Five Articles of the Remonstrance of Jacobus Arminius of 1610

1. Are the five doctrinal statement of the Remonstrants valid or not?

2. Do you agree with them?

See the Statements below:

Five Articles of Remonstrance

The Five articles of Remonstrance refer to the document drawn up in 1610 by the followers
of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). A "remonstrance" is literally "an expression of opposition
or protest," which in this case was a protest against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination
contained in the Belgic Confession. Consequently, those followers of Arminius who drafted
this protest were given the name "Remonstrants." This document was condemned as heresy
by the reformed churches at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619. [1]

Article 1
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation
of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake,
and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus,
and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on
the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn
them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth
on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath
of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also. [2]

Article 2
That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man,
so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins;
yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the
Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of 1 John 2:2: “And
he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” [3]

Article 3
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the
state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good
(such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through
his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he
may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ,
John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.” [4]

Article 4
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this
extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and
cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that
all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.
but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written
concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places. [5]

Article 5
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of
his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own
flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace
of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends
to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive,
keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out
of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them
out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first
beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away
from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming
devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before
we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind. [6]

There are some issues with these Five Articles since they seem to reflect Reformed Theology in some areas.

Yes, as N6 stated, I find that there is a lot of Reformed sentiments in the statements that I personally would not agree with. Thus, I would state that the 5 articles of Remonstrance are not valid in their entirety.

Thank you Nehemiah6 and DB7 for you short but relevant answers.
I find I must agree with you, on the face value of the statements presented they do not seem
to contradict scripture.

Taking Article 1
Article 1
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation
of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake,
and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus,
and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on
the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn
them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth
on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath
of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also. [2]

On its own I see nothing wrong in this article. I will post the Belgic confession tomorrow
and see how the controversy developed.

This article 1 states categorically that through grace of the HS men are saved and the rest of mankind
although called determine to stay in their sin, which is what Calvinism teaches also.

*******
N.B.
For anyone joining this thread please keep the conversation Godly,
I will report any name calling
or any insults. Thank you.

Please will you or N6 explain specifically which points you disagree with?
Many thanks

Calvinism does not teach that Christ died for ALL.

Butterfly, yes in a limited sense it does. Christ died for the sins of the world.
So they qualify that Biblical statement as followed, in a sense Christ died for
all inasmuch he was lifted up for all to see, there is no continent in the world
where Chist is not proclaimed, even in Molsem countries, there are Christian
congregations. The Synod of Dord teaches that Jesus Christ on the cross died
sufficient to cover all the sins of the world depending on faith. And if they
are not called by the HS then they are responsible for rejecting such a gracious
propitiation.

The key phrase is: Sufficient for all. Hyper Calvinist deny this.

John Calvin denied that the sins of the reprobate have been expiated, but he maintained
that Christ died sufficiently for the whole world and only efficiently for the elect

HyperCalvinism is a branch of Calvinism in the USA that denies that there is any grace
for the wicked.

But this thread is not about HyperCalvinism.

The Remonstrance is not reformed it is antireformed.

That is not for ALL. It is adding to what scripture says; which is heretical.

seeing that "reformed theology" per the synod of Dort is historically the refutation of Arminianism as heresy, i think that if you consider these remonstrances to be reflecting reformed theology perhaps either you are not understanding what you are reading, or you are not realizing that things you are calling 'reformed theology' are things that everyone in the church held as common belief even before there was ever such a thing as 'reformed theology' ?

for example this is clearly affirming what y'all call today 'total depravity'
why is this here?
because denying the depraved nature of carnal man is not an arminian heresy, it's pelagian heresy. arminians were accused of pelagianism, and they were specifically denying that charge on this subject.

you believe that man, without any heavenly intervention, seeks and embraces God all on his own, by his own will, understanding and inclination? without that God calls him and draws him and enables him? that makes you a pelagian heretic, not an arminian heretic. 'total depravity' isn't just a 'reformed' doctrine.

He died for all; He carried the sins of many. that's scriptural.
((ex. Isaiah 53:12, 2 Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 9:28))
many ≠ all
died for ≠ bore the sins of

i think that's a false characterization. i listen to bucketloads of sermons regularly, from all kinds of perspectives. people i've heard who actually believe hyper-calvinism do not say that Christ's atonement is insufficient. they say that it is 100% sufficient for all but that it is not applied to all. people who do not believe hyper-calvinism and are preaching attack-sermons about it say things like you said, but the actual calvinists don't say that. i mean, that's been my experience - but i am no scholar, totally unlearned & uneducated in these things.
much like actual arminians believe in total depravity. but some people are probably pelagian without even knowing it; they're just anti-calvinists so they take whatever position seems most opposite.

so many isms and schools lol -- we're far better off just saying, what does scripture say? and leaving off all the grand poo-bahs names. ((IMO))

It is not God's will that any should perish.
Jesus said," I stand at the door and knock, if ANY man hear my voice and open the door I will come in to him..."
Man RESPONDS, because, 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.'
But we cannot save ourselves. Only God holds out His mercy and grace, and why would the Bible even bother to instruct us that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God, if it were already decided who was going to be a fool. Why would there be any guidance, instructio, warning or indeed command to evangelise? The scriptures which Calvinists use, when studied in depth in the original language, are I effectively translated and misunderstood. I have found that there are also those who love their commentaries and doctrines of Theologians more than they love to seek out the Truth of God and His Word.

That's a very good Point PH, but the question was simply are the 5 points of Remonstrance Biblically valid, I would say that whatever they shared with Reformed thought, as in the fallen nature of man i.e. Total Depravity, I would consider this not to be inline with scripture.
But, I see your point, because I classified fallen nature as Reformed, you're questioning the validity of that statement.
Off-hand, I'd say yes, as I think that it began with Calvin, through Luther & Augustine, I would consider it definitively Reformed. In other words, the 5 points of Remonstrance were not a complete refutation of Reformed Doctrine, it only attempted to contest 5 areas of disagreement, not all of Reformed Theology.
And thus, I still consider the principle of fallen nature, of which Remonstrance agrees (despite the various degrees), to be derived from Reformed Thought.

Check out that quote! Its written to one of the CHURCHES in Revelation. Thats what we DO KNOW.

And we DO know that it is also written that Christ died for ALL and that WHOSOEVER believes in the Lord Jesus Christ will not perish but have everlasting life.

Hi Butterfly, my disagreement is with man's fallen nature, which it appears that both Arminiasm & Reformed accept that principle. I disagree with it.
Thanks!

Amen! I did some digging and made a list of all Reformed people who deny that whosoever believes in Jesus is saved.
Here is the FULL LIST:

-

Please can you explain how you disagree with it? The Bible shows how after Adam and Eve sinned that sin entered in through him. It shows we are all sinners. That we are all destined for Hell if we do not trust in the sacrifice of the Son of God who died to pay for our sins. So I cannot understand what you mean.

Whosoever believes... believes is a verb... and YOU are rude