 

playmates and classmates in Noyon (and later in Paris) were aristocratic and culturally 

influential in his early life. 

At the age of 14 Calvin went to Paris to study at the College de Marche in preparation for 

university. His studies consisted of seven subjects: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, 

geometry, astronomy, and music. Toward the end of 1523 Calvin transferred to the more 

famous College Montaigu. While in Paris he changed his name to its Latin form, Ioannis 

Calvinus, which in French became Jean Calvin. During this time, Calvin’s education was paid 

for in part by income from a couple of small parishes. So although the new theological 

teachings of individuals like Luther and Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples were spreading 

throughout Paris, Calvin was closely tied to the Roman Church. However, by 1527 Calvin 

had developed friendships with individuals who were reform-minded. These contacts set 

the stage for Calvin’s eventual switch to the Reformed faith. Also, at this time Calvin's 

father advised him to study law rather than theology. 

By 1528 Calvin moved to Orleans to study civil law. The following years found Calvin 

studying in various places and under various scholars. By 1532 Calvin finished his law 

studies and also published his first book, a commentary on De Clementia by the Roman 

philosopher, Seneca. The following year Calvin fled Paris because of contacts with 

individuals who through lectures and writings opposed the Roman Catholic Church. It is 

thought that in 1533 Calvin experienced the sudden and unexpected conversion and 

grasped Protestantism. 

He knew that he will be considered a heretics by the Catholic church and hence for the next 

three years, Calvin lived in various places outside of France under various names. He 

studied on his own, preached, and began work on his first edition of the Institutes—an 

instant best seller. By 1536 Calvin had disengaged himself from the Roman Catholic Church 

and made plans to permanently leave France and go to Strasbourg. However, war had 

broken out between Francis I and Charles V, so Calvin decided to make a one-night detour 

to Geneva. 

Geneva was a French-speaking Swiss city. At the time of Calvin’s arrival the city was 

struggling between two independence against two authorities who were trying to exercise 

control over Geneva. The first was the Dukes of Savoy and the second was the Bishop of 

Geneva. In May 1536 the city adopted religious reform: 

39



1) monasteries were dissolved 

2) Mass was abolished 

3) Papal authority renounced 

Even within the reformation there were two groups - those who wanted mild reform (such 

as no compulsory church attendance) and those who demanded radical reform such as 

Calvin and Farel. The mild reformers were called the Libertines and they wanted 

magistrates firmly in control of the clergy. Calvin wanted a city controlled by the clergy – a 

theocracy. In 1538, the Libertines won the day and Farel and Calvin fled the city and went 

to Strasbourg. 

But Calvin’s fame in Geneva preceded him. Farel, a local reformer, invited him to stay in 

Geneva and threatened him with God’s anger if he did not. Thus began a long, difficult, yet 

ultimately fruitful relationship with that city. He began as a lecturer and preacher, but by 

1538 was asked to leave because of theological conflicts. He went to Strasbourg until 1541. 

Libertines had fallen from power in 1540. In 1541 the Council of Geneva requested that 

he return to Geneva. He did so and remained in Geneva until his death May 27, 1564. . It 

took Calvin 14 years before he could fully impose his version of liturgy, doctrine, 

organisation of the church and moral behaviour. 

The church controlled all aspects of life. Eventually Geneva became theocratic. 

In 1555, the city council gave the consistory the right to excommunicate offenders. Only 

after this date was a strict moral code imposed and every sin was made a crime e.g. no 

work or pleasure on a Sunday; no extravagance in dress. If you were excommunicated you 

were banished from the city. Blasphemy could be punished by death; lewd singing could be 

punished by your tongue being pierced. 

The state had to obey the teachings of the church, according to Calvin, and once he had 

managed to ensure this power, he felt confident enough to shut down taverns – though 

this was actually done by magistrates – and replace them with “evangelical refreshment 

places” where you could drink alcohol but this was accompanied by Bible readings. Meals 

(in public) were preceded by the saying of grace. 

The city itself was not democratic but were controlled by the aristocracy.. These 1,500 men 

had a right to elect the city council which governed the city’s 13,000 people. Calvin turned 

out to be a dictator under the name of God. When the Spanish scholar called Michael 

Servetus came to Geneva in 1553. and questioned concept of Trinity.Calvin burnt him as a 

heretic. In May 1555, the Libertines attempted a take-over of Geneva which was a 

disaster. The ringleaders were caught and executed and this success further strengthened 

Calvin’s hand. 

Calvin left the Roman Catholic Church around 1530 and joined the Reformation in 1537. 

40



“Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John 

Calvin; no age, before him ever produced his equal, and no age afterwards has seen his rival. 

In theology, he stands alone, shining like a bright fixed star, while other leaders and 

teachers can only circle round him, at a great distance — as comets go streaming through 

space — with nothing like his glory or his permanence” . . . “the longer I live the clearer 

does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.”~ Charles Spurgeon 

“Calvin was the cruel and unopposed dictator of Geneva.”~ From ‘John Calvin’ in The Oxford 

Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by FL Cross and EA Livingstone, (OUP: New York, 

1974, 2nd ed.), p. 223. 

“The famous Calvin whom we regard as the apostle of Geneva raised himself up to the 

rank of Pope of the Protestants.”~ VoltaireHe died at age 54. But he was incredibly 

productive. 

Romans 9:15 "I (God) will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on 

whom I have compassion."It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on 

God's mercy. 

Theodore Beza (1519-1605) 

Successor to Calvin in Geneva 

Created what now called Calvinism with the acronym now used as 

TULIP 

Supralapsarianism as opposed to infralapsarianism 

41



Supralapsarianism / antelapsarianism (“before the lapse”) puts God’s decrees in the 

following order: 

(1) God decreed the election of some and the eternal condemnation of others, 

(2) God decreed to create those elected and eternally condemned, 

(3) God decreed to permit the fall, and 

(4) God decreed to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. 

Supralapsarianism focuses on God ordaining the fall, creating certain people for the sole 

purpose of being condemned, and then providing salvation for only those whom He had 

elected. 

Sublapsarianism (“under the lapse”) put God’s decrees in the following order: 

(1) God decreed to create human beings, 

(2) God decreed to permit the fall, 

(3) God decreed to provide salvation sufficient to all, and 

(4) God decreed to choose some to receive this salvation. 

The only difference between infralapsarianism and sublapsarianism is whether God first 

decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ and then chose some to be saved, or 

vice-versa. 

Infralapsarianism (“after the lapse”) puts God’s decrees in the following order: 

(1) God decreed the creation of mankind, 

(2) God decreed mankind would be allowed to fall into sin through their own 

self-determination, (3) God decreed to save some of the fallen, and 

(4) God decreed to provide Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. I 

nfralapsarianism focuses on God allowing the fall and providing salvation. 

This is by far the majority Reformed (or Calvinistic) view. 

42



Calvinism 

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/ 

The Five Points of Calvinism 

This system of theology was reaffirmed by the Synod of Dordt 

in 1619 as the doctrine of salvation contained in the Holy 

Scriptures. The system was at that time formulated into "five 

points" in answer to the unscriptural five points submitted by 

the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610. 

According to Calvinism: 

Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. 

The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death 

effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly 

obey the Gospel. 

The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace 

alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. 

43



Total Depravity (Total Inability) 

T 

Total Depravity is probably the most misunderstood tenet of Calvinism. When Calvinists 

speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an 

intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part 

of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is 

intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. 

The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). 

Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of 

the gospel (Mark 4:11f). 

This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability." The man without a 

knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive 

through Christ 

(Ephesians 2:1-5). 

Unconditional Election 

U 

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was 

pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object 

of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the 

offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for 

glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the 

foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8). 

This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming 

work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's 

sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. 

Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to 

deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism. 

The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, though good works will never 

bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result 

of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader 

to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an 

indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil. 

Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption) 

L 

44



Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did 

Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save 

(John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, 

Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear 

the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25). 

This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited 

Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any 

that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential 

atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement 

for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of 

atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy 

the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. 

Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation 

that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died! 

Irresistible Grace 

The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call 

of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word 

of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of 

him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), 

and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a 

comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and 

wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)! 

Perseverance of the Saints 

I 

P 

Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has 

saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in 

heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by 

God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about 

in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ 

assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" 

(John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that 

he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect. 

45



Notice that there’s no “A” for Assurance – ie you can’t be sure you are saved 

- Calvin preached against those who presumed to be sure during this lifetime 

- you only knew someone was elect if they kept believing to the end of their life 

- if they didn’t keep believing, then they weren’t a real believer in the first place 

- God knows who the real elect are, but they themselves cannot know for sure 

- living a Christian lifestyle helps to suggest you are elect, but doesn’t make you 

elect because salvation doesn’t depend on anything you choose to do. 

http://www.instonebrewer.com/visuamons/Sovereignty/_Sermon.htm 

God's Sovereignty is Exhaustive 

God has determined everything which will take place in the universe by his decrees in past 

eternity ~ including who will be saved and who will be condemned in hell (reprobation). 

God is Sovereign. He is the King of all creation. He can do anything He wants. If he takes 

you and gives a seat in his palace, He get the glory. If He puts you in hell for eternity 

burning in fire also, He gets the glory. This is what Sovereigns are. A Feudal Lord 

46



TOTAL DEPRAVITY means total inability. Human spiritual 

death is defined in an extreme way as a total inability to 

please God in any way, including inability to repent and 

believe the gospel of Christ. People are seen as spiritual 

corpses. 

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION 

Before we were even born, God has decided and decreed who 

will be saved and who will go to hell apart from anything we 

do or can do. His basis for this choice is an unrevealed 

mystery. 

LIMITED ATONEMENT 

Christ died only for the “elect,” who were sovereignly chosen 

in past eternity. God does not really love the “non-elect.” 

Many say that He hates them. 

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE 

The “elect” are directly and irresistibly regenerated before 

they believe, since they cannot first exercise saving faith. 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 

We cannot really be sure we are among the “elect” unless we persevere until the end. We 

must constantly search our hearts to 

make sure we are not counterfeits 

“May the Lord curse you and abandon you. 

May the Lord keep you in darkness and give 

you only judgment without grace. May the 

Lord turn his back upon you and remove his 

peace from you forever.” These words, taken 

from a popular R.C. Sproul video, starkly reveal 

the dark underbelly of the Calvinist’s concept 

of justice. 

Curse Motif of the Atonement, RC Sproul 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjqkhyTaGeE&feat 

ure=youtu.be 

47



GOD CREATED SINNERS FOR A PURPOSE: 

God hates evil so much that He must ensure its eternal 

perpetuation, for if in a trillion years from now there was 

even a millisecond of time in which God didn’t have a 

group of sinners to be angry at, then this would be tragic 

as one whole part of His character (justice) would be 

unable to be expressed. 

As Douglas Wilson once put it on his blog, 

“In a world without sin, two of God’s most glorious attributes—His justice 

and His mercy—would go undisplayed. This, obviously, would be horrible … 

In a world without sin and evil, at least two attributes of God would have gone 

unrevealed and unmanifested, those attributes being wrath and mercy. Since 

this is obviously intolerable, God determined to direct our affairs the way that 

He did. 

Jonathan Edwards expressed a similar idea when he wrote: 

“It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the 

same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be 

complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every 

beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a 

proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly 

manifested, and another not at all … 

48



Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful 

greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, 

unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of 

God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory 

would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, 

and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth 

at all. If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, 

there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in 

showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would 

be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be 

pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he 

bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired … So evil 

is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the 

completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; 

because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the 

sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of 

the creature must be proportionably imperfect. 

The same notion is present in the works of Saint Augustine: 

“…if all had remained condemned to the punishment entailed by just 

condemnation, then God’s merciful grace would not have been seen at work 

in anyone, on the other hand, if all had been transferred from darkness to light, 

the truth of God’s vengeance would not have been made evident.” —City of 

God 21.11 

Augustine defends this view by comparing it to the beauty of antithesis that we find in 

literature: 

“[Man’s] future evil state … enrich[es] the course of world history by the 

kind of antithesis which gives beauty to a poem. ‘Antithesis’ provides the 

most attractive figures in literary compositions … The opposition of such 

contraries gives an added beauty to speech; and in the same way there is a 

beauty in the composition of the world’s history arising from the antithesis of 

contraries—a kind of eloquence in events, instead of words.” —City of 

God 11.17 

49



Shocking Beliefs of John Calvin 

These actions from one who believed the correctness of a Sovereign is not surprising 

really. It is the natural outcome of the faith. 

This is the justice of God in Action in Calvinism. 

April 8, 2015 by Frank Viola 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/shockingbeliefsofjohncalvin/ 

1. Calvin believed that executing unrepentant heretics was justified. 

The best known example of this is when Calvin consented to the execution of Michael 

Servetus, a man who denied the Trinity and infant baptism. Servetus burned for one hour 

simply because of his theological views. 

In addition to Servetus, Jerome Bolsec was arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin 

during a lecture, then banished from the city. Calvin wrote privately about the matter 

saying that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.” 

Jacques Gruet was also a man who disagreed with Calvin. He called Calvin an ambitious and 

haughty hypocrite. The administrations of Geneva tortured Gruet twice daily until he 

confessed, and with Calvin’s concurrence, Gruet was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to 

it, and his head was cut off for blasphemy and rebellion. 

Pierre Ameaux was charged with slandering Calvin at a private gathering. He was to pay a 

fine, but Calvin wasn’t satisfied with the penalty, so Ameaux spent two months in prison, 

lost his job, and was paraded through town kneeling to confess his libel, also paying for the 

trial expense. 

2. Calvin believed that the Eucharist provides an undoubted assurance of eternal life. 

3. Calvin believed that the Reformed Church (his church) was the true Church and there 

was no salvation outside of it. 

4. Calvin believed it was acceptable to lambast his opponents with vicious names. 

5. Calvin believed that the Old Testament capital offenses should be enforced today. 

The city of Geneva was ruled by the clergy, which was composed of five pastors and twelve 

lay elders chosen by Geneva’s Council. But Calvin’s voice was the most influential in the city. 

50



Here are some laws and facts about Geneva under Calvin’s authority: 

* Each household had to attend Sunday morning services. If there was preaching on 

weekdays, all had to attend also. (There were only a few exceptions, and Calvin preached 

three to four times a week.) 

* If a person came to the service after the sermon had begun, he was warned. If he 

continued, he would have to pay a fine. 

* Heresy was regarded as an insult to God and treason to the state and was punished by 

death. 

* Witchcraft was a capital crime. In one year, 14 alleged witches were sent to the stake on 

the charge that they persuaded satan to afflict Geneva with the plague. 

* Clergy were to abstain from hunting, gambling, feasting, commerce, secular amusements, 

and had to accept annual visitations and moral scrutiny by church superiors. 

* Gambling, card-playing, frequenting taverns, dancing, indecent or irreligious songs, 

immodesty in dress were all prohibited. 

* The allowable color and quantity of clothing and the number of dishes permissible at a 

meal were specified by law. 

* A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an “immoral height.” 

* Children were to be named after Old Testament characters. A rebellious father served 

four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham. 

* To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation was punished 

by a reprimand. Further violations with fines. Persistent violations were met with 

imprisonment or banishment. 

* Fornication was punished by exile or drowning. 

* Adultery, blasphemy, and idolatry was punished with death. 

* In the year 1558-1559, there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses. 

* As everywhere in the 16th century, torture was often used to obtain confessions or 

evidence. 

* Between 1542-1564, there were 76 banishments. The total population of Geneva then 

was 20,000. 

* Calvin’s own step-daughter and son-in-law were among those condemned for adultery 

and executed. 

* In Geneva, there was little distinction between religion and morality. The existing records 

of the Council for this period reveal a high percentage of illegitimate children, abandoned 

infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death. 

* In one case, a child was beheaded for striking his parents. (Following Old Testament 

Mosaic law, Calvin believed it was scriptural to execute rebellious children and those who 

commit adultery.) 

* During a period of 17 years when Calvin was leading Geneva, there were 139 recorded 

executions in the city. 

Sabastian Castellio, a friend of Calvin’s who urged him to repent of his intolerance, made 

the shocking remark, 

51



“If Christ himself came to Geneva, he would be crucified. For Geneva is not a place of 

Christian liberty. It is ruled by a new pope [John Calvin], but one who burns men alive while 

the pope at Rome strangles them first.” 

Castellio also made this remark: 

“Can we imagine Christ ordering a man to be burned alive for advocating adult baptism? 

The Mosaic laws calling for the death of a heretic were superceded by the law of Christ, 

which is one of mercy not of despotism and terror.” 

6. Calvin believed that Jewish people were impious, dishonest, lacked common sense, 

were greedy, and should die without pity. 

7. Calvin believed that God did not create all humans on equal terms, but created some 

individuals for eternal damnation. 

This idea is known as “double predestination.” According to this view, God predestines 

some to salvation and others to destruction. While this idea will not be shocking to some 

Christians, particularly Calvinists, the idea that God would knowing create some 

individuals so as to destroy them eternally in the end is shocking to many believers. 

According to Calvin, “The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and 

adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to 

deny . . . By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined 

with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created 

on equal terms, but some 

are preordained to eternal 

life, others to eternal 

damnation; and, accordingly, 

as each has been created for 

one or other of these ends, 

we say that he has been 

predestinated to life or to 

death.” 

Chapter 21 of Book III of 

John Calvin’s Institutes of 

the Christian Religion is 

called “Of the eternal 

election, by which God has 

predestinated some to 

salvation, and others to 

destruction.” 

52



AMYRALDISM 

FOUR POINT CALVINISM 

Moses Amyraut (1596–1664) 

Amyraldism (sometimes Amyraldianism) 

is also known as 

the School of Saumur, post redemptionism, moderate Calvinism, four-point Calvinism, 

or 

hypothetical universalism 

It is the belief that God decreed Christ's atonement, prior to his decree of election, for all 

alike if they believe, but he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, seeing 

that none would believe on their own, and thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of 

unconditional election. The efficacy of the atonement remains limited to those who believe. 

This doctrine is named after its formulator Moses Amyraut, and is still viewed as a variety of 

Calvinism in that it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in the application of the 

atonement. 

Hypothetical universalist teachings may be found in the writings of early Reformed 

theologians including Heinrich Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus, Zacharias Ursinus, and 

53



Girolamo Zanchi. Several theologians who signed the Canons of Dort were hypothetical 

universalists. 

Amyraut maintained the Calvinistic premises of an eternal foreordination and 

foreknowledge of God, whereby he caused all things to pass, the good efficiently, the bad 

permissively. He also admitted the double decree of election and reprobation, but his view 

on double predestination is modified slightly by his view of double election. He also taught 

that God foreordained a universal salvation through the universal sacrifice of Christ offered 

to all alike, on condition of faith, so that on the part of God's will and desire, the grace is 

universal, but as regards the condition it is particular, or only for those who do not reject it 

which would thereby make it ineffective. 

The friends of Amyraut urged the love, benevolence, and impartial justice of God as well as 

the numerous passages in Scripture which teach that God loves 'the whole world', that he 

will have 'all men to be saved', that Christ died 'not for our sins only, but also for the sins of 

the whole world', that 'he shut up all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all'. On the 

other hand, it was objected that God does not really will and intend what is never 

accomplished; that he could not purpose an end without providing adequate means; God 

did not actually offer salvation to all; and that a hypothetical universalism based on an 

unlikely condition is an unfruitful abstraction. 

The national Synods at Alençon, 1637; at Charenton, 1645; and at Loudun, 1659 (the last 

synod permitted by the French government), decided against the excommunication of 

Amyraut but delimited his views in order to avoid further variance with historic Reformed 

orthodoxy. 

Amyraldism has come under fire in recent years by contemporary Calvinist theologians who 

argue that one simply cannot accept that Christ died for all people in the world if not all are 

saved. 

That belief either requires 

a second payment for sin at the judgment, (a second cross?) 

or abandonment of the penal substitution theory of the atonement. 

the adoption of a form of universal reconciliation, 

Actually it is not necessary that all should be saved if Christ died for all, if there is freewill 

ability which can resist grace and the call of the cross. Actually the substitution theory stand 

to trial on: 

(Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the 

father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

54



Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) 

Opposed baptismal regeneration 

Supported Double Predestination 

“Those individuals who end up damned forever in hell are also eternally determined by God 

for that fate.” 

HYPER CALVINSTS: 5 point Calvinists: TULIP 

Calvinist who believe in all 5 points are "5-point" Calvinist. 

AMYRALDIANISTS: 4 point Calvinists:TUIP 

Calvinist who don’t accept the controversial "L" of "TULIP"Limited Atonement 

-- who accept that God died for the sins of all humanity on the cross, not just 

"the elect," are "4-point" Calvinists (or Amyraldianists).>>>> 

1 Point Calvinists 

Some Baptists modify all but the last point (Perseverance of the Saints) of the 

TULIP out of a desire tn maintain the role of the human free will to make a 

"personal decision“ for Christ, the human "personal decision" bringing G0d‘s 

saving faith. They sometimes call themselves "1-point" Calvinists. 

55



CHAPTER FIVE 

JACOB ARMINIUS 

The year Jacob Arminius was born (in Oudewater, Holland), John Calvin was busy 

establishing the Genevan Academy to propagate his ideas of predestination. About that 

same time, Guido de Brès wrote the first edition of the Belgic Confession, which became 

one of the basic doctrinal standards of Dutch Calvinism. As Arminius grew up, arguments 

over Calvin's teachings interrupted those over Spanish rule. By the time Arminius was 14, 

William the Silent, Holland's king, was a Calvinist. 

Arminius began to question Calvinism (especially its view of grace and predestination) in his 

early 20s, but rather than fight for his views at the Geneva Academy, where he had studied 

under Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza, he left quietly. When Genevan authorities became 

angry at Arminius's defense of French humanist Peter Ramus, Arminius left for Basel. He 

56



was offered a doctorate there but turned it down on the grounds that his youth (he was 

only 24 or 25) would bring dishonor to the title. 

It was his study of the Epistle to the Romans as an Amsterdam minister that set Jacob 

Arminius firmly against Calvinism. Though he was accused of Pelagianism (an overemphasis 

on free will) and other heresies, his critics brought no proof of the charges. 

In 1606, while professor of theology at Leiden, Arminius delivered an address titled "On 

Reconciling Religious Dissensions among Christians": 

Still, he continued to be disturbed by the determinism of Calvinism, and he called for a 

national synod to resolve the conflicts and to look critically at two crucial Calvinist 

documents, the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. The synod finally met but 

not until nine years after Arminius died (in good standing with the Dutch Reformed Church), 

and eight years after the Remonstrance was issued, which developed and articulated the 

key themes of what is today called Arminian theology. Arminianism since has influenced 

key figures in church history, such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. 

But by the time Arminius died, the theological landscape was shifting again, and Arminius's 

anti-Calvinist theology was spreading rapidly across Europe. 

57



Arminianism saw the function of grace only as a force that help to raise the insight to a 

new level of human understanding so that man can make a better choice in life. 

Whatever the case, it is man’s free will that is responsible for the choice and responsibility 

solely lie on man. 

Arminius said that the relationship between God and man is one of cooperative assistance 

as a father helping his son to make up their mind about his future. The Holy Spirit is not 

overcoming a hostile crying and yelling child to salvation, but as lovingly guiding and 

assisting the person’s natural faculties to respond to God. Holy Spirit is persuasive not 

compulsive. Man can resist and prevent the Grace of God from providing help. 

Arminianism 

was formally presented as a theological statement 

submitted by 45 ministers to the Dutch government. 

A Synod of Dort (1618-1619) 

was called and five Articles of Remonstrance were considered that stated the following: 

1. Conditional Election: 

“Salvation (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the 

graciously-enabled faith (or unbelief) of man;” 

(See: John 1:7; John 12:32, Acts 17:30-31; Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 4:1-7; 2 Peter 

3:9) 

2. Atonement for All 

“The Atonement is qualitatively adequate for all men, 

“yet that no one actually enjoys [experiences] this forgiveness of sins, except the 

believer …” and thus is limited to only those who trust in Christ;” 

(See: Joshua 24:14-25; John 3:16; Romans 3:19-Romans 5; Galatians 3:6-26; 

Ephesians 2:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 Timothy 4:10) 

3. Saving Grace:Total Depravity 

“’That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will,’ and 

unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;” 

(See: Psalms 73:25-28; Isaiah 12:1-4; Isaiah 29:13; John 6:44-45; John 12:32; Romans 

10:17; Hebrews 10:38-39) 

4. Resistable Grace: 

“The (Christian) grace ‘of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of 

any good,’ yet man may resist the Holy Spirit; and” 

(See: Matthew 12:30-32; Romans 13:1-2; ; 1 Corinthians 13: Ephesians 4:30; 2 

Timothy 3:8; 1 Thessalonian 5:19) 

58



5. Assurance in Christ: Conditional Security 

“Believers are able to resist sin through grace, and Christ will keep them from falling; 

but whether they are beyond the possibility of ultimately forsaking God or ‘becoming 

devoid of grace … must be more particularly determined from the Scriptures.’” 

The Synod of Dort was held in 1618-1619 on the issues raised by Arminius among the 

reformers. 

The decision reached was against those proposed by the remonstrants. 

continued to be held by many denominations over Calvinism 

But Arminianism 

Arminianism may be represented by the acronym 

FACTS: 

Freed by Grace (to Believe) 

Atonement for All 

Conditional Election 

Total Depravity 

Security in Christ 

These points broadly and roughly correspond to the historic Articles of Remonstrance 

(though they are not specifically a representation of them), which were composed in July 

1610 by early Arminians and constitute the first formal summary of Arminian theology. 

Article numbers have been indicated for each point for convenient comparison. The points 

are presented here by logical order rather than acronym order to facilitate explanation 

most helpfully. 

59



Conditional Election (Article 1) 

• God has sovereignly decided to choose only those who have faith in His Son, Jesus 

Christ, for salvation and his eternal blessing. 

• God has foreknown from eternity which individuals would believe in Christ. 

• Among Arminians, there are two different views of election conditioned on faith: 

1. Individual election: The classic view in which God individually chose each 

believer based upon His foreknowledge of each one’s faith and so predestined 

each to eternal life 

2. Corporate election: Election to salvation is primarily of the Church as a people 

and embraces individuals only in faith-union with Christ the Chosen One and as 

members of his people. Since the election of the individual derives from the 

election of Christ and the corporate people of God, individuals become elect 

when they believe and remain elect only as long as they believe. 

(For more on corporate election, see here.) 

Atonement for All (Article 2) 

• God loves the world and desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge 

of the truth. 

• Therefore, God gave his only Son to die for the sins of the whole world so as to 

provide forgiveness and salvation for all people. 

• While God has provided for the salvation of all people by Christ’s sacrificial and 

substitutionary death for all, the benefits of Christ’s death are received by grace 

through faith and are only effective for those who believe. 

Total Depravity (Article 3) 

• Humanity was created in the image of God, good and upright, but fell from its 

original sinless state through willful disobedience, leaving humanity sinful, separated 

from God, and under the sentence of divine condemnation. 

• Total depravity does not mean that human beings are as bad as they could be, but 

that sin impacts every part of a person’s being and that people now have a sinful 

nature with a natural inclination toward sin, making every human being 

fundamentally corrupt at heart. 

• Therefore, human beings are not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of 

themselves, including merit favor from God, save ourselves from the judgment and 

condemnation of God that we deserve for our sin, or even believe the gospel. 

• If anyone is to be saved, God must take the initiative. 

60



Freed by Grace {to Believe} (Article 4) 

• Because of Total Depravity and Atonement for All (as described above), God calls all 

people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, and graciously enables those 

who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith. 

• God regenerates those who believe in Christ (faith logically precedes regeneration). 

• God’s saving grace is resistible, which is to say that he dispenses his calling, drawing, 

and convicting grace (which would bring us to salvation if responded to with faith) in 

such a way that we may reject it. Those who hear the gospel may either accept it by 

grace or reject it to their own eternal destruction. 

• Apart from the realm of pleasing the Lord and doing spiritual good, people often 

have free will, which means that, with respect to an action, they can at least either 

do the action or refrain from doing it. People often have genuine choices and are 

therefore correspondingly able to make choices. 

• God has ultimate and absolute free will. His choice to supernaturally free the will of 

sinners by his grace to believe in Christ is a matter of the exercise of his own free will 

and sovereignty. 

Security in Christ (Article 5) 

• Since salvation comes through faith in Christ, the security of our salvation continues 

by faith in Christ. 

• Just as the Holy Spirit empowered us to believe in Christ, so he empowers us to 

continue believing in Christ. 

• God protects our faith relationship with him from any outside force irresistibly 

snatching us away from Christ or our faith, and he preserves us in salvation as long as 

we trust in Christ. 

• Arminians have differing views of whether Scripture teaches that believers can 

forsake faith in Christ and so perish (the traditional view, held by most Arminians), or 

whether God irresistibly keeps believers from forsaking their faith and therefore 

entering into eternal condemnation (as unbelievers). 

61



The Works of James Arminius - Vol. 1 

A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius 

ON Predestination, Divine Providence, the freedom of the will, the grace of God, the 

Divinity of the Son of God, and the justification of man before God. 

“I. ON PREDESTINATION 

The first and most important article in religion on which I have to offer my views, and which 

for many years past has engaged my attention, is the Predestination of God, that is, the 

Election of men to salvation, and the Reprobation of them to destruction. Commencing 

with this article, I will first explain what is taught concerning it, both in discourses and 

writings, by certain persons in our Churches, and in the University of Leyden. I will 

afterwards declare my own views and thoughts on the same subject, while I shew my 

opinion on what they advance. 

On this article there is no uniform and simple opinion among the teachers of our Churches; 

but there is some variation in certain parts of it in which they differ from each other. 

1. The first opinion, which I reject, but which is espoused by those [Supralapsarians] who 

assume the very highest ground of this is Predestination. 

The opinion of those who take the highest ground on this point, as it is generally contained 

in their writings, is to this effect: 

"(1). God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, (whom 

he did not consider as being then created, much less as being fallen,) certain individuals to 

everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to 

righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to 

demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, (as others assert,) to demonstrate his 

saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power. 

"2. In addition to this decree, God has pre-ordained certain determinate means which 

pertain to its execution, and this by an eternal and immutable decree. These means 

necessarily follow by virtue of the preceding decree, and necessarily bring him who has 

been predestinated, to the end which has been fore-ordained for him. Some of these 

means belong in common both to the decree of election and that of rejection, and others of 

them are specially restricted to the one decree or to the other. 

"3. The means common to both the decrees, are three: the first is, the creation of man in 

the upright [or erect] state of original righteousness, or after the image and likeness of God 

62



in righteousness and true holiness. The second is, the permission of the fall of Adam, or the 

ordination of God that man should sin, and become corrupt or vitiated. The third is, the loss 

or the removal of original righteousness and of the image of God, and a being concluded 

under sin and condemnation. 

"4. For unless God had created some men, he would not have had any upon whom he 

might either bestow eternal life, or superinduce everlasting death. Unless he had created 

them in righteousness and true holiness, he would himself have been the author of sin, and 

would by this means have possessed no right either to punish them to the praise of his 

justice, or to save them to the praise of his mercy. Unless they had themselves sinned, and 

by the demerit of sin had rendered themselves guilty of death, there would have been no 

room for the demonstration either of justice or of mercy. 

"5. The means pre-ordained for the execution of the decree of election, are also these three. 

The first is, the pre-ordination, or the giving of Jesus Christ as a Mediator and a Savior, who 

might by his meet deserve, [or purchase,] for all the elect and for them only, the lost 

righteousness and life, and might communicate them by his own power [Or virtue]. The 

second is, the call [or vocation] to faith outwardly by the word, but inwardly by his Spirit, in 

the mind, affections and will; by an operation of such efficacy that the elect person of 

necessity yields assent and obedience to the vocation, in so much that it is not possible for 

him to do otherwise than believe and be obedient to this vocation. From hence arise 

justification and sanctification through the blood of Christ and his Spirit, and from them the 

existence of all good works. And all that, manifestly by means of the same force and 

necessity. The third is, that which keeps and preserves the elect in faith, holiness, and a zeal 

for good works; or, it is the gift of perseverance; the virtue of which is such, that believing 

and elect persons not only do not sin with a full and entire will, or do not fall away totally 

from faith and grace, but it likewise is neither possible for them to sin with a full and 

perfect will, nor to fall away totally or finally from faith and grace. 

"6. The two last of these means [vocation and perseverance,] belong only to the elect who 

are of adult age. But God employs a shorter way to salvation, by which he conducts those 

children of believers and saints who depart out of this life before they arrive at years of 

maturity; that is, provided they belong to the number of the elect, (who are known to God 

alone,) for God bestows on them Christ as their Savior, and gives them to Christ, to save 

them by his blood and Holy Spirit, without actual faith and perseverance in it [faith]; and 

this he does according to the promise of the covenant of grace, I will be a God unto you, 

and unto your seed after you. 

"7. The means pertaining to the execution of the decree of reprobation to eternal death, 

are partly such as peculiarly belong to all those who are rejected and reprobate, whether 

they ever arrive at years of maturity or die before that period; and they are partly such as 

are proper only to some of them. The mean that is common to all the reprobate, is 

desertion in sin, by denying to them that saving grace which is sufficient and necessary to 

63



the salvation of any one. This negation [or denial,] consists of two parts. For, in the first 

place, God did not will that Christ should die for them [the reprobate,] or become their 

Savior, and this neither in reference to the antecedent will of God, (as some persons call it,) 

nor in reference to his sufficient will, or the value of the price of reconciliation; because this 

price was not offered for reprobates, either with respect to the decree of God, or its virtue 

and efficacy. 

(1.) But the other part of this negation [or denial] is, that God is unwilling to communicate 

the Spirit of Christ to reprobates, yet without such communication they can neither be 

made partakers of Christ nor of his benefits. 

"8. The mean which belongs properly only to some of the reprobates, is obduration, [or the 

act of hardening,] which befalls those of them who have attained to years of maturity, 

either because they have very frequently and enormously sinned against the law of God, or 

because they have rejected the grace of the gospel. 

(1.) To the execution of the first species of induration, or hardening, belong the illumination 

of their conscience by means of knowledge, and its conviction of the righteousness of the 

law. For it is impossible that this law should not necessarily detain them in unrighteousness, 

to render them inexcusable. 

(2.) For the execution of the second species of induration, God employs a call by the 

preaching of his gospel, which call is inefficacious and insufficient both in respect to the 

decree of God, and to its issue or event. This calling is either only an external one, which it 

is neither in their desire nor in their power to obey. Or it is likewise an internal one, by 

which some of them may be excited in their understandings to accept and believe the 

things which they hear; but yet it is only with such a faith as that with which the devils are 

endowed when they believe and tremble. Others of them are excited and conducted still 

further, so as to desire in a certain measure to taste the heavenly gift. But the latter are, of 

all others, the most unhappy, because they are raised up on high, that they may be brought 

down with a heavier fall. And this fate it is impossible for them to escape, for they must of 

necessity return to their vomit, and depart or fall away from the faith. 

"9. From this decree of Divine election and reprobation, and from this administration of the 

means which pertain to the execution of both of them, it follows, that the elect are 

necessarily saved, it being impossible for them to perish — and that the reprobate are 

necessarily damned, it being impossible for them to be saved; and all this from the absolute 

purpose [or determination] of God, which is altogether antecedent to all things, and to all 

those causes which are either in things themselves or can possibly result from them." 

These opinions concerning predestination are considered, by some of those who advocate 

them, to be the foundation of Christianity, salvation and of its certainty. On these 

sentiments they suppose, "is founded the sure and undoubted consolation of all believers, 

64



which is capable of rendering their consciences tranquil; and on them also depends the 

praise of the grace of God, so that if any contradiction be offered to this doctrine, God is 

necessarily deprived of the glory of his grace, and then the merit of salvation is attributed 

to the free will of man and to his own powers and strength, which ascription savors of 

Pelagianism." 

These then are the causes which are offered why the advocates of these sentiments labor 

with a common anxiety to retain the purity of such a doctrine in their churches and why 

they oppose themselves to all those innovations which are at variance with them. 

1. MY SENTIMENTS ON THE PRECEDING SCHEME OF PREDESTINATION. 

But, for my own part, to speak my sentiments with freedom, and yet with a salvo in favor of 

a better judgment, I am of opinion, that this doctrine of theirs contains many things that 

are both false and impertinent, and at an utter disagreement with each other; all the 

instances of which, the present time will not permit me to recount, but I will subject it to an 

examination only in those parts which are most prominent and extensive. I shall, therefore, 

propose to myself four principal heads, which are of the greatest importance in this 

doctrine; and when I have in the first place explained of what kind they are, I will 

afterwards declare more fully the judgment and sentiments which I have formed 

concerning them. They are the following: 

"1. That God has absolutely and precisely decreed to save certain particular men by his 

mercy or grace, but to condemn others by his justice: and to do all this without having any 

regard in such decree to righteousness or sin, obedience or disobedience, which could 

possibly exist on the part of one class of men or of the other. 

"2. That, for the execution of the preceding decree, God determined to create Adam, and 

all men in him, in an upright state of original righteousness; besides which he also ordained 

them to commit sin, that they might thus become guilty of eternal condemnation and be 

deprived of original righteousness. 

"3. That those persons whom God has thus positively willed to save, he has decreed not 

only to salvation but also to the means which pertain to it; (that is, to conduct and bring 

them to faith in Christ Jesus, and to perseverance in that faith ;) and that He also in reality 

leads them to these results by a grace and power that are irresistible, so that it is not 

possible for them to do otherwise than believe, persevere in faith, and be saved. 

"4. That to those whom, by his absolute will, God has fore-ordained to perdition, he has 

also decreed to deny that grace which is necessary and sufficient for salvation, and does not 

in reality confer it upon them; so that they are neither placed in a possible condition nor in 

any capacity of believing or of being saved." 

65



After a diligent contemplation and examination of these four heads, in the fear of the Lord, 

I make the following declaration respecting this doctrine of predestination. 

2. I REJECT THIS PREDESTINATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 

I. Because it is not the foundation of Christianity, of Salvation, or of its certainty. 

1. It is not the foundation of Christianity: 

(1.) For this Predestination is not that decree of God by which Christ is appointed by God to 

be the Savior, the Head, and the Foundation of those who will be made heirs of salvation. 

Yet that decree is the only foundation of Christianity. 

(2.) For the doctrine of this Predestination is not that doctrine by which, through faith, we 

as lively stones are built up into Christ, the only corner stone, and are inserted into him as 

the members of the body are joined to their head. 

2. It is not the foundation of Salvation: 

(1.) For this Predestination is not that decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ Jesus on 

which alone our salvation rests and depends. 

(2.) The doctrine of this Predestination is not the foundation of Salvation: for it is not "the 

power of God to salvation to every one that believeth :" because through it "the 

righteousness of God" is not "revealed from faith to faith." 

3. 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. 

This is likewise confessed by some persons in these words: "we do not wish to state that 

the knowledge of this [Predestination] is the foundation of Christianity or of salvation, or 

that it is necessary to salvation in the same manner as the doctrine of the Gospel," etc. 

II. This doctrine of Predestination comprises within it neither the whole nor any part of the 

Gospel. For, according to the tenor of the discourses delivered by John and Christ, as they 

are described to us by the Evangelist, and according to the doctrine of the Apostles and 

Christ after his ascension, the Gospel consists partly of an injunction to repent and believe, 

and partly of a promise to bestow forgiveness of sins, the grace of the Spirit, and life eternal. 

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, which is properly the doctrine of the Gospel; but it embraces within 

itself a certain mystery, which is known only to God, who is the Predestinater, and in which 

66



mystery are comprehended what particular persons and how many he has decreed to save 

and to condemn. From these premises I draw a further conclusion, that this doctrine of 

Predestination is not necessary to salvation, either as an object of knowledge, belief, hope, 

or performance. A Confession to this effect has been made by a certain learned man, in the 

theses which he has proposed for discussion on this subject, in the following words: 

"Wherefore the gospel cannot be simply termed the book or the revelation of 

Predestination, but only in a relative sense. Because it does not absolutely denote either 

the matter of the number or the form; that is, it neither declares how many persons in 

particular, nor (with a few exceptions,) who they are, but only the description of them in 

general, whom God has predestinated." 

III. This doctrine was never admitted, decreed, or approved in any Council, either general or 

particular, for the first six hundred years after Christ. 

1. Not in the General Council of Nice, in which sentence was given against Arius and in favor 

of the Deity and Consubstantiality of the Son of God. Not in the first Council of 

Constantinople, in which a decree was passed against Macedonius, respecting the Deity of 

the Holy Spirit. Not in the Council of Ephesus, which determined against Nestorius, and in 

favor of the Unity of the Person of the Son of God. Not in that of Chalcedon, which 

condemned Eutyches, and determined, "that in one and the same person of our Lord Jesus 

Christ, there were two distinct natures, which differ from each other in their essence." Not 

in the second Council of Constantinople, in which Peter, Bishop of Antioch, and Anthymus, 

Bishop of Constantinople, with certain other persons, were condemned for having asserted 

"that the Father had likewise suffered," as well as the Son. Nor in the third Council of 

Constantinople, in which the Monothelites were condemned for having asserted "that 

there was only one will and operation in Jesus Christ." 

2. But this doctrine was not discussed or confirmed in particular Councils, such as that of 

Jerusalem, Orange, or even that of Mela in Africa, which was held against Pelagius and his 

errors, as is apparent from the articles of doctrine which were then decreed both against 

his person and his false opinions. 

But so far was Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination from being received in those councils, 

that when Celestinus, the Bishop of Rome, who was his contemporary, wrote to the Bishops 

of France, and condemned the doctrines of the Pelagians, he concluded his epistle in these 

words: "but as we dare not despise, so neither do we deem it necessary to defend the more 

profound and difficult parts of the questions which occur in this controversy, and which 

have been treated to a very great extent by those who opposed the heretics. Because we 

believe, that whatever the writings according to the forementioned rules of the Apostolic 

See have taught us, is amply sufficient for confessing the grace of God, from whose work, 

credit and authority not a little must be subtracted or withdrawn," etc. In reference to the 

rules which were laid down by Celestinus in that epistle, and which had been decreed in the 

three preceding particular Councils, we shall experience no difficulty in agreeing together 

67



about them, especially in regard to those matters which are necessary to the establishment 

of grace in opposition to Pelagius and his errors. 

IV. None of those 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. Neither was it professed and approved by a 

single individual of those who shewed themselves the principal and keenest defenders of 

grace against Pelagius. Of this description, it is evident, were St. Jerome, Augustine, the 

author of the treatise entitled, De Vocatione Gentium, ["The calling of the Gentiles,"] 

Prosper of Aquitaine, Hilary, Fulgentius, and Orosius. This is very apparent from their 

writings. 

V. It neither agrees nor corresponds with the Harmony of those confessions which were 

printed and published together in one volume at Geneva, in the name of the Reformed and 

Protestant Churches. If that harmony of Confessions be faithfully consulted, it will appear 

that many of them do not speak in the same manner concerning Predestination; that some 

of them only incidentally mention it; and that they evidently never once touch upon those 

heads of the doctrine, which are now in great repute and particularly urged in the 

preceding scheme of Predestination, and which I have already adduced. Nor does any single 

Confession deliver this doctrine in the same manner as it has just now been propounded by 

me. The Confessions of Bohemia, England and Wirtemburgh, and the first Helvetian [Swiss] 

Confession, and that of the four cities of Strasburgh, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau, 

make no mention of this Predestination. Those of Basle and Saxony, only take a very 

cursory notice of it in three words. The Augustan Confession speaks of it in such a manner 

as to induce the Genevan editors to think, that some annotation was necessary on their 

part, to give us a previous warning. The last of the Helvetian [Swiss] Confessions, to which a 

great portion of the Reformed Churches have expressed their assent and which they have 

subscribed, likewise speaks of it in such a strain as makes me very desirous to see what 

method can possibly be adopted to give it any accordance with that doctrine of 

Predestination which I have just now advanced. Yet this [Swiss] Confession is that which has 

obtained the approbation of the Churches of Geneva and Savoy. 

VI. Without the least contention or caviling, it may very properly be made a question of 

doubt, whether this doctrine agrees with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg 

Catechism; as I shall briefly demonstrate. 

1. In the 14th Article of the Dutch Confession, these expression occur: "Man knowingly and 

willingly subjected himself to sin, and, consequently, to death and cursing, while he lent an 

ear to the deceiving words and impostures of the devil," etc. From this sentence I conclude, 

that man did not sin on account of any necessity through a preceding decree of 

Predestination: which inference is diametrically opposed to that doctrine of Predestination 

against which I now contend. Then, in the 16th Article, which treats of the eternal election 

of God, these words are contained: "God shewed himself Merciful, by delivering from 

68



damnation, and by saving, those persons whom, in his eternal and immutable counsel and 

cording to his gratuitous goodness, he chose in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any regard to 

their works. And he shewed himself just, in leaving others in that their fall and perdition 

into which they had precipitated themselves." It is not obvious to me, how these words are 

consistent with this doctrine of Predestination. 

2. In the 20th question of the Heidelberg Catechism, we read: "salvation through Christ is 

not given [restored] to all them who had perished in Adam, but to those only who are 

engrafted into Christ by the faith, and who embrace his benefits." From this sentence I infer, 

that God has not absolutely Predestinated any men to salvation; but that he has in his 

decree considered [or looked upon] them as believers. This deduction is at open conflict 

with the first and third points of this Predestination. In the 54th question of the same 

Catechism, it is said: "I believe that, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of 

God out of the entire race of mankind doth by his word and Spirit gather or collect unto 

himself a company chosen unto eternal life and agreeing together in the true faith." In this 

sentence "election to eternal life," and "agreement in the faith," stand in mutual 

juxtaposition; and in such a manner, that the latter is not rendered subordinate to the 

former, which, according to these sentiments on Predestination ought to have been done. 

In that case the words should have been placed in the following order: "the son of God calls 

and gathers to himself, by his word and Spirit, a company chosen to eternal life, that they 

may believe and agree together in the true faith." 

Since such are the statements of our Confession and Catechism, no reason whatever exists, 

why those who embrace and defend these sentiments on Predestination, should either 

violently endeavor to obtrude them on their colleagues and on the Church of Christ; or why 

they should take it amiss, and put the worst construction upon it, when any thing is taught 

in the Church or University that is not exactly accordant with their doctrine, or that is 

opposed to it. 

VII. I affirm, that 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. 

1. 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 the object which God proposed to himself by this Predestination, 

was, to demonstrate the glory of his mercy and justice: But this glory he cannot 

demonstrate, except by an act that is contrary at once to his mercy and his justice, of which 

69



description is that decree of God in which he determined that man should sin and be 

rendered miserable. 

(3.) Because it changes and inverts the order of the two-fold wisdom of God, as it is 

displayed to us in the Scriptures. For it asserts, that God has absolutely predetermined to 

save men by the mercy and wisdom that are comprehended in the doctrine of the cross of 

Christ, without having foreseen this circumstance, that it was impossible for man (and that, 

truly, through his own fault,) to be saved by the wisdom which was revealed in the law and 

which was infused into him at the period of his creation: When the scripture asserts, on the 

contrary, that "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe;" 

that is, 

"by the doctrine of the cross, after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew 

not God." (1 Corinthians 1:21.) 

2. It is repugnant to the justice of God, not only in reference to that attribute denoting in 

God a love of righteousness and a hatred of iniquity, but also in reference to its being a 

perpetual and constant desire in him to render to every one that which is his due. 

(1.) It is at variance with the first of these ideas of justice in the following manner: Because 

it affirms, that God has absolutely willed to save certain individual men, and has decreed 

their salvation without having the least regard to righteousness or obedience: The proper 

inference from which, is, that God loves such men far more than his own justice [or 

righteousness.] 

(2.) It is opposed to the second idea of his justice: Because it affirms, that God wishes to 

subject his creature to misery, (which cannot possibly have any existence except as the 

punishment of sin,) although, at the same time, he does not look upon [or consider] the 

creature as a sinner, and therefore as not obnoxious either to wrath or to punishment. This 

is the manner in which it lays down the position, that God has willed to give to the creature 

not only something which does not belong to it, but which is connected with its greatest 

injury. Which is another act directly opposed to his justice. In accordance, therefore, with 

this doctrine, God, in the first place, detracts from himself that which is his own, [or his 

right,] and then imparts to the creature what does not belong to it, to its great misery and 

unhappiness. 

3. It is also repugnant to the Goodness of God. Goodness is an affection [or disposition] in 

God to communicate his own good so far as his justice considers and admits to be fitting 

and proper. But 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-ordained that evil for them, or pre-determined to impart it to them, 

even before he resolved to bestow upon them any portion of good. For this doctrine states, 

that God willed to damn; and, that he might be able to do this, be willed to create; although 

70



creation is the first egress [or going forth] of God’s goodness towards 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 in our Father 

who is in heaven, we are commanded to imitate. (Matthew 5:45.) 

VIII. Such a doctrine of Predestination is contrary to the nature of man, in regard to his 

having been created after the Divine image in the knowledge of God and in righteousness, 

in regard to his having been created with freedom of will, and in regard to his having been 

created with a disposition and aptitude for the enjoyment of life eternal. These three 

circumstance, respecting him, may be deduced from the following brief expressions: "Do 

this, and live :" (Romans 10:5 .) "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." 

(Genesis 2:17.) If man be deprived of any of these qualifications, such admonitions as these 

cannot possibly be effective in exciting him to obedience. 

1. This doctrine is inconsistent with the Divine image, which consists of the knowledge of 

God and holiness. For according to this knowledge and righteousness man was qualified 

and empowered, he was also laid under an obligation to know God, to love, worship, and 

serve him. But by the intervention, or rather by the prevention, of this Predestination, it 

was pre-ordained that man should be formed vicious and should commit sin, that is, that he 

should neither know God, love, worship, nor serve him; and that he should not perform 

that which by the image of God, he was well qualified and empowered to do, and which he 

was bound to perform. This is tantamount to such a declaration as the following, which any 

one might make: "God did undoubtedly create man after his own image, in righteousness 

and true holiness; but, notwithstanding this, he fore-ordained and decreed, that man 

should become impure and unrighteous, that is, should be made conformable to the image 

of Satan." 

2. 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 the one or the other of these 

two things, (with which let no man charge his Maker!) 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. In the former of these two cases, God is chargeable with a want of consideration, in 

the latter with mutability. And in both, with being injurious to man as well as to himself. 

3. This Predestination is prejudicial to man in regard to the inclination and capacity for the 

eternal fruition of salvation, with which he was endowed at the period of his creation. For, 

since by this Predestination it has been pre-determined, that the greater part of mankind 

shall not be made partakers of salvation, but shall fall into everlasting condemnation, and 

since this predetermination took place even before the decree had passed for creating man, 

such persons are deprived of something, for the desire of which they have been endowed 

71



by God with a natural inclination. This great privation they suffer, not in consequence of 

any preceding sin or demerit of their own, but simply and solely through this sort of 

Predestination. 

IX. This Predestination is diametrically opposed to the Act of Creation. 

1. For creation is a communication of good according to the intrinsic property of its nature. 

But, creation of this description, whose intent or design is, to make a way through itself by 

which the reprobation that had been previously determined may obtain its object, is not a 

communication of good. For we ought to form our estimate and judgment of every good, 

from the mind and intention of Him who is the Donor, and from the end to which or on 

account of which it is bestowed. In the present instance, the intention of the Donor would 

have been, to condemn, which is an act that could not possibly affect any one except a 

creature; and the end or event of creation would have been the eternal perdition of the 

creature. In that case creation would not have been a communication of any good, but a 

preparation for the greatest evil both according to the very intention of the Creator and the 

actual issue of the matter; and according to the words of Christ, "it had seen good for that 

man, if he had never been born!" (Matthew 26:24.) 

2. Reprobation is an act of hatred, and from hatred derives its origin. But creation does not 

proceed from hatred; it is not therefore a way or means, which belongs to the execution of 

the decree of reprobation. 

3. Creation is a perfect act of God, by which he has manifested his wisdom, goodness and 

omnipotence: It is not therefore subordinate to the end of any other preceding work or 

action of God. But it is rather to be viewed as that act of God, which necessarily precedes 

and is antecedent to all other acts that he can possibly either decree or undertake. Unless 

God had formed a previous conception of the work of creation, he could not have decreed 

actually to undertake any other act; and until he had executed the work of creation, he 

could by no means have completed any other operation. 

4. All the actions of God which tend to the condemnation of his creatures, are strange work 

or foreign to him; because God consents to them, for some other cause that is quite 

extraneous. But creation is not an action that is foreign to God, but it is proper to him. It is 

eminently an action most appropriate to Him, and to which he could be moved by no other 

external cause, because it is the very first of the Divine acts, and, till it was done, nothing 

could have any actual existence, except God himself; for every thing else that has a being, 

came into existence through this action. 

5. If creation be the way and means through which God willed the execution of the decree 

of his reprobation, he was more inclined to will the act of reprobation than that of creation; 

and he consequently derived greater satisfaction from the act of condemning certain of his 

innocent creatures, than in the act of their creation. 

72



6. Lastly. Creation cannot be a way or means of reprobation according to the absolute 

purpose of God: because, after the creation was completed, it was in the power of man still 

to have remained obedient to the divine commands, and not to commit sin; to render this 

possible, while God had on one part bestowed on him sufficient strength and power, he 

had also on the other placed sufficient impediments; a circumstance most diametrically 

opposed to a Predestination of this description. 

X. This doctrine is at open hostility with the Nature of Eternal Life, and the titles by which it 

is signally distinguished in the Scriptures. For it is called "the inheritance of the sons of 

God ;" (Titus 3:7,) but those alone are the sons of God, according to the doctrine of the 

Gospel, "who believe in the name of Jesus Christ." (John 1:12.) It is also called, "the reward 

of obedience," (Matthew 5:12,) and of "the labor of love;" (Hebrews 6:10,) 

"the recompense of those who fight the good fight and who run well, a crown of 

righteousness," etc. (Revelation 2:10; 2 Timothy 4:7, 8.) God therefore has not, from his 

own absolute decree, without any consideration or regard whatever to faith and obedience, 

appointed to any man, or determined to appoint to him, life eternal. 

XI This Predestination is also opposed to the Nature of Eternal Death, and to those 

appellations by which it is described in Scripture. For it is called "the wages of sin; (Romans 

6:23,) the punishment of everlasting destruction, which shall be recompensed to them that 

know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; (2 Thessalonians 1:8, 

9,) the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, (Matthew 25:41,) a fire which 

shall devour the enemies and adversaries of God." (Hebrews 10:27.) God, therefore, has 

not, by any absolute decree without respect to sin and disobedience, prepared eternal 

death for any person. 

XII 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, is according to justice; and it induces God, who holds 

sin in abhorrence, to will reprobation. Sin, therefore, which is a cause, cannot be placed 

among the means, by which God executes the decree or will of reprobation. 

XIII. This doctrine is likewise repugnant to the Nature of Divine Grace, and as far as its 

powers permit, it effects its destruction. Under whatever specious pretenses it may be 

asserted, that "this kind of Predestination is most admirably adapted and quite necessary 

for the establishment of grace," yet it destroys it in three ways: 

73



1. Because grace is so attempered and commingled with the nature of man, as not to 

destroy within him the liberty of his will, but to give it a right direction, to correct its 

depravity, and to allow man to possess his own proper notions. While, on the contrary, this 

Predestination introduces such a species of grace, as takes away free will and hinders its 

exercise. 

2. Because the representations of grace which the scriptures contain, are such as describe it 

capable of "being resisted, (Acts, 7:51,) and received in vain;" (2 Corinthians 6:1,) and that it 

is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it; and to refuse all co-operation with it. 

(Hebrews 12:15; Matthew 23:37; Luke 7:30.) While, on the contrary, this Predestination 

affirms, that grace is a certain irresistible force and operation. 

3. Because, according to the primary intention and chief design of God, grace conduces to 

the good of those persons to whom it is offered and by whom it is received: while, on the 

contrary, this doctrine drags along with it the assertion, that grace is offered even to certain 

reprobates, and is so far communicated to them as to illuminate their understandings and 

to excite within them a taste for the heavenly gifts, only for this end and purpose, that, in 

proportion to the height to which they are elevated, the abyss into which they are 

precipitated may be the deeper, and their fall the heavier; and that they may both merit 

and receive the greater perdition. 

XIV. The doctrine of this Predestination is Injurious to the Glory of God, which does not 

consist of a declaration of liberty or authority, nor of a demonstration of anger and power, 

except to such an extent as that declaration and demonstration may be consistent with 

justice, and with a perpetual reservation in behalf of the honor of God’s goodness. But, 

according to this doctrine, it follows that God is the author of sin, which may be proved by 

four arguments: 

1. One of its positions is, that God has absolutely decreed to demonstrate his glory by 

punitive justice and mercy, in the salvation of some men, and in the damnation of others, 

which neither was done, nor could have possibly been done, unless sin had entered into the 

world. 

2. This doctrine affirms, that, in order to obtain his object, God ordained that man should 

commit sin, and be rendered vitiated; and, from this Divine ordination or appointment, the 

fall of man necessarily followed. 

3. It asserts that God has denied to man, or has withdrawn from him, such a portion of 

grace as is sufficient and necessary to enable him to avoid sin, and that this was done 

before man had sinned: which is an act that amounts to the same as if God had prescribed 

a law to man, which it would be utterly impossible for him to fulfill, when the nature in 

which he had been created was taken into consideration. 

74



4. It ascribes to God certain operations with regard to man, both external and internal, both 

mediate (by means of the intervention of other creatures) and immediate — which Divine 

operations being once admitted, man must necessarily commit sin, by that necessity which 

the schoolmen call "a consequential necessity antecedent to the thing itself," and which 

totally destroys the freedom of the will. Such an act does this doctrine attribute to God, and 

represents it to proceed from his primary and chief intention, without any foreknowledge 

of an inclination, will, or action on the part of man. 

From these premises, we deduce, as a further conclusion, that God really sins. Because, 

according to this doctrine, he moves to sin by an act that is unavoidable, and according to 

his own purpose and primary intention, without having received any previous inducement 

to such an act from any preceding sin or demerit in man. 

From the same position we might also infer, that God is the only sinner. For man, who is 

impelled by an irresistible force to commit sin, (that is, to perpetrate some deed that has 

been prohibited,) cannot be said to sin himself. 

As a legitimate consequence it also follows, that sin is not sin, since whatever that be which 

God does, it neither can be sin, nor ought any of his acts to receive that appellation. 

Besides the instances which I have already recounted, there is another method by which 

this doctrine inflicts a deep wound on the honor of God — but these, it is probable, will be 

considered at present to be amply sufficient. 

XV. This doctrine is highly dishonorable to Jesus Christ our Savior. For, 

1. It entirely excludes him from that decree of Predestination which predestinates the end: 

and it affirms, that men were predestinated to be saved, before Christ was predestinated to 

save them; and thus it argues, that he is not the foundation of election. 

2. It denies, that Christ is the meritorious cause, that again obtained for us the salvation 

which we had lost, by placing him as only a subordinate cause of that salvation which had 

been already foreordained, and thus only a minister and instrument to apply that salvation 

unto us. This indeed is in evident congruity with the opinion which states "that God has 

absolutely willed the salvation of certain men, by the first and supreme decree which he 

passed, and on which all his other decrees depend and are consequent." If this be true, it 

was therefore impossible for the salvation of such men to have been lost, and therefore 

unnecessary for it to be repaired and in some sort regained afresh, and discovered, by the 

merit of Christ, who was fore-ordained a Savior for them alone. 

XVI. This doctrine is also hurtful to the salvation of men. 

1. 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 

75



man who has committed sin through the unavoidable necessity of the decree of God, 

cannot possibly have this kind of consciousness of sin. (2 Corinthians 7:10.) 

2. Because it removes all pious solicitude about being converted from sin unto God. For he 

can feel no such concern who is entirely passive and conducts himself like a dead man, with 

respect not only to his discernment and perception of the grace of God that is exciting and 

assisting, but also to his assent and obedience to it; and who is converted by such an 

irresistible impulse, that he not only cannot avoid being sensible of the grace of God which 

knocks within him, but he must likewise of necessity yield his assent to it, and thus convert 

himself, or rather be converted. Such a person it is evident, cannot produce within his heart 

or conceive in his mind this solicitude, except he have previously felt the same irresistible 

motion. And if he should produce within his heart any such concern, it would be in vain and 

without the least advantage. For that cannot be a true solicitude, which is not produced in 

the heart by any other means except by an irresistible force according to the absolute 

purpose and intention of God to effect his salvation. (Revelation 2:3; 3:2.) 

3. Because it restrains, in persons that are converted, all zeal and studious regard for good 

works, since it declares "that the regenerate cannot perform either more or less good than 

they do." For he that is actuated or impelled by saving grace, must work, and cannot 

discontinue his labor; but he that is not actuated by the same grace, can do nothing, and 

finds it necessary to cease from all attempts. (Titus 3:14.) 

4. Because it extinguishes the zeal for prayer, which yet is an efficacious means instituted 

by God for asking and obtaining all kinds of blessings from him, but principally the great one 

of salvation. (Luke 11:1-13.) But from the circumstance of it having been before determined 

by an immutable and inevitable decree, that this description of men [the elect] should 

obtain salvation, prayer cannot on any account be a means for asking and obtaining that 

salvation. It can only be a mode of worshipping God; because according to the absolute 

decree of his Predestination he has determined that such men shall be saved. 

5. It takes away all that most salutary fear and trembling with which we are commanded to 

work out our own salvation. (Philippians 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." 

6. Because it produces within men a despair both of performing that which their duty 

requires and of obtaining that towards which their desires are directed. For when they are 

taught that the grace of God (which is really necessary to the performance of the least 

portion of good) is denied to the majority of mankind, according to an absolute and 

peremptory decree of God — — and that such grace is denied because, by a preceding 

decree equally absolute, God has determined not to confer salvation on them but 

damnation; when they are thus taught, it is scarcely possible for any other result to ensue, 

than that the individual who cannot even with great difficulty work a persuasion within 

76



himself of his being elected, should soon consider himself included in the number of the 

reprobate. From such an apprehension as this, must arise a certain despair of performing 

righteousness and obtaining salvation. 

XVII. This doctrine inverts the order of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For in the Gospel God 

requires repentance and faith on the part of man, by promising to him life everlasting, if he 

consent to become a convert and a believer. (Mark 1:15; 16:16.) But it is stated in this 

[Supralapsarian] decree of Predestination, that it is God’s absolute will, to bestow salvation 

on certain particular men, and that he willed at the same time absolutely to give those very 

individuals repentance and faith, by means of an irresistible force, because it was his will 

and pleasure to save them. In the Gospel, God denounces eternal death on the impenitent 

and unbelieving. (John 3:36.) And those threats contribute to the purpose which he has in 

view, that he may by such means deter them from unbelief and thus may save them. But by 

this decree of Predestination it is taught, that God wills not to confer on certain individual 

men that grace which is necessary for conversion and faith because he has absolutely 

decreed their condemnation. 

The Gospel says, 

"God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son, that whosoever believeth in 

him should have everlasting life." (John 3:16.) But this doctrine declares; "that God so loved 

those whom he had absolutely elected to eternal life, as to give his son to them alone, and 

by an irresistible force to produce within them faith on him." To embrace the whole in few 

words, the Gospel says, "fulfill the command, and thou shalt obtain the promise; believe, 

and thou shalt live." But this [supralapsarian] doctrine says, "since it is my will to give thee 

life, it is therefore my will to give thee faith:" which is a real and most manifest inversion of 

the Gospel. 

XVIII. This Predestination is in open hostility to the ministry of the Gospel. 

1. For if God by an irresistible power quicken him who is dead in trespasses and sins, no 

man can be a minister and "a laborer together with God," (1 Corinthians 3:9,) nor can the 

word preached by man be the instrument of grace and of the Spirit, any more than a 

creature could have been an instrument of grace in the first creation, or a dispenser of that 

grace in the resurrection of the body from the dead. 

2. Because by this Predestination the ministry of the gospel is made "the savor of death 

unto death" in the case of the majority of those who hear it, (2 Corinthians 2:14-16,) as well 

as an instrument of condemnation, according to the primary design and absolute intention 

of God, without any consideration of previous rebellion. 

3. Because, according to this doctrine, baptism, when administered to many reprobate 

children, (who yet are the offspring of parents that believe and are God’s covenant people,) 

77



is evidently a seal [or ratification] of nothing, and thus becomes entirely useless, in 

accordance with the primary and absolute intention of God, without any fault [or culpability] 

on the part of the infants themselves, to whom it is administered in obedience to the Divine 

command. 

4. Because it hinders public prayers from being offered to God in a becoming and suitable 

manner, that is, with faith, and in confidence that they will be profitable to all the hearers 

of the word; when there are many among them, whom God is not only unwilling to save, 

but whom by his absolute, eternal, and immutable will, (which is antecedent to all things 

and causes whatever,) it is his will and pleasure to damn: In the mean time, when the 

apostle commands prayers and supplications to be made for all men, he adds this reason, 

"for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be 

saved, 

and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4.) 

5. The constitution of this doctrine is such, as very easily to render pastors and teachers 

slothful and negligent in the exercise of their ministry: Because, from this doctrine it 

appears to them as though it were impossible for all their diligence to be useful to any 

persons, except to those only whom God absolutely and precisely wills to save, and who 

cannot possibly perish; and as though all their negligence could be hurtful to none, except 

to those alone whom God absolutely wills to destroy, who must of necessity perish, and to 

whom a contrary fate is impossible. 

XIX. This doctrine completely subverts the foundation of religion in general, and of the 

Christian Religion in particular. 

1. The foundation of religion considered in general, is a two-fold love of God; without which 

there 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 (in the matter now before us,) it is a love for man, according 

to the expression of the Apostle to the Hebrews. "for he that cometh to God must believe 

that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." (11:6.) God’s love of 

righteousness is manifested by this circumstance, that 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 he seek Him. 

A mutual relation subsists between these two kinds of love, which is this. The latter species 

of love, which extends itself to the creatures, cannot come into exercise, except so far as it 

is permitted by the former, [the love of righteousness]: The former love, therefore, is by far 

the most excellent species; but in every direction there is abundant scope for the 

emanations of the latter, [the love of the creature,] except where the former [the love of 

righteousness] has placed some impediment in the range of its exercise. The first of these 

78



consequences is most evidently proved from the circumstance of God’s condemning man 

on account of sin, although he loves him in the relation in which he stands as his creature; 

which would by no means have been done, had he loved man more than righteousness, [or 

justice,] and had he evinced a stronger aversion to the eternal misery of man than to his 

disobedience. But the second consequence is proved by this argument, that God condemns 

no person, except on account of sin; and that he saves such a multitude of men who turn 

themselves away [or are converted] from sin; which he could not do, unless it was his will 

to allow as abundant scope to his love for the creatures, as is permitted by righteousness 

[or justice] under the regulation of the Divine judgment. 

But this [Supralapsarian] doctrine inverts this order and mutual relation in two ways: 

(1.) The one is when it states, that God wills absolutely to save certain particular men, 

without having had in that his intention the least reference or regard to their obedience. 

This is the manner in which it places the love of God to man before his love of 

righteousness, and lays down the position — that God loves men (as such) more than 

righteousness, and evinces a stronger aversion to their misery than to their sin and 

disobedience. 

(2.) The other is when it asserts, on the contrary, that God wills absolutely to damn certain 

particular men without manifesting in his decree any consideration of their disobedience. In 

this manner it detracts from his love to the creature that which belongs to it; while it 

teaches, that God hates the creature, without any cause or necessity derived from his love 

of righteousness and his hatred of iniquity. In which case, it is not true, "that sin is the 

primary object of God’s hatred, and its only meritorious cause." The great influence and 

potency which this consideration possesses in subverting the foundation of religion, may be 

appropriately described by the following simile: Suppose a son to say, "My father is such a 

great lover of righteousness and equity, that, notwithstanding I am his beloved son, he 

would disinherit me if I were found disobedient to him. Obedience, therefore, is a duty 

which I must sedulously cultivate, and which is highly incumbent upon me, if I wish to be his 

heir." Suppose another son to say: "My father’s love for me is so great, that he is absolutely 

resolved to make me his heir. There is, therefore, no necessity for my earnestly striving to 

yield him obedience; for, according to his unchangeable will, I shall become his heir. Nay, he 

will by an irresistible force draw me to obey him, rather than not suffer me to be made his 

heir." But such reasoning as the latter is diametrically opposed to the doctrine contained in 

the following words of John the Baptist: 

"And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: For I say unto you, 

that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matthew 3:9.) 

2. But the Christian religion also has its superstructure built upon this two-fold love as a 

foundation. This love, however, is to be considered in a manner somewhat different, in 

79



consequence of the change in the condition of man, who, when he had been created after 

the image of God and in his favor, became by his own fault a sinner and an enemy to God. 

(1.) God’s love of righteousness [or justice] on which the Christian religion rests, is, first, 

that righteousness which he declared only once, which was in Christ; because it was his will 

that sin should not be expiated in any other way than by the blood and death of his Son, 

and that Christ should not be admitted before him as an Advocate, Deprecator and 

Intercessor, except when sprinkled by his own blood. But this love of righteousness is, 

secondly, that which he daily manifests in the preaching of the gospel, in which he declares 

it to be his will to grant a communication of Christ and his benefits to no man, except to 

him who becomes converted and believes in Christ. 

(2.) God’s love of miserable sinners, on which likewise the Christian religion is founded, is, 

first, that love by which he gave his Son for them, and constituted him a Savior of those 

who obey him. But this love of sinners is, secondly, that by which he hath required 

obedience, not according to the rigor and severity to which he was entitled by his own 

supreme right, but according to his grace and clemency, and with the addition of a promise 

of the remission of sins, provided fallen man repent. The [supralapsarian] doctrine of 

Predestination is, in two ways, opposed to this two-fold foundation: first, by stating, "that 

God has such a great love for certain sinners, that it was his will absolutely to save them 

before he had given satisfaction, through Christ Jesus, to his love of righteousness, [or 

justice,] and that he thus willed their salvation even in his own fore-knowledge and 

according to his determinate purpose." 

Besides, it totally and most completely overturns this foundation, by teaching it to be 

"God’s pleasure, that satisfaction should be paid to his justice, [or righteousness,] because 

he willed absolutely to save such persons:" which is nothing less, than to make his love for 

justice, manifested in Christ, subordinate to his love for sinful man whom it is his will 

absolutely to save. Secondly. It opposes itself to this foundation, by teaching, "that it is the 

will of God absolutely to damn certain sinners without any consideration of their 

impenitency;" when at the same time a most plenary and complete satisfaction had been 

rendered, in Christ Jesus, to God’s love of righteousness [or justice] and to his hatred of sin. 

So that nothing now can hinder the possibility of his extending mercy to the sinner, 

whosoever he may be, except the condition of repentance. Unless some person should 

choose to assert, what is stated in this doctrine, "that it has been God’s will to act towards 

the greater part of mankind with the same severity as he exercised towards the devil and 

his angels, or even with greater, since it was his pleasure that neither Christ nor his gospel 

should be productive of greater blessings to them than to the devils, and since, according to 

the first offense, the door of grace is as much closed against them as it is against the evil 

angels." Yet each of those angels sinned, by himself in his own proper person, through his 

individual maliciousness, and by his voluntary act; while men sinned, only in Adam their 

parent, before they had been brought into existence. 

80



But, that we may more clearly understand the fact of this two-fold love being the 

foundation of all religion and the manner in which it is so, with the mutual correspondence 

that subsists between each other, as we have already described them, it will be profitable 

for us to contemplate with greater attention the following words of the Apostle to the 

Hebrews: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of 

them that diligently seek Him." In these words two things are laid down as foundations to 

religion, in opposition to two fiery darts of Satan, which are the most pernicious pests to it, 

and each of which is able by itself to overturn and extirpate all religion. One of them is 

security, the other despair. Security operates, when a man permits himself, that, how 

inattentive soever he may be to the worship of God, he will not be damned, but will obtain 

salvation. Despair is in operation, when a person entertains a persuasion, that, whatever 

degree of reverence he may evince towards God, he will not receive any remuneration. In 

what human mind soever either of these pests is fostered, it is impossible that any true and 

proper worship of God can there reside. Now both of them are overturned by the words of 

the Apostle: For if a man firmly believes, "that God will bestow eternal life on those alone 

who seek Him, but that He will inflict on the rest death eternal," he can on no account 

indulge himself in security. And if he likewise believes, that "God is truly a rewarder of 

those who diligently seek Him," by applying himself to the search he will not be in danger of 

falling into despair. The foundation of the former kind of faith by which a man firmly 

believes, "that God will bestow eternal life on none except on those who seek Him," is that 

love which God bears to his own righteousness, [or justice,] and which is greater than that 

which he entertains for man. And, by this alone, all cause of security is removed. But the 

foundation of the latter kind of faith, "that God will undoubtedly be a rewarder of those 

who diligently seek Him," is that great love for man which neither will nor can prevent God 

from effecting salvation for him, except he be hindered by his still greater love for 

righteousness or justice. Yet the latter kind of love is so far from operating as a hindrance to 

God from becoming a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, that on the contrary, it 

promotes in every possible way the bestowment of that reward. Those persons, therefore, 

who seek God, can by no means indulge in a single doubt concerning his readiness to 

remunerate. And it is this which acts as a preservative against despair or distrust. Since this 

is the actual state of the case, this two-fold love, and the mutual relation which each part of 

it bears to the other and which we have just unfolded, are the foundations of religion, 

without which no religion can possibly exist. That doctrine, therefore, which is in open 

hostility to this mutual love and to the relation that mutually subsists between them, is, at 

the same time, subversive of the foundation of all religion. 

XX. Lastly. This doctrine of Predestination has been rejected both in former times and in our 

own days, by the greater part of the professors of Christianity. 

1. But, omitting all mention of the periods that occurred in former ages, facts themselves 

declare, that the Lutheran and Anabaptist Churches, as well as that of Rome, account this 

to be an erroneous doctrine. 

81



2. However highly Luther and Melancthon might at the very commencement of the 

reformation, have approved of this doctrine, they afterwards deserted it. This change in 

Melancthon is quite apparent from his latter writings: And those who style themselves 

"Luther’s disciples," make the same statement respecting their master, while they contend 

that on this subject he made a more distinct and copious declaration of his sentiments, 

instead of entirely abandoning those which he formerly entertained. But Philip Melancthon 

believed that this doctrine did not differ greatly from the fate of the Stoics: This appears 

from many of his writings, but more particularly in a certain letter which he addressed to 

Gasper Peucer, and in which, among other things, he states: "Laelius writes to me and says, 

that the controversy respecting the Stoical Fate is agitated with such uncommon fervor at 

Geneva, that one individual is cast into prison because he happened to differ from Zeno. O 

unhappy times! When the doctrine of salvation is thus obscured by certain strange 

disputes!" 

3. All the Danish Churches embrace a doctrine quite opposed to this, as is obvious from the 

writings of Nicholas Hemmingius in his treatise on Universal Grace, in which he declares 

that the contest between him and his adversaries consisted in the determination of these 

two points: "do the Elect believe ," or, "are believers the true elect?" He considers "those 

persons who maintain the former position, to hold sentiments agreeable to the doctrine of 

the Manichees and Stoics; and those who maintain the latter point, are in obvious 

agreement with Moses and the Prophets, with Christ and his Apostles." 

4. Besides, by many of the inhabitants of these our own provinces, this doctrine is 

accounted a grievance of such a nature, as to cause several of them to affirm, that on 

account of it, they neither can nor will have any communion with our Church. Others of 

them have united themselves with our Churches, but not without entering a protest, "that 

they cannot possibly give their consent to this doctrine." But, on account of this kind of 

Predestination, our Churches have been deserted by not a few individuals, who formerly 

held the same opinions as ourselves: Others, also, have threatened to depart from us, 

unless they be fully assured that the Church holds no opinion of this description. 

5. There is likewise no point of doctrine which the Papists, Anabaptists, and Lutherans 

oppose with greater vehemence than this, and through whose sides they create a worse 

opinion of our Churches or procure for them a greater portion of hatred, and thus bring 

into disrepute all the doctrines which we profess. They likewise affirm "that of all the 

blasphemies against God which the mind of man can conceive or his tongue can express, 

there is none so foul as not to be deduced by fair consequence from this opinion of our 

doctors." 

6. Lastly. Of all the difficulties and controversies which have arisen in these our Churches 

since the time of the Reformation, there is none that has not had its origin in this doctrine, 

or that has not, at least, been mixed with it. What I have here said will be found true, if we 

bring to our recollection the controversies which existed at Leyden in the affair of Koolhaes, 

82



at Gouda in that of Herman Herberts, at Horn with respect to Cornelius Wiggerston, and at 

Mendenblich in the affair of Tako Sybrants. This consideration was not among the last of 

those motives which induced me to give my most diligent attention to this head of doctrine, 

and endeavor to prevent our Churches from suffering any detriment from it; because, from 

it, the Papists have derived much of their increase. While all pious teachers ought most 

heartily to desire the destruction of Popery, as they would that of the kingdom of Antichrist, 

they ought with the greatest zeal, to engage in the attempt, and as far as it is within their 

power, to make the most efficient preparations for its overthrow. 

The preceding views are, in brief, those which I hold respecting this novel doctrine of 

Predestination. I have propounded it with all good faith from the very expressions of the 

authors themselves, that I might not seem to invent and attribute to them any thing which I 

was not able clearly to prove from their writings. 

3. A SECOND KIND OF PREDESTINATION. 

But some other of our doctors state the subject of God’s Predestination in a manner 

somewhat different. We will cursorily touch upon the two modes which they employ. 

Among some of them the following opinion is prevalent: 

1. God determined within himself, by an eternal and immutable decree, to make (according 

to his own good pleasure,) the smaller portion out of the general mass of mankind 

partakers of his grace and glory, to the praise of his own glorious grace. But according to his 

pleasure he also passed by the greater portion of men, and left them in their own nature, 

which is incapable of every thing supernatural, [or beyond itself,] and did not communicate 

to them that saving and supernatural grace by which their nature, (if it still retained its 

integrity,) might be strengthened, or by which, if it were corrupted, it might be restored — 

for a demonstration of his own liberty. Yet after God had made these men sinners and 

guilty of death, he punished them with death eternal — for a demonstration of his own 

justice. 

2. Predestination is to be considered in respect to its end and to the means which tend to it. 

But these persons employ the word "Predestination" in its special acceptation for election 

and oppose it to reprobation. 

(1.) In respect to its end, (which is salvation, and an illustration of the glorious grace of God,) 

man is considered in common and absolutely, such as he is in his own nature. 

(2.) But in respect to the means, man is considered as perishing from himself and in himself, 

and as guilty in Adam. 

3. In the decree concerning the end, the following gradations are to be regarded. 

(1.) The prescience of God, by which he foreknew those whom he had predestinated. Then 

(2.) The Divine prefinition, [or predetermination,] by which he foreordained the salvation of 

those persons by whom he had foreknown. 

83



First, by electing them from all eternity: and secondly, by preparing for them grace in this 

life, and glory in the world to come. 

4. The means which belong to the execution of this Predestination, are 

(1.) Christ himself: 

(2.) An efficacious call to faith in Christ, from which justification takes its origin: 

(3.) The gift of perseverance unto the end. 

5. As far as we are capable of comprehending their scheme of reprobation it consists of two 

acts, that of preterition and that of predamnatian. It is antecedent to all things, and to all 

causes which are either in the things themselves or which arise out of them; that is, it has 

no regard whatever to any sin, and only views man in an absolute and general aspect. 

6. Two means are fore-ordained for the execution of the act of preterition: 

(1.) Dereliction [or abandoning] in a state of nature, which by itself is incapable of every 

thing supernatural: and 

(2.) Non-communication [or a negation] of supernatural grace, by which their nature (if in a 

state of integrity,) might be strengthened, and (if in a state of corruption,) might be 

restored. 

7. Predamnation is antecedent to all things, yet it does by no means exist without a 

fore-knowledge of the causes of damnation. It views man as a sinner, obnoxious to 

damnation in Adam, and as on this account perishing through the necessity of Divine 

justice. 

8. The means ordained for the execution of this predamnation, are 

(1.) Just desertion, which is either that of exploration, [or examination,] in which God does 

not confer his grace, or that of punishment when God takes away from a man all his saving 

gifts, and delivers him over to the power of Satan. 

(2.) The second means are induration or hardening, and those consequences which usually 

follow even to the real damnation of the person reprobated. 

4. A THIRD KIND OF PREDESTINATION. 

But others among our doctors state their sentiments on this subject in the following 

manner: 

1. Because God willed within himself from all eternity to make a decree by which he might 

elect certain men and reprobate the rest, he viewed and considered the human race not 

only as created but likewise as fallen or corrupt, and on that account obnoxious to cursing 

and malediction. Out of this lapsed and accursed state God determined to liberate certain 

individuals and freely to save them by his grace, for a declaration of his mercy; but he 

resolved in his own just judgment to leave the rest under the curse [or malediction] for a 

84



declaration of his justice. In both these cases God acts without the least consideration of 

repentance and faith in those whom he elects, or of impenitence and unbelief in those 

whom he reprobates. 

2. The special means which relate particularly to the execution both of election and 

reprobation, are the very same as those which we have already expounded in the first of 

these kinds of Predestination, with the exception of those means which are common both 

to election and reprobation; because this [third] opinion places the fall of man, not as a 

means fore-ordained for the execution of the preceding decree of Predestination, but as 

something that might furnish a fixed purpose or occasion for making this decree of 


5. MY JUDGMENT RESPECTING THE TWO LAST DESCRIBED SCHEMES OF PREDESTINATION. 

Both these opinions, as they outwardly pretend, differ from the first in this point — that 

neither of them lays down the creation or the fall as a mediate cause fore-ordained by God 

for the execution of the preceding decree of Predestination. Yet, with regard to the fall, 

some diversity may be perceived in the two latter opinions. For the second kind of 

Predestination places election, with regard to the end, before the fall; it also places before 

that event preterition, [or passing by,] which is the first part of reprobation. While the third 

kind does not allow any part of election and reprobation to commence till after the fall of 

man. But, among the causes which seem to have induced the inventors of the two latter 

schemes to deliver the doctrine of Predestination in this manner, and not to ascend to such 

a great height as the inventors of the first scheme have done, this is not the least — that 

they have been desirous of using the greatest precaution, lest it might be concluded from 

their doctrine that God is the author of sin, with as much show of probability as, (according 

to the intimation of some of those who yield their assent to both the latter kinds,) it is 

deducible from the first description of Predestination. 

Yet if we be willing to inspect these two latter opinions a little more closely, and in 

particular if we accurately examine the second and third kind and compare them with other 

sentiments of the same author concerning some subjects of our religion, we shall discover, 

that the fall of Adam cannot possibly, according to their views, be considered in any other 

manner than as a necessary means for the execution of the preceding decree of 


1. In reference to the second of the three, this is apparent from two reasons comprised in 

it: 

The first of these reasons is that which states God to have determined by the decree of 

reprobation to deny to man that grace which was necessary for the confirmation and 

strengthening of his nature, that it might not be corrupted by sin; which amounts to this, 

that God decreed not to bestow that grace which was necessary to avoid sin; and from this 

85



must necessarily follow the transgression of man, as proceeding from a law imposed on him. 

The fall of man is therefore a means ordained for the execution of the decree of 

reprobation. 

The second of these reasons is that which states the two parts of reprobation to be 

preterition and predamnation. These two parts, according to that decree, are connected 

together by a necessary and mutual bond, and are equally extensive. For, all those whom 

God passed by in conferring Divine grace, are likewise damned. Indeed no others are 

damned, except those who are the subjects of this act of preterition. From this therefore it 

may be concluded, that "sin must necessarily follow from the decree of reprobation or 

preterition, because, if it were otherwise, it might possibly happen, that a person who had 

been passed by, might not commit sin, and from that circumstance might not become liable 

to damnation; since sin is the sole meritorious cause of damnation: and thus certain of 

those individuals who had been passed by, might neither be saved nor damned — which is 

great absurdity. 

This second opinion on Predestination, therefore, falls into the same inconvenience as the 

first. For it not only does not avoid that [conclusion of making God the author of sin,] but 

while those who profess it make the attempt, they fall into a palpable and absurd 

self-contradiction — while, in reference to this point, the first of these opinions is alike 

throughout and consistent with itself. 

2. The third of these schemes of Predestination would escape this rock to much better 

effect, did not the patrons of it, while declaring their sentiments on Predestination and 

providence, employ certain expressions, from which the necessity of the fall might be 

deduced. Yet this necessity cannot possibly have any other origin than some degree of 


(1.) One of these explanatory expressions is their description of the Divine permission, by 

which God permits sin. Some of them describe it thus: "permission is the withdrawing of 

that Divine grace, by which, when God executes the decrees of his will through rational 

creatures, he either does not reveal to the creature that divine will of his own by which he 

wills that action to be performed, or does not bend the will of the creature to yield 

obedience in that act to the Divine will." To these expressions, the following are 

immediately subjoined: "if this be a correct statement, the creature commits sin through 

necessity, yet voluntarily and without restraint." If it be objected that "this description does 

not comport with that permission by which God permitted the sin of Adam:" We also 

entertain the same opinion about it. Yet it follows, as a consequence, from this very 

description, that "other sins are committed through necessity." 

(2.) Of a similar tendency are the expressions which some of them use, when they contend, 

that the declaration of the glory of God, which must necessarily be illustrated, is placed in 

"the demonstration of mercy and of punitive justice." But such a demonstration could not 

86



have been made, unless sin, and misery through sin, had entered into the world, to form at 

least some degree of misery for the least sin. And in this manner is sin also necessarily 

introduced, through the necessity of such a demonstration of the Divine glory. Since the fall 

of Adam is already laid down to be necessary, and, on that account, to be a means for 

executing the preceding decree of Predestination; creation itself is likewise at the same 

time laid down as a means subservient to the execution of the same decree. For the fall 

cannot be necessarily consequent upon the creation, except through the decree of 

Predestination, which cannot be placed between the creation and the fall, but is prefixed to 

both of them, as having the precedence, and ordaining creation for the fall, and both of 

them for executing one and the same decree — to demonstrate the justice of God in the 

punishment of sin, and his mercy in its remission. Because, if this were not the case, that 

which must necessarily ensue from the act of creation had not seen intended by God when 

he created, which is to suppose an impossibility. But let it be granted, that the necessity of 

the fall of Adam cannot be deduced from either of the two latter opinions, yet all the 

preceding arguments which have been produced against the first opinion, are, after a 

trifling modification to suit the varied purpose, equally valid against the two latter. This 

would be very apparent, if, to demonstrate it, a conference were to be instituted. 

6. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION. 

I have hitherto been stating those opinions concerning the article of Predestination which 

are inculcated in our Churches and in the University of Leyden, and of which I disapprove. I 

have at the same time produced my own reasons, why I form such an unfavorable 

judgment concerning them; and I will now declare my own opinions on this subject, which 

are of such a description as, according to my views, appear most conformable to the word 

of God. 

1. 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, Savior, Priest and 

King, who might destroy sin by his own death, might by his obedience obtain the salvation 

which had been lost, and might communicate it by his own virtue. 

2. The second precise and absolute decree of God, 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, and to damn them as 

aliens from Christ. 

3. The third Divine decree is that by which God decreed to administer in a sufficient and 

efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith; and to have 

such administration instituted 

(1.) according to the Divine Wisdom, by which God knows what is proper and becoming 

both to his mercy and his severity, and 

87



(2.) according to Divine Justice, by which He is prepared to adopt whatever his wisdom may 

prescribe and put it in execution. 

4. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain 

particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge 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, according to the before described 

administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, 

by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere. 

Predestination, when thus explained, is 

1. The foundation of Christianity, and of salvation and its certainty. 

2. It is the sum and the matter of the gospel; nay, it is the gospel itself, and on that account 

necessary to be believed in order to salvation, as far as the two first articles are concerned. 

3. It has had no need of being examined or determined by any council, either general or 

particular, since it is contained in the scriptures clearly and expressly in so many words; and 

no contradiction has ever yet been offered to it by any orthodox Divine. 

4. It has constantly been acknowledged and taught by all Christian teachers who held 

correct and orthodox sentiments. 

5. It agrees with that harmony of all confessions, which has been published by the 

protestant Churches. 

6. It likewise agrees most excellently with the Dutch Confession and Catechism. This 

concord is such, that if in the Sixteenth article these two expressions "those persons whom" 

and "others," be explained by the words "believers" and "unbelievers" these opinions of 

mine on Predestination will be comprehended in that article with the greatest clearness. 

This is the reason why I directed the thesis to be composed in the very words of the 

Confession, when, on one occasion, I had to hold a public disputation before my private 

class in the University. This kind of Predestination also agrees with the reasoning contained 

in the twentieth and the fifty-fourth question of the Catechism. 

7. It is also in excellent accordance with the nature of God — with his wisdom, goodness, 

and righteousness; because it contains the principal matter of all of them, and is the 

clearest demonstration of the Divine wisdom, goodness, and righteousness [or justice] 

8. It is agreeable in every point with the nature of man — in what form soever that nature 

may be contemplated, whether in the primitive state of creation, in that of the fall, or in 

that of restoration. 

88



9. It is in complete concert with the act of creation, by affirming that the creation itself is a 

real communication of good, both from the intention of God, and with regard to the very 

end or event; that it had its origin in the goodness of God; that whatever has a reference to 

its continuance and preservation, proceeds from Divine love; and that this act of creation is 

a perfect and appropriate work of God, in which he is at complaisance with himself, and by 

which he obtained all things necessary for an unsinning state. 

10. It agrees with the nature of life eternal, and with the honorable titles by which that life 

is designated in the scriptures. 

11. It also agrees with the nature of death eternal, and with the names by which that death 

is distinguished in scripture. 

12. It states sin to be a real disobedience, and the meritorious cause of condemnation; and 

on this account, it is in the most perfect agreement with the fall and with sin. 

13. In every particular, it harmonizes with the nature of grace, by ascribing to it all those 

things which agree with it, [or adapted to it,] and by reconciling it most completely to the 

righteousness of God and to the nature and liberty of the human will. 

14. It conduces most conspicuously to declare the glory of God, his justice and his mercy. It 

also represents God as the cause of all good and of our salvation, and man as the cause of 

sin and of his own damnation. 

15. It contributes to the honor of Jesus Christ, by placing him for the foundation of 

Predestination and the meritorious as well as communicative cause of salvation. 

16. It greatly promotes the salvation of men: It is also the power, and the very means which 

lead to salvation — by exciting and creating within the mind of man sorrow on account of 

sin, a solicitude about his conversion, faith in Jesus Christ, a studious desire to perform 

good works, and zeal in prayer — and by causing men to work out their salvation with fear 

and trembling. It likewise prevents despair, as far as such prevention is necessary. 

17. It confirms and establishes that order according to which the gospel ought to be 

preached, 

(1.) By requiring repentance and faith — 

(2.) And then by promising remission of sins, the grace of the spirit, and life eternal. 

18. It strengthens the ministry of the gospel, and renders it profitable with respect to 

preaching, the administration of the sacraments and public prayers. 

89



19. It is the foundation of the Christian religion; because in it, the two-fold love of God may 

be united together — God’s love of righteousness [or justice], and his love of men, may, 

with the greatest consistency, be reconciled to each other. 

20. Lastly. This doctrine of Predestination, has always been approved by the great majority 

of professing Christians, and even now, in these days, it enjoys the same extensive 

patronage. It cannot afford any person just cause for expressing his aversion to it; nor can it 

give any pretext for contention in the Christian Church. 

It is therefore much to be desired, that men would proceed no further in this matter, and 

would not attempt to investigate the unsearchable judgments of God — at least that they 

would not proceed beyond the point at which those judgments have been clearly revealed 

in the scriptures. 

This, my most potent Lords, is all that I intend now to declare to your mightinesses, 

respecting the doctrine of Predestination, about which there exists such a great controversy 

in the Church of Christ. If it would not prove too tedious to your Lordships, I have some 

other propositions which I could wish to state, because they contribute to a full declaration 

of my sentiments, and tend to the same purpose as that for which I have been ordered to 

attend in this place by your mightinesses. 

There are certain other articles of the Christian religion, which possess a close affinity to the 

doctrine of Predestination, and which are in a great measure dependent on it: Of this 

description are the providence of God, the free-will of man, the perseverance of saints, and 

the certainty of salvation. On these topics, if not disagreeable to your mightinesses, I will in 

a brief manner relate my opinion. ………………. 

III. THE FREE-WILL OF MAN 

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, that he may be qualified rightly to 

understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a 

partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, 

he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the 

continued aids of Divine Grace. 

90



IV. THE GRACE OF GOD 

In reference to Divine Grace, I believe, 

1. It is a gratuitous affection by which God is kindly affected towards a miserable sinner, 

and according to which he, in the first place, gives his Son, "that whosoever believers in him 

might have eternal life," and, afterwards, he justifies him in Christ Jesus and for his sake, 

and adopts him into the right of sons, unto salvation. 

2. It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of 

all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man 

— such as faith, hope, charity, etc.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not sufficient to 

think, will, or do any thing that is good. 

3. It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He 

acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him 

salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will 

whatever is good; and according to which God may then will and work together with man, 

that man may perform whatever he wills. 

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the 

consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though 

already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil 

temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. 

From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by 

attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free-will. For the whole controversy 

reduces itself to the solution of this question, "is the grace of God a certain irresistible 

force?" That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may 

be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or 

operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it 

be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that 

many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered. 

V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have 

been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving 

Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their 

own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies — yet not without the assistance of 

the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their 

temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand 

prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ 

preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning 

91



craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. 

But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to 

institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some 

individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to 

cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once 

delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual. 

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, 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 [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration. 

VI. THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION 

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 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 and by the fruits of faith, as from his own conscience, and 

the testimony of God’s Spirit witnessing together with his conscience. I also believe, that it 

is possible for such a person, with an assured confidence in the grace of God and his mercy 

in Christ, to depart out of this life, and to appear before the throne of grace, without any 

anxious fear or terrific dread: and yet this person should constantly pray, 

"O lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant!" 

But, since "God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things," and since a man judges 

not his own self — yea, though a man know nothing by himself, yet is he not thereby 

justified, but he who judgeth him is the Lord, (1 John 3:19; 1 Corinthians 4:3,) I dare not [on 

this account] place this assurance [or certainty] on an equality with that by which we know 

there is a God, and that Christ is the Savior of the world. Yet it will be proper to make the 

extent of the boundaries of this assurance, a subject of inquiry in our convention. 

VII. THE PERFECTION OF BELIEVERS IN THIS LIFE 

Beside those doctrines on which I have treated, there is now much discussion among us 

respecting the perfection of believers, or regenerated persons, in this life; and it is reported, 

that I entertain sentiments on this subject, which are very improper, and nearly allied to 

those of the Pelagians, viz: "that it is possible for the regenerate in this life perfectly to keep 

God’s precepts." To this I reply, though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought 

not on this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or entirely, provided I had 

only added that "they could do this by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it." But 

92



while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, 

I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided. For I have 

contented myself with those sentiments which St. Augustine has expressed on this subject, 

whose words have frequently quoted in the University, and have usually subjoined, that I 

had no addition to make to them. 

Augustine says, "four questions may claim our attention on this topic. The first is, was there 

ever yet a man without sin, one who from the beginning of life to its termination never 

committed sin? The second, has there ever been, is there now, or can there possibly be, an 

individual who does not sin, that is, who has attained to such a state of perfection in this 

life as not to commit sin, but perfectly to fulfill the law of God? The third, is it possible for a 

man in this life to exist without sin? The fourth, if it be possible for a man to be without sin, 

why has such an individual never yet been found?" St. Augustine says, that such a person as 

is described in the first question never yet lived, or will hereafter be brought into existence, 

with the exception of Jesus Christ. He does not think, that any man has attained to such 

perfection in this life as is portrayed in the second question. With regard to the third, he 

thinks it possible for a man to be without sin, by means of the grace of Christ and free-will. 

In answer to the fourth, man does not do what it is possible for him by the grace of Christ 

to perform, either because that which is good escapes his observation, or because in it he 

places no part of his delight." From this quotation it is apparent, that St. Augustine, one of 

the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine, retained this sentiment, that "it is 

possible for a man to live in this world without sin." 

Beside this, the same Christian father says, "let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man 

to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with 

each other." The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this — "that man 

could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still "greater 

facility by means of the grace of Christ." I have already most abundantly stated the great 

distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I 

account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these 

words of Christ, "Without me ye can do nothing:" (John 15:5.) It is likewise very destructive, 

and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. 

I cannot see that anything is contained in all I have hitherto produced respecting my 

sentiments, on account of which any person ought to be "afraid of appearing in the 

presence of God," and from which it might be feared that any mischievous consequences 

can possibly arise. Yet because every day brings me fresh information about reports 

concerning me, "that I carry in my breast destructive sentiments and heresies," I cannot 

possibly conceive to what points those charges can relate, except perhaps they draw some 

such pretext from my opinion concerning the Divinity of the Son of God, and the 

justification of man before God. Indeed, I have lately learnt, that there has been much 

public conversation, and many rumors have been circulated, respecting my opinion on both 

these points of doctrine, particularly since the last conference [between Gomarus and 

93



myself] before the Counselors of the Supreme Court. This is one reason why I think, that I 

shall not be acting unadvisedly if I disclose to your mightinesses the real state of the whole 

matter. …………………. 

The Works of James Arminius - Vol. 1 

Nine Theological Questions 

Exhibited By The Deputies Of The Synod, To Their Lordships The Curators Of The University 

Of Leyden, For The Purpose Of Obtaining An Answer To Each Of Them From The Professors 

Of Divinity; And The Replies Which James Arminius Gave To Them, In November, 1605. 

With Other Nine Opposite Questions 

THE NINE QUESTIONS: NINE OPPOSITE QUESTIONS 

1. Which is first, Election, or Faith Truly Foreseen, so that God elected his people 

according to faith foreseen? 

1. Is the decree "for bestowing Faith on any one," previous to that by which is appointed 

"the Necessity of Faith to salvation?" 

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION 

The equivocation in the word "Election," makes it impossible to answer this question in any 

other manner, than by distinction. If therefore "Election" denotes "the decree which is 

according to election concerning the justification and salvation of believers." I say Election 

is prior to Faith, as being that by which Faith is appointed as the means of obtaining 

salvation. But if it signifies "the decree by which God determines to bestow salvation on 

some one," then Faith foreseen is prior to Election. For as believers alone are saved, so only 

believers are predestinated to salvation. But the Scriptures know no Election, by which God 

precisely and absolutely has determined to save anyone without having first considered 

him as a believer. For such an Election would be at variance with the decree by which he 

hath determined to save none but believers. 

QUESTION OPPOSITE QUESTION 

2. If it be said, "that God, by his eternal decree, has determined and governs all things 

and every thing, even the depraved wills of men, to appointed good ends," does it follow 

from this, that God is the author of sin? 

2. Is "to determine or direct all things and every thing, even the depraved wills of men, to 

appointed good ends," the same thing as "to determine that man be made corrupt, by 

which a way may be opened for executing God’s absolute decree concerning damning some 

men through wrath, and saving others through mercy?" 

94




Sin is the transgression of the law; therefore, God will be the author of sin, if He cause any 

man to transgress the law. This is done by denying or taking away what is necessary for 

fulfilling the law, or by impelling men to sin. But if this "determination" be that of a will 

which is already depraved, since it does not signify the denying or the removing of grace 

nor a corrupt impelling to sin, it follows, that the consequence of this cannot be that God is 

the author of sin. But if this "determination" denote the decree of God by which He 

resolved that the will should become depraved, and that man should commit sin, then it 

follows from this that God is the author of sin. 


3. Does original sin, of itself, render man obnoxious to eternal death, even without the 

addition of any actual sin? Or is the guilt of original sin taken away from all and every one 

by the benefits of Christ the Mediator? 

3. If some men are condemned solely on account of the sin committed by Adam, and others 

on account of their rejection of the Gospel, are there not two peremptory decrees 

concerning the damnation of men, and two judgments, one Legal, the other Evangelical? 


Those things which in this question are placed in opposition to each other, easily agree 

together. For original sin can render man obnoxious to eternal death, and its guilt can be 

taken away from all men by Christ. Indeed, in order that guilt may be removed, it is 

necessary that men be previously rendered guilty. But to reply to each part separately: It is 

perversely said, that "original sin renders a man obnoxious to death," since that sin is the 

punishment of Adam’s actual sin, which punishment is preceded by guilt, that is, an 

obligation to the punishment denounced by the law. With regard to the second member of 

the question, it is very easily answered by the distinction of the soliciting, obtaining, and the 

application of the benefits of Christ. For as a participation of Christ’s benefits consists in 

faith alone, it follows that, if among these benefits "deliverance from this guilt" be one, 

believers only are delivered from it, since they are those upon whom the wrath of God does 

not abide. 


4. Are the works of the unregenerate, which proceed from the powers of nature, so 

pleasing to God, as to induce Him on account of them to confer supernatural and saving 

grace on those who perform them? 

4. Are a serious consciousness of sin, and an initial fear so pleasing to God, that by them He 

is induced to forgive sins, and to create a filial fear? 

95




Christ says, "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken 

away even that which he hath." Not, indeed, because such is the worthiness and the 

excellence of the use of any blessing conferred by God, either according to nature or to 

grace, that God should be moved by its merits to confer greater benefits; but, because such 

are the benignity and liberality of God, that, though these works are unworthy, yet He 

rewards them with a larger blessing. Therefore, as the word "pleasing" admits of two 

meanings, we can reply to the question proposed in two ways — either affirmatively, if that 

word be viewed as signifying "to please," "to find favor in his eyes," and "to obtain 

complacency for itself;" or negatively if "placeo" be received for that which it also signifies, 

"to please by its own excellence." Yet it might be said, that good works are rewarded, in a 

moral view, not so much through the powers of nature, as by some operation in them of 

the Holy Spirit. 


5. Can God now, in his own right, require faith from fallen man in Christ, which he cannot 

have of himself? But does God bestow on all and every one, to whom the Gospel is 

preached, sufficient grace by which they may believe, if they will? 

5. Can God require that man to believe in Jesus Christ, for whom He has determined by an 

absolute decree that Christ should not die, and to whom by the same decree He has 

determined to refuse the grace necessary for believing? 


The parts of this question are not opposed to each other; on the contrary, they are at the 

most perfect agreement. So that the latter clause may be considered the rendering of a 

reason, why God may require from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of 

himself. For God may require this, since he has determined to bestow on man sufficient 

grace by which he may believe. Perhaps, therefore, the question may be thus corrected: 

"Can God, now, in his own right, demand from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot 

have of himself, though God neither bestows on him, nor is ready to bestow, sufficient 

grace by which he may believe?" This question will be answered by a direct negative. God 

cannot by any right demand from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of 

himself, except God has either bestowed, or is ready to bestow, sufficient grace by which 

he may believe if he will. Nor do I perceive what is false in that reply, or to what heresy it 

has affinity. It has no alliance with the Pelagian heresy: for Pelagius maintained, that with 

the exception of the preaching of the Gospel, no internal grace is required to produce faith 

in the minds of men. But what is of more consequence, this reply is not opposed to St. 

Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination; "yet this doctrine of his, we do not account it 

necessary to establish," as Innocent, the Roman Pontiff, has observed. 

96




6. Is justifying faith the effect and the mere gift of God alone, who calls, illuminates, and 

reforms the will? and is it peculiar to the elect alone from all eternity? 

6. Can that be called a mere gift which, though offered by the pure liberality of Him who 

makes the offer, is still capable of being rejected by him to whom it is offered? But does a 

voluntary acceptance render it unworthy of the name of a gift? It may likewise be asked, "Is 

faith bestowed on these who are to be saved? Or is salvation bestowed on those who have 

faith?" Or can both these questions be answered affirmatively in a different respect? If they 

can, how is it then that there is not in those decrees a circle, in which nothing is first and 

nothing last? 


A double question requires a double answer. 

(1.) To the first I reply, Faith is the effect of God illuminating the mind and sealing the heart, 

and it is his mere gift. 

(2.) To the second I answer, by making a distinction in the word Election. If it be understood 

as signifying Election to salvation; since this, according to the scriptures, is the election of 

believers, it cannot be said, "Faith is bestowed on the elect, or on those who are to be 

saved," but that "believers are elected and saved." But if it be received for the decree by 

which God determines variously to administer the means necessary to salvation; in this 

sense I say that Faith is the gift of God, which is conferred on those only whom He hath 

chosen to this, that they may hear the word of God, and be made partakers of the Holy 

Spirit. 


7. May every one who is a true believer be assured in this life of his individual salvation; 

and is it his duty to have this assurance? 

7. Does justifying faith precede, in the order of nature, remission of sins, or does it not? And 

can any man be bound to any other faith than that which justifies? 


Since God promises eternal life to all who believe in Christ, it is impossible for him who 

believes, and who knows that he believes, to doubt of his own salvation, unless he doubts 

of this willingness of God [to perform his promise.] But God does not require him to be 

better assured of his individual salvation as a duty which must be performed to himself or 

97



to Christ; but it is a consequence of that promise, by which God engages to bestow eternal 

life on him who believes. 


8. May true believers and elect persons entirely lose faith for a season? 

8. May any man who has faith and retains it, arrive at such a moment, as, if he were then to 

die, he would be damned? 


Since Election to salvation comprehends within its limits not only Faith, but likewise 

perseverance in Faith; and since St. Augustine says, "God has chosen to salvation those who 

he sees will afterwards believe by the aid of his preventing or preceding grace, and who will 

persevere by the aid of his subsequent or following grace; "believers and the elect are not 

correctly taken for the same persons. Omitting, therefore, all notice of the word "Election," 

I reply, believers are sometimes so circumstanced, as not to produce, for a season, any 

effect of true faith, not even the actual apprehension of grace and the promises of God, nor 

confidence or trust in God and Christ; yet this is the very thing which is necessary to obtain 

salvation. But the apostle says, concerning faith, in reference to its being a quality and a 

capability of believing, "some, having cast away a good conscience concerning faith, have 

made shipwreck." 


9. Can believers under the grace of the New Covenant, perfectly observe the law of God 

in this life? 

9. May God, or may He not, require of those who are partakers of the New Covenant, that 

the flesh do not lust against the Spirit, as a duty corresponding with the grace of that 

covenant? 


The performance of the law is to be estimated according to the mind of Him who requires it 

to be observed. The answer will be two-fold, since He either wills it to be rigidly observed in 

the highest degree of perfection, or only according to epieikeian clemency; that is, if he 

require this according to clemency, and if the strength or powers which he confers be 

proportionate to the demand. 

(1.) Man cannot perfectly perform such a law of God, if it be considered as to be performed 

according to rigor. 

98



(2.) But if he require it according to clemency, and if the powers conferred be proportionate, 

(which must be acknowledged, since He requires it according to the evangelical covenant,) 

the answer is, it can be perfectly observed. But the question about capability is not of such 

great importance, "provided a man confesses that it is possible to be done by the grace of 

Christ," as St. Augustine justly observes. 

REMARKS ON THE PRECEDING QUESTIONS, AND ON THOSE OPPOSED TO THEM 

In reply to some queries which Uytenbogard had addressed to Arminius, concerning these 

nine questions and their opposites, the latter gave his friend the following explanation, in a 

letter dated the 31st of January, 1606: 

"1. In answer to the First Question, this is the order of the decrees. 

(1.) It is my will to save believers. 

(2.) On this man I will bestow faith and preserve him in it. 

(3.) I will save this man. For thus does the first of these decrees prescribe, which must 

necessarily be placed foremost; because, without this, faith is not necessary to salvation, 

and therefore no necessity exists to administer the means for faith. But to this is directly 

opposed the opinion which asserts, that faith is bestowed on him on whom God had 

previously willed to bestow salvation. For, in this case, it would be his will to save one who 

did not believe. All that has been said about the difference of the decree and its execution, 

is futile; as if, in fact, God willed salvation to any one prior to faith, and yet not to bestow 

salvation on any others than believers. For, beside the consistent agreement of these, [the 

decree and its execution,] it is certain that God cannot will to bestow that which, on 

account of his previous decree, He cannot bestow. As therefore faith is, in a general manner, 

placed before salvation by the first decree; so it must, specially and particularly, be placed 

before the salvation of this and that man, even in the special decree which has the 

subsequent execution. 

"3. To the Third Question I shall in preference oppose the following: Has God determined 

peremptorily to act with some men according to the strict rigor of the law, as He did with 

the fallen angels, and to act with others according to the grace of the Gospel? If they deny 

this, I have what I wish. But if they affirm it, such a sentiment must be overwhelmed with 

absurdities; because in such a case God would have acted towards many men with greater 

severity, than towards the fallen angels, who, as being creatures purely spiritual, each 

sinned of himself, through his own wickedness without persuasion from any one. 

"4. They will not be able to deny my Fourth opposite Question. For remission is promised to 

those who confess their sins; and the fear is called initial in reference to the filial fear which 

follows. If they acknowledge it, but say, ‘Yet God is not induced by them;’ I will then 

99



command them to erase the same word out of their interrogatory, and in a better form to 

enunciate their own opinion. 

"5. They will not consider it their duty entirely to deny my Fifth opposing Question. If they 

affirm it, they will declare a falsehood, and will incur the ill opinion of all prudent persons, 

even of those who are weak. Let them therefore search out what they may place as an 

intermediate postulate between theirs and mine, and I will then show that it co-incides 

either with their postulate or with mine. 

"6. I have placed two questions in opposition to the Sixth, because their question is also a 

double one. On the First of them you require no observation. About the Second I have said, 

for the sake of explanation, ‘that it is a circle, in which nothing is first and nothing last,’ but 

in every part of it a beginning and an end are found — which cannot, without absurdity, 

have place in the decrees of God. I ask, has God determined to bestow salvation on those 

who believe, or to bestow faith on those who are to be saved? If both of these be asserted, 

I ask, which of them is the first, and which the last? They will reply, neither; and it is then a 

circle. If they affirm the latter, that God has determined to bestow faith on those who are 

to be saved; I will prove, that He has determined to bestow salvation on those who believe, 

and shall then have formed a circle, notwithstanding their unwillingness. If they adduce the 

different respect, I will endeavor to confute it; which cannot be a work of much difficulty in 

so very plain a matter. 

"7. In the Seventh opposite Question, I had regard to the expression, is it his duty? for 

about its possibility there is no contention. But justifying faith is not that by which I believe 

that my sins are remitted; for thus the same thing will be the object and the effect of 

justifying faith. By this [justifying faith] I obtain remission of sins, therefore it precedes the 

other object; [the remission of sins;] and no one can believe that his sins are remitted, 

unless he knows that he believes by a justifying faith. For this reason, also, no one can 

believe that his future sins will likewise be remitted, unless he knows that he will believe to 

the end. For sins are forgiven to him who believes, and only after they have been 

committed; wherefore the promise of forgiveness, which is that of the New Testament, 

must be considered as depending on a condition stipulated by God, that is FAITH, without 

which there is no covenant. 

"8. With respect to the Eighth Question, let a distinction be made between Faith as it is a 

quality or habit, and between the same as it is an art. Actual believing justifies, or the act of 

believing is imputed for righteousness. Because God requires actual faith; for our capability 

to perform which, He infuses that which is habitual. Therefore, as actual faith does not 

consist with moral sin, he who falls into mortal sin may be damned. But it is possible for a 

believer to fall into mortal sin, of which David is seen as an instance Therefore, he may fall 

at such a moment as, if he were then to die, he would be damned. ‘If our heart condemn us 

not, then have we confidence toward God.’ Therefore, if it does condemn us, we have no 

confidence, we cannot have any; because ‘God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all 

100



things.’ What is said about the impossibility of this event, because, God has determined not 

to take such persons out of the world at that moment, conduces nothing in favor of their 

hypothesis. For this is opposed to final destruction, not to temporary, and to their total 

destruction for a season, which is the subject of their Eighth Question. 

"9. If it be replied to my Ninth opposing Question, that, in the covenant of grace, God 

requires a duty which is impossible to man; they will be forced to confess, that, in addition 

to this covenant, another is necessary, according to which God pardons a duty not 

performed according to that covenant of grace; as it was necessary that there should be 

another covenant, by which God might pardon a duty not performed according to the legal 

covenant. And thus shall we proceed on ad infinitum. At length we must arrive at the point 

from which we can say, God save sinners, of his infinite mercy, which is limited by no 

conditions prescribed by his equity. This seems to be an expression which will be entirely 

conformable to the whole doctrine of those who urge absolute predestination, For, since 

wrath and mercy are opposed to each other, as wrath is infinite, may not mercy too, be 

infinite? According to their doctrine, whatever they oppose to the contrary, wrath makes 

men sinners, that it may have those whom it can punish. But they expressly say, mercy 

makes men believers by an omnipotent force, and preserves them from the possibility of 

falling, that it may have those whom it can save. But, as Nicasius Van der Schuer says, if God 

could make a sinner, that He might have one whom He could punish; He could also punish 

without sin; therefore He could likewise mercifully save without faith. And as Wrath willed 

to have a just title for damnation, through the intervention of sin, so it became Mercy to 

save, without the intervention of any duty, that it might be manifest that the whole is of 

mercy without the semblance of justice. I say, without the semblance of justice; because it 

begets faith by an irresistible force, and by an irresistible force it causes man to continue in 

faith to the end, and thus necessarily to be saved, according to the decree, he that believes 

and perseveres, shall be saved This being laid down, all equity is excluded, as well from the 

decree of predestination to salvation, as from that of predestination to death. These 

objections, I am conscientiously of opinion, may, without calumny, be made to their 

sentiments; and I am prepared to maintain this very thing against any patron whatsoever of 

those sentiments. For they do not extricate themselves when they say, that man 

spontaneously sins, and believes by a spontaneous motion. For that which is spontaneous, 

and that which is natural, are not in opposition. And that which is spontaneous coincides 

with that which is absolutely necessary; as, a stone is moved downwards; a beast eats, and 

propagates its species; man loves that which is good for himself. But all excuses terminate 

in this spontaneous matter." 

5. ON PREDESTINATION TO SALVATION, AND ON DAMNATION CONSIDERED IN THE 

HIGHEST DEGREE 

1. 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 

101



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. 

2. The object of predestination to supernatural ends, to salvation and death, to the 

demonstration of the mercy and punitive justice, or of the saving grace, the wisdom, and 

the most free power of God, is not rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, and capable 

of salvation, of damnation, of creation, of falling, and of reparation or of being recovered. 

3. Nor is the subject some particular creatures from among those who are considered in 

this manner. 

4. The difference between the vessels to honor and those to dishonor, that is, of mercy and 

wrath, does not appertain to the adorning or perfection of the universe or of the house of 

God. 

5. The entrance of sin into the world does not appertain to the beauty of the universe. 

6. Creation in the upright state of original righteousness is not a means for executing the 

decree of predestination, or of election, or of reprobation. 

7. It is horrid to affirm, that "the way of reprobation is creation in the upright state of 

original righteousness;" (Gomarus, in his Theses on Predestination;) and in this very 

assertion are propounded two contrary volitions of God concerning one and the same 

thing. 

8. It is a horrible affirmation, that "God has predestinated whatsoever men he pleased not 

only to damnation, but likewise to the causes of damnation." (Beza, vol. I, fol. 417.) 

9. 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, Inst. l. I, c. 2, 3.) 

10. This, also, is a horrible affirmation: "Some among men have been created unto life 

eternal, and others unto death eternal." 

11. It is not a felicitous expression, that "preparation unto destruction is not to be referred 

to any other thing, than to the secret counsel of God." 

12. Permission for the fall [of Adam] into sin, is not the means of executing the decree of 

predestination, or of election, or of reprobation. 

13. It is an absurd assertion, that "the demerits of the reprobate are the subordinate means 

of bringing them onward to destined destruction." 

102



14. It is a false assertion, that "the efficient and sufficient cause and matter of 

predestination are thus found in those who are reprobated." 

15. The elect are not called "vessels of mercy" in the relation of means to the end, but 

because mercy is the only moving cause, by which is made the decree itself of 

predestination to salvation. 

16. No small injury is inflicted on Christ as mediator, when he is called "the subordinate 

cause of destined salvation." 

17. The predestination of angels and of men differ so much from each other, that no 

property of God can be prefixed to both of them unless it be received in an ambiguous 

acceptation. 

6. ON THE CREATION, AND CHIEFLY THAT OF MAN 

1. The creation of things out of nothing is the very first of all the external acts of God; nor is 

it possible for any act to be prior to this, or conceived to be prior to it; and the decree 

concerning creation is the first of all the decrees of God; because the properties according 

to which he performs and operates all things, are, in the first impulse of his nature, and in 

his first egress, occupied about nihility or nothing, when those properties are borne, ad 

extra, "outwards." 

2. God has formed two creatures rational and capable of things divine; ONE of them is 

purely spiritual and invisible, and [that is the class of] angels; but the OTHER is partly 

corporeal and partly spiritual, visible and invisible, and [that is the class of] men; and the 

perfection of this universe seeing to have required the formation of these two [classes of] 

creatures. 

3. QUERY. — Did it not become the manifold wisdom of God, and was it not suitable to the 

difference by which these two rational creatures were distinguished at the very creation, 

that, in the mode and circumstances of imparting eternal life to angels and to men, he 

might act in a different manner with the former from that which he adopts towards the 

latter? It appears that he might do so. 

4. But two general methods may be mentally conceived by us, ONE of which is through the 

strict observance of the law laid down, without hope of pardon if any transgression were 

committed; but the OTHER is through the remission of sins, though a law agreeable to their 

nature was likewise to be prescribed by a peremptory decree to men, with whom it was not 

the will of God to treat in a strict manner and according to the utmost rigor; and obedience 

was to be required from them without a promise or pardon. 

5. The image and likeness of God, after which man was created, belongs partly to the very 

nature of man, so that, without it, man cannot be man; but it partly consists in those things 

103



which concern supernatural, heavenly and spiritual things. The former class comprises the 

understanding, the affections, and the will, which is free; but the latter, the knowledge of 

God and of things divine, righteousness, true holiness, etc. 

6. With respect to essence and adequate objects, the faith by which Adam believed in God 

is not the same as that by which he believed in God after the promise made concerning the 

Blessed Seed, and not the same as that by which we believe the gospel of Christ. 

7. Without doing any wrong to God, to Adam, and to the truth itself, it may be said, that in 

his primeval state Adam neither received or possessed a Proximate capability of 

understanding, believing, or performing any thing whatsoever which could be necessary to 

be understood, believed, or performed by him, in any state whatsoever at which it was 

possible for him to arrive, either by his own endeavors or by the gift of God, though he 

must have had a remote capability, otherwise something essential would still have been to 

be created within man himself. 

8. The liberty of the will consists in this — when all the requisites for willing or not willing 

are laid down, man is still indifferent to will or not to will, to will this rather than that. This 

indifference is removed by the previous determination, by which the will is circumscribed 

and absolutely determined to the one part or to the other of the contradiction or 

contrariety; and this predetermination, therefore, does not consist with the liberty of the 

will, which requires not only free capability, but also tree use in the very exercise of it. 

9. Internal necessity is as repugnant to liberty as external necessity is; nay, external 

necessity does not necessitate to act except by the intervention of that which is internal. 

10. Adam either possessed, or had ready and prepared for him, sufficient grace, whether it 

were habitual or assisting, to obey the command imposed on him, both that command 

which was symbolical and ceremonial, and that which was moral. ……………… 

10. ON THE CAUSE OF SIN UNIVERSALLY 

1. Though sin can be committed by none except by a rational creature, and, therefore, 

ceases to be sin by this very circumstance if the cause of it be ascribed to God; yet it seems 

possible, by four arguments, to fasten this charge on our divines. "It follows from their 

doctrine that God is the author of sin." 

2. First reason. — Because they teach that, "without foresight of sin, God absolutely 

determined to declare his own glory through punitive justice and mercy, in the salvation of 

some men and in the damnation of others." 

Or, as others of them assert, "God resolved to illustrate his own glory by the demonstration 

of saving grace, wisdom, wrath, ability, and most free power, in the salvation of some 

104



particular men, and in the eternal damnation of others; which neither can be done, nor has 

been done, without the entrance of sin into the world." 

3. Second reason. — Because they teach "that, in order to attain to that chief and supreme 

end, God ordained that man should sin and become corrupt, by which thing God might 

open a way to himself for the execution of this decree." 

4. Third reason. — Because they teach "that God has either denied to man, or has 

withdrawn from man, before he sinned, grace necessary and sufficient to avoid sin;" which 

is equivalent to this — as if God had imposed a law on man which was simply impossible to 

be performed or observed by his very nature. 

5. Fourth reason. — Because they attribute to God some acts, partly external, partly 

mediate, and partly immediate, which, being once laid down, man was not able to do 

otherwise than commit sin by necessity of a consequent and antecedent to the thing itself, 

which entirely takes away all liberty; yet without this liberty a man cannot be considered, or 

reckoned, as being guilty of the commission of sin. 

6. A Fifth reason. — Testimonies of the same description may be added in which our 

divines assert, in express words, that "the reprobate cannot escape the necessity of sinning, 

especially since this kind of necessity is injected through the appointment of God." (Calvin’s 

Institutes, Lib. 2, 23.) 

11. OF THE FALL OF ADAM 

1. Adam was able to continue in goodness and to refrain from sinning, and this in reality 

and in reference to the issue, and not only by capability not to be brought into action on 

account of some preceding decree of God, or rather not possible to lead to an act by that 

preceding decree. 

2. Adam sinned freely and voluntarily, without any necessity, either internal or external. 

3. Adam did not fall through the decree of God, neither through being ordained to fall nor 

through desertion, but through the mere permission of God, which is placed in 

subordination to no predestination either to salvation or to death, but which belongs to 

providence so far as it is distinguished in opposition to predestination. 

4. Adam did not fall necessarily, either with respect to a decree, appointment, desertion, or 

permission, from which it is evident what kind of judgment ought to be formed concerning 

expressions of the following description: 

5. "I confess, indeed, that by the will of God all the sons of Adam have fallen into this 

miserable condition in which they are bound and fastened." (Calvin’s Institute, lib. 3, cap. 

23.) 

105



6. "They deny, in express words, the existence of this fact — that it was decreed by God 

that Adam should perish by his own defection." 

7. "God foreknew what result man would have, became he thus ordained it by his decree." 

8. "God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, but by his own will he ordained it." 

12. ON ORIGINAL SIN 

1. Original sin is not that actual sin by which Adam transgressed the law concerning the tree 

of knowledge of good and evil, and on account of which we have all been constituted 

sinners, and rendered obnoxious or liable to death and condemnation. 

2. QUERIES. — Is original sin only the absence or want of original righteousness and of 

primeval holiness, with an inclination to commit sin, which likewise formerly existed in man, 

though it was not so vehement nor so inordinate as now it is, on account of the lost favor of 

God, his malediction, and the loss of that good by which that inclination was reduced to 

order? Or is it a certain infused habit (or acquired ingress) contrary to righteousness and 

holiness, after that sin had been committed, 

3. Does original sin render men obnoxious to the wrath of God, when they have been 

previously constituted sinners on account of the actual sin of Adam, and rendered liable to 

damnation? 

4. Adam, when considered in this state, after sin and prior to restoration, was not bound at 

once to punishment and obedience, but only to punishment. …………… 

14. ON PREDESTINATION CONSIDERED AFTER THE FALL 

1. QUERIES. — Out of the fallen human race, or out of the mass of corruption and perdition, 

has God absolutely chosen some particular men to life, and absolutely reprobated others to 

death, without any consideration of the good of the one or of the evil of the other? And 

from a just decree, which is both gracious and severe, is there such a requisite condition as 

this in the object which God is about to elect and to save, or to reprobate and condemn? 

2. Is any man damned with death eternal, solely on account of the sin of Adam? 

3. Are those who are thus the elect necessarily saved on account of the efficacy of grace, 

which has been destined to them only that they may not be able to do otherwise than 

assent to it, as it is irresistible, 

106



4. 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, 

5. 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, 

6. Are those who have thus been reprobated certainly damned, because God does not 

apply to them grace as he knows to be suitable and congruous, though in the mean time 

they are supplied with sufficient grace, that they may be able to yield their assent and be 

saved, 

15. ON THE DECREES OF GOD WHICH CONCERN THE SALVATION OF SINFUL MEN, 

ACCORDING TO HIS OWN SENSE 

1. The first decree concerning the salvation of sinful men, as that by which God resolves to 

appoint his Son Jesus Christ as a savior, mediator, redeemer, high priest, and one who may 

expiate sins, by the merit of his own obedience may recover lost salvation, and dispense it 

by his efficacy. 

2. The SECOND DECREE is that by which God resolves to receive into favor those who 

repent and believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those 

who persevere, but to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, 

and to condemn them as aliens from Christ. 

3. The THIRD DECREE is that by which God resolves to administer such means for 

repentance and faith as are necessary, sufficient, and efficacious. And this administration is 

directed according to the wisdom of God, by which he knows what is suitable or becoming 

to mercy and severity; it is also according to his righteousness, by which he is prepared to 

follow and execute [the directions] of his wisdom. 

4. From these follows a FOURTH DECREE, concerning the salvation of these particular 

persons, and the damnation of those. This rests or depends on the prescience and foresight 

of God, by which he foreknew from all eternity what men would, through such 

administration, believe by the aid of preventing or preceding grace, and would persevere by 

the aid of subsequent or following grace, and who would not believe and persevere. 

5. Hence, God is said to "know those who are his;" and the number both of those who are 

to be saved, and of those who are to be damned, is certain and fixed, and the quod and the 

qui, [the substance and the parties of whom it is composed,] or, as the phrase of the 

schools is, both materially and formally. 

107



6. The second decree [described in § 2] is predestination to salvation, which is the 

foundation of Christianity, salvation, and of the assurance of salvation; it is also the matter 

of the gospel, and the substance of the doctrine taught by the apostles. 

7. But that predestination by which God is said to have decreed to save particular creatures 

and persons and to endue them with faith, is neither the foundation of Christianity, of 

salvation, nor of the assurance of salvation. 

21. ON THE PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS 

1. QUERIES. — Is it possible for true believers to fall away totally and finally: 

2. Do some of them, in reality, totally and finally fall from the faith? 

3. 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 church as a 

catholic doctrine. Neither has that which affirms the contrary ever been reckoned as a 

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 of its actually occurring. 

22. ON THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION 

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? 

3. 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. 

4. The persuasion by which any believer assuredly persuades himself that it is impossible 

for him to decline from the faith, or that, at least, he will not decline from the faith, does 

not conduce so much to consolation against despair or against the doubting that is adverse 

to faith and hope, as it contributes to security, a thing directly opposed to that most 

salutary fear with which we are commanded to work out our salvation, and which is 

exceedingly necessary in this scene of temptations. 

5. He who is of opinion that it is possible for him to decline from the faith, and who, 

therefore, is afraid lest he should decline, is neither destitute of necessary consolation, nor 

is he on this account, tormented with anxiety of mind. For it suffices to inspire consolation 

and to exclude anxiety, when he knows that he will decline from the faith through no force 

108



of Satan, of sin, or of the world, and through no inclination or weakness of his own flesh, 

unless he willingly and of his own accord, yield to temptation, and neglect to work out his 

salvation in a conscientious manner. 

So here are the basic biblical themes and passages that I think point towards the Arminian 

position being more biblical: 

109



CHAPTER SIX 

MOLINISM AND METHODISM 

A 

MOLINISM 

Luis de Molina (1535-1600) 

and . 

16th Century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (1535-1600), and Pedro da Fonseca 

(1528-1599)attempted to reconcile the problem of predestination due to foreknowledge of 

God with human free will using the principle of probability. 

(Wikipaedia) 

110



God’s knowledge in a sequence of three logical moments. 

The first is God's knowledge of necessary truths or natural knowledge. 

Natural Knowledge: God knows the range of all possible worlds.These truths are 

independent of God's will and are non-contingent. 

This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities. 

Examples include statements like, 

"All bachelors are unmarried" or 

"X cannot be A and non-A at the same time, 

Everything that could be. 

In the same way, at the same place" or 

"It is possible that X obtain". 

This knowledge is simply the logic of thinking and its relation to the case in consideration. 

The second is called “middle knowledge” 

It contains the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances. 

This gives all possibilities. One of this will have to happen. 

God knows all the feasible worlds he could create. 

Everything that would be. 

The third kind of knowledge is God's free knowledge. 

This type of knowledge consists of contingent truths that are dependent upon God's will; or 

truths that God brings about, that He does not have to bring about. 

Examples might include statements like 

"God created the earth" 

or something particular about this world which God has actualized. 

This is called God’s “free knowledge” and it contains the future or what will happen. 

God knows all truths about the actual world. 

Everything that will be. 

In between God’s natural and free knowledge is His middle knowledge (or scientia media) 

by which God knows what His free creatures would do under any circumstance. 

These are truths that do not have to be true, but are true without God being the primary 

cause of them. 

"If you entered the ice cream shop, you would choose chocolate" is an example of a 

statement God knows via middle.knowledge. 

Given a whole array of possible worlds (that God knows), given worlds in which men and 

women were free in the relevant indeterministic sense, God knows what they would freely 

choose in every possible circumstance. 

This is the most probable action or event within the middle distribution. 

This is true for all possible people and all possible circumstances. God has this middle 

111



knowledge by inspection of all the possibilities that the free will of each person 

might choose. 

This middle knowledge or most probable action in itself does not guarantee the accuracy of 

the event happenning. With perfect omniscience of God, why does he need the 

probability determination? Not only is middle knowledge unnecessary to an all-knowing, 

all-decreeing God, but the Molinists’ conception of free will makes it impossible for God to 

exercise providential control over his creation. Why? Because men and women would be 

free to resist His decree. God can only bring to pass the actions of free agents via his middle 

knowledge of what they would freely do if. 

This method of forecast is nothing new in the modern life. We do this with weather 

forecast, for predicting share market behavior and many other things. 

Further, given the Molinist view of freedom, it is impossible for God to bring about the 

conversion of any person by the exercise of His effective call, for in the view of the Molinists 

it is always possible for an individual to resist God’s grace. It gives the freedom of will but 

not absolute omniscience of God nor absolute predeterminantion of the event happenning. 

The actual prophecies in the bible are probably based on this third knowledge. In fact 

Bible does not require every prophecy to come to pass exactly because of that. This is 

understood because the purpose of prophecy is to correct and redirect. 

Debate between Jesuit Molinists and Dominicans 

In 1581, a heated argument erupted between the Jesuits, who advocated Molinism, and 

the Dominicans, who had a different understanding of God's foreknowledge and the nature 

of predestination. In 1597, Pope Clement VIII established the Congregatio de Auxiliis, a 

committee whose purpose was to settle this controversy. In 1607, Pope Paul V ended the 

quarrel by forbidding each side to accuse the other of heresy, allowing both views to exist 

side-by-side in the Catholic Church. 

Biblical texts for Molinism 

Molinists have often argued that their position is the Biblical one by indicating passages 

they understand to teach God's middle knowledge. 

Molina advanced the following three texts: 1 Samuel 23:8-14, Proverbs 4:11, and Matthew 

11:23. Other passages which Molinists use are Ezekiel 3:6-7, Jeremiah 38:17-18, 1 

Corinthians 2:8, Deuteronomy 28:51-57, Matthew 23:27-32, Matthew 12:7, Matthew 24:43, 

Luke 16:30-31, and Luke 22:67-68. William Lane Craig has argued at length that many of 

Christ's statements seem to indicate middle knowledge. Craig cites the following passages: 

Matthew 17:27, John 21:6, John 15:22-24, John 18:36, Luke 4:24-44 and Matthew 26:24. 

112



Isaiah 46:10–11 

10 

Declaring the end from the beginning, 

And from ancient times things that are not yet done, 

Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, 

And I will do all My pleasure,’ 

11 

Calling a bird of prey from the east, 

The man r who executes My counsel, from a far country. 

Indeed I have spoken it; 

I will also bring it to pass. 

I have purposed it; 

I will also do it. 

In this passage God clearly states how he can bring it to pass by controlling the cause effect 

relations and his omnipotence. It appears that even though God can bring it pass, he does 

not have to, giving freedom. Freedom is given by the sovereign by not interfering with 

the subject. But as Isaiah says God can always bring it pass, if he wants. 

113



METHODISM 

WESLEY’S 

EVANGELICAL ARMINIAN POSITION 

John Wesley (1703 – 2 March 1791) was an Anglican cleric and Christian theologian who 

founded the Arminian Methodist movement. The Wesley Methodist Movement began 

when Wesley took over open-air preaching started by George Whitefield at Hanham Mount, 

Kingswood, and Bristol. 

TOTAL DEPRAVITY 

Total depravity is affirmed by Wesley, meaning that the fallen human being is 

completely helpless and in bondage to sin. This means, contrary to popular 

misconception, Wesley does not believe that fallen human beings have an inherent 

freedom of the will. 

UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT 

The atonement is universal in scope. Christ’s death was sufficient to atone for the sins 

of the whole world, not only an elect few, as proposed by five-point Calvinism. 

PREVENIENT GRACE 

Prevenient grace is universally available to all, restoring a measure of freedom so that 

the human being can respond to God’s grace. This is how Wesley could affirm that all 

human persons were free to respond to God’s grace – but note that the freedom which 

humans possess is a measure of freedom (not libertarian freedom) and is by grace, not 

an inherent endowment that is retained in fallen humanity. 

114



IRESISTIBLE GRACE 

Grace is resistible and can be rejected, to our own destruction. 

all people to himself, but his grace is not coercive. 

God is actively drawing 

CORPORATE PREDESTINATION 

Predestination is therefore based on God’s foreknowledge, not his will. That is, God 

corporately predestines all those who respond in faith to salvation, and by 

foreknowledge he knows who will respond. His foreknowledge does not cause their 

response. 

ASSURANCE OF SALVATION 

Assurance of salvation is given by the Holy Spirit, who witnesses directly to our adoption 

as children of God through Christ, and is also confirmed indirectly by the fruit of the 

Spirit. 

“What is an Arminian?” 

By John Wesley 

1. To say, “This man is an Arminian,” has the same effect on many hearers as to say, “This is 

a mad dog.” It puts them into a fright at once. They run away from him with all speed and 

diligence and will hardly stop, unless to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous 

animal. 

2. The more unintelligible the word is, the better it answers the purpose. Those on whom 

it is fixed do not know what to do. Not understanding what it means, they cannot tell 

what defense to make or how to clear themselves from the charge. And it is not easy to 

115



remove the prejudice which others have imbibed, who know no more of it than that it is 

“something very bad,” if not “all that is bad!” 

3. To clear the meaning, therefore, of this ambiguous term, may be useful to many. To 

those who so freely pin this name on others, that they may not say what they do not 

understand; to those who hear them, that they may be no longer abused by men saying 

what they do not know; and to those on whom the name is fixed, that they may know how 

to answer for themselves. 

4. It may be necessary to observe, first, that many confound Arminians with Arians. But 

this is entirely a different thing; the one has no resemblance to the other. An Arian is one 

who denies the Godhead of Christ – we scarcely need say the supreme, eternal Godhead 

because there can be no God but the supreme, eternal God, unless we would make two 

Gods, a great God and a little one. Now, none have ever more firmly believed or more 

strongly asserted the Godhead of Christ than many of the (so called) Arminians have done; 

yes, and do at this day. Arminianism therefore (whatever it is) is totally different from 

Arianism. 

5. The rise of the word was this: James Harmens, in Latin: Jacobus Arminius, was first one of 

the ministers of Amsterdam and afterward Professor of Divinity at Leyden. He was 

educated at Geneva, but in the year 1591 he began to doubt of the [Calvinist] principles 

which he had till then received. And being more and more convinced that they were 

wrong, when he was vested with the professorship, he publicly taught what he believed the 

truth till, in the year 1609, he died in peace. But a few years after his death, some zealous 

men with the Prince of Orange at their head, furiously assaulted all those who held what 

were called his opinions. And having procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the 

famous Synod of Dort (not so numerous or learned, but full as impartial, as the Council or 

Synod of Trent), some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all 

turned out of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in 

Church or State. 

6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents are five: 

(1.) That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they deny 

absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) 

That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace. 

With regard to the first two of these charges they plead, ‘Not Guilty.’ They are entirely 

false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin or 

justification by faith in more strong, more clear and express terms than Arminius has 

done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question. In these both parties 

agree. In this respect, there is not a hair’s breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. 

Whitefield. 

116



7. But there is an undeniable difference between the Calvinists and Arminians with regard 

to the three other questions. Here they divide; the former believe absolute, the latter only 

conditional, predestination. The Calvinists hold: God has absolutely decreed from all 

eternity to save such and such persons, and no others; and that Christ died for these and 

none else. The Arminians hold: God has decreed from all eternity touching all who have 

the written word, “One who believes will be saved; one who does not believe will be 

condemned.” And in order to this: “Christ died for all, all who were dead in trespasses and 

sins”; that is, for every child of Adam, since “in Adam all died.” 

8. The Calvinists hold, secondly, that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that 

no one is any more able to resist it than to resist the stroke of lightning. The Arminians 

hold that, although there may be some moments in which the grace of God acts irresistibly, 

yet in general any one may resist, and that to his eternal ruin, the grace whereby it was the 

will of God he should have been eternally saved. 

9. The Calvinists hold, thirdly, that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from 

grace. The Arminians hold that a true believer may make ‘shipwreck’ of faith and a good 

conscience (1 Tim. 1:19), so that he may fall not only foully but finally, so as to perish for 

ever. 

10. Indeed, the two latter points, irresistible grace and infallible perseverance, are the 

natural consequence of the former, of the unconditional decree. For if God has eternally 

and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, it follows both that they cannot 

resist His saving grace (else they might miss salvation) and that they cannot finally fall from 

that grace which they cannot resist. So that, in effect, the three questions come into one: 

“Is predestination absolute or conditional?” The Arminians believe it is conditional; the 

Calvinists, that it is absolute. 

11. Away, then, with all ambiguity! Away with all expressions which only puzzle the 

cause! Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words which they do not 

understand. And how can any man who has never read one page of his writings know 

what Arminius held? Let no man bawl against Arminians till he knows what the term 

means, and then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a level. And 

Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists as Calvinists have to be angry at 

Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. 

Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only, the 

former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional. 

12. One word more: is it not the duty of every Arminian preacher, first, never, in public or in 

private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach, seeing it is neither better nor 

worse than calling names? a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners 

than it is with Christianity. Secondly, to do all that lies in him to prevent his hearers from 

doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every 

117



Calvinist preacher, first, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use 

the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly, to do all that lies in him to prevent his 

hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it; and that the more earnestly 

and diligently if they have been accustomed to do so? perhaps encouraged in such by his 

own example! 

– The Essential Works of John Wesley (2011: Barbour Publishing), pp. 1171-3 

118



CHAPTER SEVEN 

SOME DETAILS 

Here are a collection scriptural basis as claimed by the various doctrinal sects collected 

from many websites both Calvinistic and Arministic sections. 

SCRIPTURAL BASIS OF CALVINISM 

119



Romans 9 

This is a major text quoted by the Calvinists 

Romans 9:8-24: This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the 

children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and 

Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had 

conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were 

not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s 

purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him 

who calls– 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is 

written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For 

he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have 

compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human 

will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to 

Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my 

power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So 

then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 

19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his 

will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded 

say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no 

right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use 

and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath 

and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of 

wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his 

glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory– 24 

even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the 

Gentiles? 

Calvinist interpretation: 

The passage describes what Sovereignity is all about. 

Isaac and Jacob are examples of God’s unconditional election 

and Ishmael, Esau and Pharaoh are examples of God’s unconditional reprobation. 

Jacob was chosen as against Esaw the first born even before they were born. 

The potter metaphor show again the same election of some as against the reprobation of 

other pots. 

120



Taking the text in the context: 

The context is in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for 

salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ” 

Salvation is through the gospel. 

Salvation is for both the Jew and the Gentile even though Jews were elected first. There is 

no partiality in the salvation. 

The electrion of the Jew was first. Why is this? 

They were elected not for salvation but as to be witnesses and to serve the Gentiles. 

Abraham was selected so that the whole mankind may be blessed. 

1Gen 22: 8"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have 

obeyed My voice." 

Deut. 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen 

you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the 

earth. 7"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in 

number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8but because the 

LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, 

The same election is repeated in 1 Peter: 

1 Peter 2: 8-10 “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they 

disobey the message—and to this they were appointed. 9But you are a chosen people, a 

royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the 

virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. 10Once you were 

not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but 

now you have received mercy.… 

This election was to be witness. Here again it is not for individuals but for a community - the 

church. Of course, the church is a community who believes in Jesus. 

“Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the 

one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.” 

In this part Paul explains that Jacob and Easaw represens two nations. 

Actually Esau never served Jacob. In fact when Jacob returned home, he pays his homage 

to Esau as his elder brother. But the generation of Esau - Edom, did serve generations of 

Jacob -Israel. Evidently the verse is talking about the two nations and not individuals. 

Election here is of a community. 

Thus it is important to note that the text is not trying to describe unconditional election, 

but is in fact denying election by lineage. The Jews thought that they were elect by birth 

121



and justified by works. In other words, the entered the covenant by birth, and maintained it 

by works. Paul’s original thesis makes this clear. These examples are not examples of God 

choosing Isaac and Jacob, but examples of God not choosing Ishmael and Esau (as well as 

their descendants), even though they were both sons of Abraham. 

Ephesians 1:3-12: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, for we are 

blessed in all spiritual blessings, in the heavenly things, in Christ, seeing that He chose us in 

Him before the inception of the world to be holy and unblemished within His presence in 

love, thus predestining us into adoption to Him through Jesus Christ, according to the good 

judgment of His will in praise of His glory and His grace by which He favoured us in the 

Loved One. 

Paul is using the concepts of predestination and election to praise God for the inclusion 

(or predestining) of the Gentiles in election. Why are these gentiles - as community 

outside of Israel - elected? Is there an Abraham behind? There is and more so, because 

the whole mankind are sons of Adam, son of God. Hence Paul goes on to say: 

3:5-6: In former generation this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has 

now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is the Gentiles 

have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in 

Christ Jesus through the gospel. 

Ephesians 2:8 

Ephesians 2:8 For you see it is from grace that you have been saved through faith; 

not from yourself. This is a gift of God, not from works so that none may boast. 

Faith is not something induced. It is something a person chooes. It has nothing to 

do with predestination. It in fact supports human freedom 

John 6:36-40 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All 

that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never 

drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will 

of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none 

of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is 

that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I 

will raise him up at the last day. 

John 6:44-45 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, 

and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all 

be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes 

to me. 

122



The Calvinist interpretation: The text is distinguishing between those that follow Jesus and 

those that do not. To be given to the Son implies that the Father unconditionally elected 

them and then gave them to the Son. Indeed this is emphasized with the word ‘draw’ in 

verse 44 which implies being dragged against your will and is thus a picture of irresistible 

grace. Therefore the point of the passage is the futility of these Jews trying to come to Jesus 

on their own, and Christ is telling them that they can’t because the Father isn’t drawing 

them. 

This is actually distinguishing those who believe in Christ because of their faith in God 

(essentially talking about the Jews). Jesus is talking to the jews and Jesus came as the 

mesiah of the Jews and is as such talking to them. There is no predestination even 

indicated. 

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word 

of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. 

The confusion over the word tasso translated as ‘ordained’. The word tasso doesn’t mean 

‘ordain’. It means ‘to set’ or ‘to position’. 

The Greek runs as follows: kai (and) episteusan (believed[aorist {or past} tense]) hosoi (as 

many as[nominative {subject}]) esan (were [verb]) tetagmenoi (positioned [nominative 

particple]) eis (into) zoen (life[direct object]) aionion (eternal[adjective]) 

It should read “ as many as were positioned or set their face towards life eternal.” 

“And ones who believed were the ones that were set in eternal life”. This is really the 

best rendering. 

If anything, the text simply implies that eternal life comes by faith. 

Jesus says, 

John 6:44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will 

raise him up on the last day.” 

God decide who will be drawn to Jesus and who won’t be. 

John 6:63: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.” 

John 6:65: “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the 

Father.” 

John 17:6: “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the 

world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.” 

123



Romans 8:29-30: 

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his 

Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he 

predestined, he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom 

he justified he also glorified.” 

Romans 9:14-24: 

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to 

Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I 

have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who 

has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, 

that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the 

earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who 

are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have 

you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same 

lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring 

to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels 

of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for 

vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has 

called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” 

Romans 11:5 Paul states, “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.” 

God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. 

In Exodus 4:21 God tells Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before 

Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that 

he will not let the people go.” 

Romans 6:17-18 Paul writes, “But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin 

have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were 

committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.” 

Romans 8: 7-8 the Apostle Paul writes, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to 

God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh 

cannot please God.” 

Revelation 3:20? “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and 

opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” 

124



Jesus says, “If any one hears my voice . . .” Can a spiritually deaf person hear the voice of 

Jesus? 

Romans 11:7-8 th “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect 

obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, 

eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.’” 

He knocks only on the doors of those who can hear and respond. Not on the doors of the 

damned. 

The Tribal God King picture as presented by Calvin 

God does everything for his own glory. 

Now how does God bring glory to Himself by making people blind, deaf and mute? How 

does God bring glory to Himself by giving people “a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see 

and ears that would not hear (Romans 11:8)”? 

The human mind doesn’t understand how, but that is how God works so that in damning 

you he gets the glory just like a victor king beheads the defeated kings. It reduces YHVH to 

a tribal god. 

You better change your idea of a loving God who created the whole mankind and the 

Universe. He loves them only when he gets the glory. The slightest expresssion of freedom 

is destroys that glory and you get the hell. What is the glory God gets when his children are 

put in the hell and are eternally tortured? What a great glory is it! Sorry you don’t 

understand. But then you are not to understand it. “My thoughts are not your 

thoughts…… 

The picture presented by Calvin of the God is far from the “God is Love” expessed on the 

cross. 

The Gnostic Origins of Calvinism – October 8, 2013 

by Ken Johnson 

The Apostle John Corrected Calvinistic Gnostics 

The Calvinistic Gnostics believed in the Calvinistic formof predestination and that you 

could not know for sure if you were truely saved until you died. 

John corrected this Gnostic thought by saying you can know you currently have 

eternal life (1 John 5:13; 2:25; 4:17). 

John also corrected many other Gnostic thoughts in his epistle such as: 

Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just certain people (l John 2:2). 

You must continue to believe the gospel the way John taught it to remain saved (2 

John 9). 

125



Christians cannot practice sin (1 John 3:6, 9;5:18). 

Follow John‘s gospel, not the Gnostic one (l John 4:6). 

Jesus‘ sacrifice is the only way of salvation, not that you were bom saved the way the 

Gnostics believed (1John 4:l0, 14). 

John Calvin Quotes: 

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/Charge_Dissonance.html 

The Fall, Divine Permission and the Author of Sin 

Will of God is the Cause of all Evil, God is not the author of Evil 

“First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the 

world; and yet God is not the author of evil.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 

p.169,) 

Wrong and Unjust things done by man is the just works of God 

“Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and 

just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some; but at least they should 

not be so offended that they will not suffer me to search the word of God for a little to find 

out what should be thought here.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169) 

God decreed the fall of Adam and did that to please himself 

“I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant 

children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the 

most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is 

impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, 

and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh 

against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be 

made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? 

Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. 

Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, 

and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.” (The Institutes 

of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, section 7) 

Evil is by permission but not by ordination 

“Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove 

that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we 

say that he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the 

thing itself—viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not 

by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the 

126



chief of his creatures to be.” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, 

section 8) 

Evil is decreed to bring what He willed. 

“To this opinion of this holy man I subscribe: in sinning, they did what God did not will in 

order that God through their evil will might do what He willed.” (Concerning the Eternal 

Predestination of God, p.123) 

Fall of Adam was ordained but Adam is the one who did it. 

“So God in ordaining the fall of man had an end most just and right which holds the name of 

sin in abhorrence. Though I affirm that He ordained it so, I do not allow that He is properly 

the author of sin.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.123) 

God is the willing Author of Evil 

“But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows 

Him not only willing but the author of them.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 

p.176) 

If you don’t understand it, it is because it is a secret 

“If anyone object that this is beyond his comprehension, I confess it. But what wonder if the 

immense and incomprehensible majesty of God exceed the limits of our intellect? I am so 

far from undertaking the explanation of this sublime, hidden secret, that I wish what I said 

at the beginning to be remembered, that those who seek to know more than God has 

revealed are crazy. Therefore let us be pleased with instructed ignorance rather than with 

the intemperate and inquisitive intoxication of wanting to know more than God allows.” 

(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.123) 

“But now, removing from God all proximate causation of the act, I at the same time remove 

from Him all guilt and leave man alone liable. It is therefore wicked and calumnious to say 

that I make the fall of man one of the works of God. But how it was ordained by the 

foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as 

associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much 

excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.” 

(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.123-124) 

Calvinist. R.C. Sproul, states: “But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin 

nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. 

Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.” (Chosen By God, p.31) 

127



Monergism vs Synergism 

Monergism, which comes from a compound Greek word that means “to work alone,” is 

the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is held primarily by Calvinistic and 

Reformed traditions and is closely tied to what is known as the “doctrines of grace.” 

The Century Dictionary's definition of monergism may be helpful: 

"In theology, [monergism is] the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in 

regeneration [the new birth] - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until 

regenerated [born again], and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration." 

Monergism simply means that 

It is God who gives ears to hear, eyes to see and a heart to understand (Deut 29:4, 30:6) . 

It is God alone who gives illumination and understanding of His word that we might believe; 

It is God who raises us from the dead, who circumcises the heart; unplugs our ears (Ezek 

36:26-27); 

It is God alone who can give us a new sense that we may, at last, have the moral capacity to 

behold His beauty and unsurpassed excellency. The apostle John recorded Jesus saying to 

Nicodemus that we naturally love darkness, hate the light and WILL NOT come into the 

light (John 3:19, 20). 

And since our hardened resistance to God is thus seated in our affections, only God, by His 

grace, can lovingly change, overcome and disarm our rebellious disposition. The natural 

man, apart from the quickening work of the Holy Spirit, will not come to Christ on his own 

since he is at enmity with God and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14; Rom 8:7). 

Reading or hearing the word of God itself cannot elicit saving faith in the reader (or hearer) 

unless the Spirit first "germinates" the seed of the word in the heart, which then infallibly 

gives rise to our faith and union with Christ. It is said of Lydia that "the Lord opened her 

heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul," (Acts 16:14) Likewise, He must also give all 

His people spiritual life and understanding if their hearts are to be open and thus turn 

(respond) to Christ in faith. 

Since faith is infinitely beyond all the power of our unregenerated human nature, it is only 

God who can give the spiritual ears to hear and eyes to see the beauty of Christ in the 

gospel. 

God alone disarms the hostility of the sinner turning his heart of stone to a heart of flesh. 

So the problem of conversion is not with the Word or God's Law but with man's prideful 

heart. 

128



The humility required to submit to the gospel (which is beyond man's natural capacity) is, 

therefore, not prompted by man's will but by God's mercy (John 1:13; Rom 9:16) since no 

one can believe the gospel unless God grants it (John 6:63, 65). 

The Spirit must likewise give all His people spiritual life and understanding if their hearts are 

to be opened and thus respond to Christ in faith. 

Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work together,” 

is the view that God works together with man in effecting salvation. While monergism is 

closely associated with John Calvin, synergism is associated with Jacob Arminius, 

James R. Payton discusses the Eastern Orthodox view of the synergism vs monergism 

debate as follows: 

A distinctive element in the Orthodox understanding of how the Holy Spirit 

works deification within us is the doctrine of "synergy"--"working together." 

This working together is the collaboration of God's grace and a person's will. 

While Western Christianity has argued about the alternatives of "monergism" 

and "synergism"--that is, the question of whether salvation is accomplished 

only by God or by God and human beings cooperating--this issue did not 

become a tension within Orthodoxy. Eastern Christendom has not focused on 

the issues of guilt, debt, questions of merit and so on, that flowed from the 

juridical approach of the Christian West and made the monergism/synergism 

issue a matter of concern. Orthodoxy insists on synergy, but Orthodox teaching 

approaches the question of divine grace and human will working together from 

quite a different perspective. 

The Eastern Orthodox view of synergism holds that "humans beings always have the 

freedom to choose, in their personal (gnomic) wills, whether to walk with God or turn from 

Him", but "what God does is incomparably more important than what we humans do". 

"To describe the relation between the grace of God and human freedom, Orthodoxy uses 

the term cooperation or synergy (synergeia); in Paul's words, 'We are fellow-workers 

(synergoi) with God' (1 Corinthians iii, 9). If we are to achieve full fellowship with God, we 

cannot do so without God's help, yet we must also play our own part: we humans as well as 

129



God must make our contribution to the common work, although what God does is of 

immeasurably greater importance than what we do."[16] "For the regenerated to do 

spiritual good — for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought 

by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual — it is necessary that he be guided and 

Arminian Protestants share this understanding of synergism, i.e., regeneration as the fruit 

of free will's cooperation with grace. 

Lutheranism > Monergistic Salvation and Synergistic Damnation 

Lutheranism asserts a monergistic salvation and a synergistic damnation. 

God wills that all might be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6, Rom. 11:32, etc.) and hence offers the gift of 

salvation through the Holy Spirit to all while man is still the uncooperative enemy of God 

(Rom. 5:8,10). 

The fallen man may continue in resisting God's grace of the free gift of salvation (ex: Matt. 

23:37, Heb. 12:25, Acts 7:51, John 16:9, Heb. 12:15, etc.) which will lead to damnation and 

the act of non-resistance leads to salvation. Thus man alone bears the responsibility for his 

own damnation. 

130



God did not predestine them to damnation. It is comparable to an offering of 

treatybetween the sovereign and the conquerred fallen tribe. If the treaty is accepted, 

they remain in the Kingdom of the sovereign in peace. If the offer is rejected the victor 

captures the victims and puts them in chains or slavery. 

131



We see Jesus in Matthew 23:37 saying, 

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent 

unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth 

her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” 

132



Divine Laments 

There are many divine laments in Scripture. The basic structure of it is that God proclaims 

that He regrets what it is that His people are doing. Inherent to the structure of most of the 

laments is the concept that God wanted one thing, yet His people did something else. A 

short list includes: 

• Exodus 32:10 

• Number 14:11-12 

• Jeremiah 6:9-13 

• Jeremiah 7:31 

• Jeremiah 13:15-17 

• Isaiah 5:1-7 

• Matthew 23:37 (and Luke 13:34) 

Calvinists argue that everything which happens, God wanted to happen. Indeed, He 

decreed that it would happen to establish His plans for creation. However, is that really 

biblical? Though there are many divine laments in Scriptures that says man does things 

which God never even dreamt of. 

They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to 

burn their sons and daughters in the fire–something I did not command, nor 

did it enter my mind. –Jeremiah 7:31 

Potter Metaphor > libertarian free will 

The potter metaphor actually teaches that there is no predestination and nothing is 

preordained. God reacts to each as it evolves. 

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 

2 “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3 So I 

went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But 

the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter 

formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. 

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me. 6 He said, “Can I not do with you, 

Israel, as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the 

potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation 

or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I 

133



warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I 

had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is 

to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not 

obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. – 

Jeremiah 18:1-10 

Universality of Call/Atonement 

Ok, time for a bit of prooftexting: 

• Isaiah 53:6 – The iniquity of us all was put on Christ. 

• Matthew 11:28-30 – Any who come to Christ are welcome. 

• Matthew 18:14 – The Father does not wish that any should perish (anti 

predestined-reprobation). 

• John 1:7 – Jesus intended for all, wants all to believe. 

• John 1:29 

• John 3:16-17 

• John 4:42 

• John 6:33, 51 

• John 12:32, 47 

• Romans 3:23-24 – All have sinned and all have access to justification in Christ Jesus. 

• Romans 5:6 – Christ died for the ungodly. Since all are ungodly, Christ died for all. 

• Romans 5:15 – Since sin spread to all, Christ’s atonement is meant for all. 

• Romans 10:13 – Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. 

• II Corinthians 5:14-15 – All died, yet Christ died for all. 

• I Timothy 2:3-6 – God desires all men to be saved, and gave Himself for all 

• I Timothy 4:10 

• Titus 2:11 – God’s necessary grace that leads to repentance appears to all. 

• Hebrews 2:9 – Jesus tasted death for everyone. 

• Hebrews 10:10 – Christ offered once for all. 

• II Peter 3:9 

• I John 4:14 

• I John 2:2 – Jesus is the propitiation, not just for believers, but for the whole world. 

• Revelation 22:17 

Conditionality of Reward/Punishment (assumed responsibility to the law) 

This idea of “the plain sense of Scripture” is known as perspicuity. So let us consider the 

perspicuous reading of the following verses: 

• Deut 11:26-28: See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the 

blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command 

you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your 

134



God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after 

other gods that you have not known. 

• Josh 24:15: And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom 

you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, 

or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, 

we will serve the LORD.” 

• Jeremiah 21:8: And to this people you shall say: ‘Thus says the LORD: Behold, I set 

before you the way of life and the way of death. 

Ezekiel 18:30-31: Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his 

ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity 

be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and 

make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, 

The Corporate Nature of Biblical Election 

Election is no exception to this. It is interesting to note that there are no Old Testament 

passages on election that teach a concept of personal unconditional election to salvation. 

They don’t exist in the New Testament either, 

What results is some sense of corporate election: that God operates by choosing a singular 

man through whose line a people will be defined as God’s people. In the Old Testament, 

this chosen one was Abraham; in the New Testament, it is Jesus. Thus, by being in Christ, i.e. 

the nation of Christ, we become part of the chosen: the chosen people of God. 

135



The Calvinist concept of soveregnty of God is that he is irresistible. That no man could ever 

resist the will of Elohim. This is based on a flawed interpretation of Romans 9 as well as 

misunderstanding the key terms “foreknown”, “predestined” and “elect”. 

Scripture clearly indicates that humans resisted God. 

Acts 7:51:“…You men are always resisting the Holy Spirit.” 

If in fact the will of God cannot be resisted by man, then all men would be saved. 

This is because the scriptures tell us that ALL men have been called by Him to salvation: 

(Rom. 5:18)Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so 

also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 

(1Tim. 2:3-4) This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved 

and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 

(2Peter. 3:9)9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. 

Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to 

repentance. 

It is clear that God wants all men to be saved. This is simply because all men are children 

of God through Adam (Adam was son of God). Since God is love, he loves all his children. 

If he is any better than the sinful human fathers, he will want to save all his children. This 

is exactly what he did in Jesus. The atonement was for all men.- not limited to a few of his 

children. 

In fact it seems that these three verses, coupled with the concept of “limited atonement” 

(i.e. that only some men will be saved) actually disproves Calvinism. 

One key term that is central to Calvinism is “the Elect” does not necesarily indicate 

individual persons, but communities or groups of people. In the Old Testamentt 

“Elect/Chosen” refers to Israel (Deut. 7:6; 10:15; 14:2; Is. 41:8-9; 42:1;43:20f; 45:4; 65:9, 22 

& Ps. 135:4). The elect in the New Testament are those groups of people who have been 

born again - who has accepted Jesus. Anyone who did that form part of the elect. We 

can see that individual chose to receive christ and God chose to save those who believed. 

In this case God could choose them even before they were even born. God has 

predestined believers to be conformed to the image of the Son (which in no way indicates 

the doctrine of predestination of individuals). In Rom. 9:11-16 Paul cites Gen. 25:23 and 

Mal. 1:2-3 to express that Elohim chose to have his chosen linage to pass through Jacob 

rather than Esau. It must be noted that this resulted from Esau selling his birthright to Jacob 

of his own freewill (Gen. 25:24-34). Elohim “hated” Esau for not cherishing his birthright. 

In Rom. 9:17-18 Paul refers to Elohim’s sovereignty when he hardened Pharaoh’s heart. 

Paul here quotes Ex. 9:16 and is referring to the material in Ex. 9:15-17. The Calvinist 

136



misunderstanding here comes from a lack of understanding the idiom Biblical Hebrew. Ex. 

4:21 & 9:16 are examples of a common Hebrew idiom in which an active verb is used to 

express not the doing of a thing, but permission to do it. (other examples of this idiom: Jer. 

4:10, Mt. 6:13a; 2Thes. 2:11; Rom. 1:24-26; Zech. 1:10b). Elohim, has the sovereign right to 

further harden the heart of the man who has chosen himself to harden his heart. This does 

not conflict with freewill, it is an amplification of freewill. This he did to save the elect. 

Finally in Rom. 9:19-23 Paul recounts the parable of the potter and the clay. Out of all 

creatures man was created in the image of God - as a bearer of His own image - for noble 

purposes. The scripture indictes that since man was created for noble purpose, man will 

be used for that. Thus the pur 

There are two words which are translated three ways in the KJV these are Strong’s Greek 

number 4309 Translated “predestined” and Strong’s Greek number 4267 translated 

“foreknow/foreknew” in Rom. 8:29 and 11:2 but as “foreordained” in 1Pt. 1:20. 

(this word appears in Acts 2:23; 15:18 = Amos 9:11-12; Rom. 8:29; 11:2 & 1Pt. 1:20) 

Some argue that “foreknowledge” does not mean foreordained.. 

Judaism maintains this concept as the Mishna says: All things are foreknown, but freewill is 

given. - m.Avot 3:16 

I cannot really understand the difference in the final result. If God knew what will be the 

end, is there a chance of the end being different? It has to be fixed. Does that mean God 

does not have a hand in the end result. 

Rom. 8:29-30 says only that believers are predestined to be conformed to the image of the 

Son, 

This is already talking about the group who have come to believe. Believers are 

predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son. The belief is the human part. God 

does not do that. God does not elect people to believe. The elect are the believers. 

The same applies to Eph. 1:5, 11 says only that believers are predestined to have a life in 

the world to come. 

The Calvinist concept of the total depravity of man is largely rooted in a misunderstanding 

of Jn. 6:44, 64-65 which states: No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me 

draws him. But the point is that Jesus draws all men unto him. This is a statement of 

universal redemption. 

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 

Thus it is the free will that determines the elect and hence the ultimate destiny. 

Jesus said: (John 8:31-32)… if you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed. 

And you shall know the truth,and the truth shall make you free. 

137



138



139



CHAPTER EIGHT 

SOME PARADOXES AND THEIR SOLUTIONS 

What we have seen was the struggle to establish both sovereignty of God and the freedom 

of will of man lest we portrait God as a unjust, cruel and selfish. While we have scriptures 

to support both sides of the issue we have to conclude that the scriptures we have 

contradicts itself. 

Since the Bible is the revelation of God to man through history, God is revealed in it in a 

way that man can understand using human symbolism and language. Bible is not dictated 

140



by God. It was transmitted through the Prophets who then wrote them down so that 

ordinary people can understand. 

The error in our understanding is simply must be the error in our interpretation. 

I would start with the concept of God. Evidently God is presented as a Sovereign King with 

the ideal Omnis of attributes. This was the familiar concept of the period when the 

scripture was written. Judaism presented God as a warrior, zealous, King of Kings and 

Lord of Lords. They have described God as a killer God. You don’t need to search much 

to see that depiction. These presentation can at best be shadowy. That is why God 

himself has to come down, laying down his glory and sit around a group of ordinary people 

to show them the real nature of God. It is here I start. The ultimate revelation of who 

God is as presented by Jesus. At the end Jesus showed himself to be God himself through 

his resurrection and thus confirming his messages. 

Jesus showed God not as a Sovereign but as a Father. 

characteristics of God and that is simply “God is Love.” 

He gave us one definition of the 

141



Hence all the actions of God in history must be interpreted not in terms of Sovereignty but 

in terms of Love of a Father. When this is lost sight of we cannot make sense of the cross. 

Most often it is presented as a peace treaty of the Sovereign and not as the expression of 

loving father. Yet the bible is clear: 

“God so loved the world, that he gave.” 

God created Man in his own image as His son. 

Creation as an act of Self Sacrifice Love 

Even the creation itself was an act of love. 

142



The real solution to the problem of freewill and predestination was actually handed down 

within the Jewish mystic tradition of Kabballah and is known as tzimtzum or tsimtsum 

(Hebrew צמצום ṣimṣūm "contraction/constriction/condensation") Here Isaac Luria 

proposes that God who is infinite light and omnipresent, as the beginning of the process of 

creation "contract" his Ein Sof (infinite) light in order to create a "conceptual empty 

space". The contraction implies a hiding of the Omniscience and Omnipresence to provide a 

free space where free will can exist. God gave up his glories - at least some of them - to 

give space for His children to grow. 

This Tsimtzum bypasses the paradox of God’s Sovereignty, Omniscience, Omnipresence and 

Omnipotence with Freewill because God is Our Father. 

In other worlds God hide himself allowing for a similar space where God himself exists. 

Without the freedom on will the creation will remain a robot. God created man so that he 

can have a family. God created man a little lesser that God himself even extending to the 

divine dimension that man may become co-creators with God - what the Eastern Churches 

calls to be Deified transformed into the likeness of God. Just as we give our children the 

space to grow, God gives his space for his children to grow - transformed into the likeness 

of His Son. 

This primordial initial contraction, forming a Khalal/Khalal Hapanui ("vacant space", 

) into which new creative light could beam, is denoted by general reference to the הפנוי 

tzimtzum. In contrast to earlier, Medieval Kabbalah, this made the first creative act a 

concealment/Divine exile rather than unfolding revelation. 

חלל 

143



Because the tzimtzum results in the "empty space" in which spiritual and physical Worlds 

and ultimately, free will can exist, God is often referred to as "Ha-Makom" המקום)‏ lit. 

"the Place", "the Omnipresent") in Rabbinic literature ("He is the Place of the World, but 

the World is not His Place"). In Kabbalistic interpretation, this describes the paradox of 

simultaneous Divine presence and absence within the vacuum and resultant Creation. 

עלם Relatedly, Olam — the Hebrew for "World/Realm" — is derived from the root 

meaning "concealment". This etymology is complementary with the concept of 

Tzimtzum in that the subsequent spiritual realms and the ultimate physical universe conceal 

to different degrees the infinite spiritual lifeforce of creation. Their progressive diminutions 

of the Divine Ohr (Light) from realm to realm in creation are also referred to in the plural as 

secondary tzimtzumim (innumerable "condensations/veilings/constrictions" of the 

lifeforce). However, these subsequent concealments are found in earlier, Medieval 

Kabbalah. The new doctrine of Luria advanced the notion of the primordial withdrawal (a 

dilug – radical "leap") in order to reconcile a causal creative chain from the Infinite with 

finite Existence. 

God’s primordial act of Creation, contracting Himself to make room for the world, becomes 

for a model for all human interaction. When the self contracts to make room for the other, 

the resulting relations are ones of dialogue rather than conflict, self-effacement rather than 

self-assertion, a desire to give rather than a desire to destroy. God is not seeking glory, but 

giving himself to his sons. 

God is “Our Father” 

He did not create robots to call him Dad. We wont like robots as our children. Neither 

did God. He gave himself for his children. There was Adam and Eve, the first of his 

children from whom the whole mankind evolved. We are His children. Unless we exercise 

the freewill that is genetically transmitted from God, we will cease to be human. 

The Lord is gracious and full of compassion; slow to anger and of great mercy. The Lord is 

good to all and his tender mercies are over all his works. Ps. 165: 8, 9. 

He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces. 

Isa. 25: 8. 

God’s expectation on every human being is that they will be transformed into the likeness 

of Christ and behave like him. 

Paulos Mar Gregorios "The main tenet of the Orthodox faith is the belief that salvation is 

by being united with Christ who is Isvara incarnate. By being united with Him, we are to 

grow into God's image by becoming more and more god-like in character, in love, in 

goodness and in wisdom. This process of transformation is called theosis or divinization." 

144



When we unite ourselves unto Christ we become "transformed into the same image from 

glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord" (II Corinthians 3:18). 

Christ as "the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation" (Col 1:15), 

"every man" to become "mature in Christ" (Col 1:28), 

"have come to fullness of life in Him" (Col. 2:10). 

"to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13), 

to acquire "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16), the heart of Christ (cf. Eph 3:17) 

M.M.Thomas 

(my brother) 

The Prophet of Humanization 

"We are not human beings; we are human becomings" 

145



Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of 

her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget you. Isa. 49: 15. 

Sovereignty in the Kingdom of God 

Sovereign Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia and Sovereign of Universe, Jesus. 

Again there seems to be a misunderstanding of what sovereigniy really means as applied to 

God the Father in relation to his sons humans. Kingdom of God is an upside down Kindom 

146



of Man as it is today. Even the church has copied the structure and principle of authority 

of the Kingdom of this world. This again was clearly explained by Jesus while he was with 

his disciples. 

Matthew 20: 25-28 But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the 

Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. It shall not be 

this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your 

servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave just as the Son of 

Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” 

The problem here is really this. How do we parent our children with love and with servant 

heart. Jesus being God showed us how. We have turned them all upside down and have 

been burning our children for disobedience. Our theology reflects just that. 

The problem has always been clear within each family. Children have always rebelled in 

growing up and asserting their independence and personality. Belligerence and 

disobedience were part of this growing up. How did we dealt with that? Did we burn 

them or did we redeem them with our love and even withour lives? 

Here then is the resolution of the paradox. 

The Arminianism maintains: 

FREEDOM OF WILL 

1. that freedom of will has not been destroyed by original sin, and 

2. that this freedom remains unimpaired under the influence of Divine grace 

Freedom is the power of the will to act or not to act, to act this or that way; whereas it is 

the characteristic of necessary causes, as animals and inanimate beings, to produce their 

effects by an intrinsic necessity. 

Predestination was an early scientific misunderstanding of the law of mechanical cause 

effect. 

The mechanical philosophy is a natural philosophy describing the universe as similar to a 

large-scale mechine. The concept of cause effect and that the world acts purely based on 

the underlying laws of nature causes everything to be predictable. During period of 

reformation and for a few centuries soon after, the philosophical outlook of man became 

mechanical. TheMechanical philosophy is associated with the scientific revolution of Early 

Modern Europe. One of the first expositions of universal mechanism is found in the opening 

passages of Leviathan by Hobbes published in 1651. 

147



Those who developed idea included philosophers like Pierre Gassendi, Marin Mersenne, 

René Descartes; the English thinkers Sir Kenelm Digby, Thomas Hobbes and Walter 

Charleton; 

and the Dutch natural philosopher Isaac Beeckman. 

The 

scientists were also involved in its development 

which 

included Robert Boyle, Galileo Galilei; Nicolas 

Lemery 

Christiaan Huygens, as well as Sir Isaac Newton 

The rise of 

science gave rise to the concept that the whole 

universe 

acts as clockwork following the rigorous laws 

which were 

established by God which are unchangable. Hence 

everything 

that happens can be exactly predicted and known 

if all 

contributing interactions of matter are taken into 

account. This leads to absolute predetermination of cosmos. Since God created the 

universe, God has already predetermined even the minute detail events of past which 

produced the present and which leads to future. 

The clockwork universe compares the universe to a mechanical clock. It continues ticking 

along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics, making every 

aspect of the machine predictable. 

148



The above diagram presents the various possibilities depending on whether physical 

determinism is true or false along side of freewill possibility. In the hard core absolute 

physical determinism alone hard determinism possible without any possibility of freewill. 

With the development of Quantum Theory the concept of hard determinism has been over 

ruled even in the physical world. Quantum mechanics leaves enough space of uncertainity 

to allow for freewill even within the material realm. Any of the possible states can be thee 

final state depending on when the observation takes place. This is known as collapse of 

the Wave function of the Universe. .Thus we are left with the probabilistic possibility of 

future with large number of possible worlds. Heisenberg uncertainity principles are built 

in laws of the world of existence which automatically makes hard determinism 

impossible.The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, described as "consciousness causes 

collapse [of the wave function]", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which 

consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum 

measurement 

See my book on Quantum Theology 

149



However man is not material alone. Matter forms the body. But the life is through the 

Spirit of God that was breathed into the earth body by God in the creation. While there 

are varying forms of life they are not of the same nature. There are vegetations, birds, 

fishes, beasts etc. They all have various forms of life which indicates their existence in 

dimensions other than matter. Man alone was created in the image of God with the 

breath of God itself - a little lower than God Himself - existing in all the dimensions of 

cosmos entering the world of Divine realm itself. Thus whatever predetermination is 

possible at other realms, man’s freedom is similar to that of God. This is the sonship of 

man. 

Freedom of the will is a consequence of intelligence, and as such the most precious gift of 

man, an endowment which he can never lose without annihilating his own nature. 

Man must of necessity be free in every state of life, actual or possible, whether that state 

be the purely natural (status purœ naturœ), or the state of original justice in paradise 

(status justitiœ originalis), or the state of fallen nature (status naturœ lapsœ), or the state 

of regeneration (status naturœ reparatœ). Were man to be deprived of freedom of will, he 

would necessarily degenerate in his nature and sink to the level of the animal. 

Since the purely natural state, devoid of supernatural grace and lacking a supernatural 

justice, never existed, and since the state of original justice has not been re-established by 

Christ's Redemption, man's present state alone is to be taken into consideration in solving 

the problem of the relation between grace and free will. In spite of the so called original sin 

and concupiscence man is still free, not only with reference to ethical good and evil in his 

natural actions, but also in his supernatural salutary works in which Divine grace 

co-operates with his will. 

150



Original Sin 

Romans 5:12,19 - sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so 

death spread to all men because all sinned… by the one man’s disobedience the many 

were made sinners 

There is actually no mention of an original sin in the Bible. There is no mention that God 

cursed man to die. I have elsewhere shown that the death was actually a blessing of God 

on his children so that they may escape eternal hell. Adam’s choice gave importance to 

self based actions which in a community brings pain and suffering. To eternally in that 

society would be the eternal hell. Hence God gave a short day for man to be awake and 

then sleep till Daddy could fix the problem and wake him up. This limitation of day of life 

time to 120 years from a 1000 years was just the same expression of God’s love. Yes Sin 

came through Adam and one man’s obedience will bring life back. 

One man’s disobedience many were made sinners. See my book: 

This will come as a new surprise to many especially with the popular 

presentation of God as a King in the European Feudal system of the post 

middle age period. God's love is expressed in driving his children out of 

the Garden of Eden and giving the blessing of Death to reduce the period 

of hell mankind will produce by their own choice. Death is the greatest 

blessing of God the Father to his children, over riding the eternal hell 

they brought themselves by their free choice. One day He will wake his 

children up and bring them home. Knowing the power of Love and the 

character of God our Father, he will bring not only all his children, even the creation will be 

liberated from its bondage to the glorious liberty of the Sons of God. He will indeed make 

all things new, and we will have a new day again. 

Yetzer Ha-Tov and Yetzer Ha-Ra 

In the typical Rabbinic doctrine, with far-reaching consequences in Jewish religious thought, 

every human being has two inclinations or instincts, one pulling upwards, the other 

downwards. These are the ‘good inclination’—yetzer ha-tov—and the ‘evil 

inclination’—yetzer ha-ra. The ‘evil inclination’ is frequently identified in the Rabbinic 

literature and elsewhere with the sex instinct but the term also denotes physical appetites 

in general, aggressive emotions, and unbridled ambition. Although it is called the ‘evil 

inclination’, because it can easily lead to wrongdoing, it really denotes more the propensity 

towards evil rather than something evil in itself. Indeed, in the Rabbinic scheme, the ‘evil 

inclination’ provides human life with its driving power and as such is essential to human life. 

As a well-known Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 9: 7) puts it, were it not for the ‘evil inclination’ 

151



no one would build a house or have children or engage in commerce. This is why, according 

to the Midrash, Scripture says: ‘And God saw everything that he had made and behold, it 

was very good’ (Genesis 1: 31). ‘Good’ refers to the ‘good inclination’, ‘very good’ to the 

‘evil inclination’. It is not too far-fetched to read into this homily the idea that life without 

the driving force of the ‘evil inclination’ would no doubt still be good but it would be a 

colourless, uncreative, pallid kind of good. That which makes life ‘very good’ is the human 

capacity to struggle against the environment and this is impossible without egotistic as well 

as altruistic, aggressive as well as peaceful, instincts. 

The Rabbinic view is, then, realistic. Human beings are engaged in a constant struggle 

against their propensity for evil but if they so desire they can keep it under control. The 

means of control are provided by Law: the Torah and the precepts. One of the most 

remarkable Rabbinic passages in this connection states that the Torah is the antidote to the 

poison of the ‘evil inclination’ (Kiddushin 30b). The meaning appears to be that when the 

Torah is studied and when there is submission to its discipline, morbid guilt-feelings are 

banished and life is no longer clouded by the fear that the ‘evil inclination’ will bring about 

one's ruination. It follows that for the Rabbis the struggle against the ‘evil inclination’ is 

never-ending in this life. Nowhere in the Rabbinic literature is there the faintest suggestion 

that it is possible for humans permanently to destroy the ‘evil inclination’ in this life. For 

the Rabbis, the true hero is, as stated in Ethics of the Fathers (4. 1), one who ‘subdues’ his 

‘evil inclination’, one who exercises severe self-control, refusing to yield to temptation. It is 

not given to anyone actually to slay the ‘evil inclination’. Nor are there references in the 

Rabbinic literature to the idea, prevalent in the Jewish mystical and moralistic literatures, of 

‘breaking the evil inclination’. 

Both inclinations are necessary for the proper functioning of human society just as each 

organ need to function the part assigned to the organ diligently without being a cancer 

growth. Adam’s sin was to be like God while yet a child. This cancer caused pain. It 

created hell. Father provides a solution which includes a shorter life, till the problem is 

solved at the cross. 

152

Prof. Madathilparampil Mammen Ninan B.Sc., B.Ed., M.Sc., M.Ed., Ph.D., 

Web Site: http://www.talentshare.org/~mm9n 

Email: mm9n@hotmail.com 

Prof. Ninan was born in Kozhencheri, Kerala, India in a Syrian Christian Family which claims descent from one of 

the four families to whom St.Thomas the apostle of Jesus entrusted the gospel. His father Late.Mr.M.M.Mammen 

was a publisher Freedom fighter and Christian Reformer. His eldest Brother is the well known theologian Late 

Dr.M.M.Thomas, who was the Chairman of the World Council of Churches, the Governor of Nagaland, India and 

the Chairman of the Christian Institute of Study of Society and Religion. He belongs to the Malankara Mar Thoma 

Church, a reformed church holding the theology of the Eastern Churches which claims a 2000 year old heritage. 

He is by profession a Professor of Theoretical Physics and had been a teacher in various universities around 

world including Ethiopia, Ghana, Jamaica, Sudan, Yemen, India and United States of America. He retired as the 

President of the Hindustan Academy of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Affiliated to the University of 

Bangalore, India. 

He was the first Moderator of the International Christian Fellowship, Sanaa, Yemen and 

the Co-founder of the Sudan Pentecostal Church and The Sudan Theological College. He has published over 

hundred books in History of Religions, Hinduism and Theology. Mrs. Ponnamma Ninan was a Sociologist and 

Teacher who taught in many different countries along with her husband.

Published Books 

by Prof.M.M.Ninan 

www.mmninan.com 

A Study On Baptism 

Acts of the Apostle Thomas.Ambedkar's Philosophy of Hinduism and Contemperory Critiques 

Angels, Demons and All the Hosts of Heaven and Earth 

Apocryphal Thomas 

Apostle Paul Architect and Builder of the Church: Life and Mission 

Arius: Who is Jesus 

Bible Canon 

Christ vs. Krishna 

Comparitive study of Kuku and Hebrew 

Cosmos - The Body of God 

Created in the Image of God 

Cultural Anthropology.for Missions.. 

Dalit Theology 

Flying Together 

Foundations of Faith in Jesus 

Four Gospels 

Hinduism: A Christian Heresy; What Really Happened in India 

History of Christianity in India 

Honeymoon in Ethiopia 

I AM: Symbols Jesus Used to explain himself 

Introduction to Revelation 

Introduction to Biblical.Hermeneutics.. 

Introduction to Revelations 

Isavasya Upanishad:The doctrine of the Immanence of Jesus 

Jamaica: The Land We Love 

James & John: Sons of Thunder 

Jiva, Jada & Isvara 

Joys of Ghana Col 

Katha Upanishad - The Complete... 

Kingdom Parables 

Krishna Yajur Veda 

Laws of Manu 

Life and Legacy of M.M.Thomas 

Life, Legacy and Theology.of M.M.Thomas.. 

Lord's Appointed Festivals 

Nestorius: Understanding Incarnation

Paintings of Ninan-Life of Christ 

Perspectives On The Lord's Table. 

Peter and Andrew: The First.Disciples. 

Prester John, the Kalabhras.and Mahabali. 

Quantum Theology 

Reincarnation and Resurrection 

Resurrections and Judgments 

Rewriting Hindu History: How..do they do it?. 

Riddles In Hinduism 

Rig Veda 

Samaveda 

Secrets Of The Prayer Shawl 

Semiotics Of Sacraments 

Seven Churches 

Shukla Yajur Veda 

Sin, Death and Beyond 

Soteriology 

Sri Purusha Suktham: The fullness of Him - With commentary 

Symbology of Biblical Numbers 

The Apostles 

The Biblical Concept of Man 

The Book of Revelation 

The Christian Understanding.of Trinity.. 

The Development Of Hinduism 

The Development Of Mariolatory 

The Emergence Of Hinduism.from Christianity.. 

The Four Gospels 

The Genealogy of Jesus 

The Historic Jesus 

The Mysteries of the Tallit, Titzit and Teklet 

The Mysteries of the Tallit... 

The Mystery of Melchizedek 

The Name 

The Principles of Prosperity in the Kingdom of God 

The Prophecy Of Daniel 

The Sudan: New Dimensions 

The Word Became Flesh 

Theodicy 

Theology of Paul 

Thinking loud on Theodicy, Soteriology,Trinity and Hermeneutics 

Thy Kingdom Come 

Tilak and the Aryan Origins 

Time Line Of Church History 

Understanding Sacraments 

Waiting for the Redemption... 

Wedding Blessings 

When was Jesus Born? 

Who is the Angel of the Lord?

Calvinism and Arminianism

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?