-->

20 September 2019

Jacobus Arminius on Scripture as the Sole Unquestionable Theological Authority

Certain Articles to Be Diligently Examined and Weighed:

Because Some Controversy Has Arisen concerning Them among Even Those Who Profess the Reformed Religion.



I. —On the Scripture and Human Traditions.

        1. The rule of Theological Verity is not two-fold, one Primary and the other Secondary; but it is one and simple, the Sacred Scriptures.
        2. The Scriptures are the rule of all Divine Verity, from themselves, in themselves, and through themselves: And it is a rash assertion, “that they indeed are the rule, but only when understood according to the meaning of the Confession of the Dutch Churches, or when explained by the interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism.”
        3. No writing composed by men,—by one man, by few men, or by many,—(with the exception of the Holy Scriptures,) is either […], “credible of itself,” or […], “of itself deserving of implicit credence,” and, therefore, is not exempted from an examination to be instituted by means of the Scriptures.
        4. It is a thoughtless assertion, “that the Confession and Catechism are called in question, when they are subjected to examination:” For they have never been placed beyond the hazard of being called in doubt, nor can they be so placed.
        5. It is tyrannical and Popish to bind the consciences of men by human writings, and to hinder them from being submitted to a legitimate examination, under what pretext soever such tyrannical conduct is adopted.

Jacobus Arminius, ‘Certain Articles to Be Diligently Examined and Weighed’, in The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, London edn, 3 vols. (repr., Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1986), 2.706, emphases in original


Addendum.  The complete, three-volume set, The Works of Arminius,* is no longer in print via Beacon Hill Press or Baker Books. However, Randall House Publications have reprinted the set, along with a new introduction by Free Will Baptist theologian, Stephen M. Ashby.
        In order to view or purchase the aforementioned set, see the following link to Randall House’s online shop:



* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

J. D. Gallé

10 September 2019

The Beginning of Revelation: the Demythologisation of Creation, Sin, and Death in Genesis 1–3, and Its Inevitable Christological Trajectory

 J. D. Gallé | Tuesday, 10 September 2019

        The introduction of sin and death into the world as a consequence of the disobedience of the first human beings is recounted in the first three chapters of the book of Genesis. Christian theism has traditionally assumed an actual, literal, historical existence and expulsion of the first human male and female pair, Adam and Eve, from Paradise[1] and access to the Tree of Life as a result of their transgression of God’s edict to abstain from eating of the forbidden tree.[2] The posterity of the first human parents, namely humankind of all ethnicities throughout the millennia to the present day, have inherited an environment of emptiness, suffering, disease, decay, and death. In the present age, all of creation is in a state of groaning (Rom. 8.22).

The interconnectedness of the biblical record
        Apart from the scriptural narrative of the originally good, suffering- and death-free creation of the world in which the first humans were brought into being rightly and harmoniously related to their Creator, to each other, and all animal-, plant-, and non-human life in a flourishing, safe, untainted environment, the concepts of redemption and the final restoration and renewal of creation[3] lose their theological moorings.
        The biblical doctrines of humankind (anthropology); sin (hamartiology); and death (thanatology) are intimately related to the person, attributes, and works of the Last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ (Christology); salvation (soteriology); the future bodily resurrection and immortality to be granted to those who are united to Christ at his second advent; the final judgement, condemnation, and death of the unrighteous; and the establishment of a new creation wherein unbroken communion between God and his redeemed people will carry on everlastingly, for ever free from Satan, the curse, human and non-human adversaries, danger, affliction, and the bondage of sin and death (eschatology).[4]
        In other words, creation, sin, death, Christ, salvation, eternal life, judgement, damnation, and re-creation are not disjointed tenets of the Christian faith; rather, they are interrelated doctrines which stand or fall together.

Demythologisation and scriptural trustworthiness
       In our (post-)modern context, the temptation for Christians to demythologise Genesis’ creational narrative and its depiction of the original human pair descending into sin and death as an ahistorical, pre- or non-scientific account which cannot be reconciled with actual, historical, cosmological reality is ever present. The rejection of Genesis 1–3 as non-allegorical, non-fictional, historical narrative, and the adoption of some form of theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism) instead, is an inherently unstable position in the realm of Christian theology. Once accepted, this syncretistic approach raises serious questions regarding the coherence and reliability of the scriptural story of redemption. For, if scripture cannot be trusted concerning the origin and nature of creation, sin, and death, can it be relied upon in its treatment of the divinity, virginal conception, mission, teachings, miraculous healings, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, enthronement, intercession, and second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Christological compromise all but certain
        The logic is not complex: the demythologisation of the first three chapters of Genesis is not likely to end there. The unhappy consequence of attempting to incorporate facets of evolutionary thought into the interpretation of scripture will give way to further doctrinal erosion and compromise over time. Most significantly, the naturalistic drift that is part and parcel of evolutionism will work its way towards rethinking and reworking vital aspects of Christology (i.e. Christ’s identity, characteristics, and deeds).
        Take, for example, the doctrine of Mary’s virginal conception of the Lord Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1.18–23; Lk. 1.30– 35). I do not imagine it unlikely that this doctrine will eventually come to be viewed by professing evangelicals as no longer a ‘primary’ or ‘essential’ teaching, but one amongst an ever-expanding repository of ‘secondary’, ‘non-essential’ doctrines which may be accepted or rejected by Christians at will. Aberrant, heterodox views such as the denial of the virginal conception will undoubtedly assist in no small way towards paving the way to apostasy.

Unintended consequences: leaving Christ
        If I may project a probable, sad, but all-too-predictable, course: some, having surrendered to the untenability of integrating evolutionary concepts into the scriptural narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration, will defect from a profession of Christianity and go on to deny the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead as unprovable, supernatural superstition; others, having accepted the ‘Jesus mythicist’ position, will go so far as to abandon belief altogether in an authentic, historical Jesus of Nazareth who walked the face of the earth approximately two thousand years ago. If scripture is essentially mythological in respect of its cosmology, it stands to reason that its Christology may be considered fantastical in nature as well.

Conclusion
        Scripture provides an internally logical, harmonious portrayal of the supernatural creation of the world, its original state of goodness, relational wholeness, security, and deathlessness; and the fall of the first human beings from life and fellowship with God in Eden to their breach of the divine command, subsequent condition of shame, loss of intimacy with their Creator, eviction from Paradise and the Tree of Life, and inevitable deaths. The sombre inheritance of the human race is that which our first parents, Adam and Eve, bequeathed to us: sin, death, and a cursed creation.
        It is only in the light of this tragic backdrop that we can begin to appreciate the glory of redemption in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the way back to God. Through his obedient death on the cross in submission to the will of his Father, he has undone the death, misery, and sin brought into the world by the one transgression of Adam (Rom. 5.12–21). Deliverance from the wrath of God in the coming judgement, salvation from the power and practice of sin, and everlasting life in the age to come may be freely obtained by all those who come to God through him. Even whilst earnestly awaiting the redemption of their bodies (Rom. 8.23), those who are united to the Lord Jesus are already new creations in him (2 Cor. 5.17). In the new heaven and new earth, pain, death, and the curse will have been brought to a permanent close, and uninterrupted communion between God, his Son, Jesus Christ, and his redeemed people, will carry on without end (Rev. 21.1–5; 22.3, 5).
        When an anti-supernaturalistic world view and a supernaturalistic world view (in this case, evolutionism and Christian theism [respectively]) are effectively commingled, the results yielded will be inconsistent and unstable at best, and disastrous at worst. The question is, ‘Where will evangelicals draw the lines of scriptural demythologisation?’
        This article has sought to demonstrate that the biblical account of redemption cannot be abstracted from its account of creation and the fall of humankind. Scripturally, both Adam and Christ are treated as real, historical figures. Treating the creational narrative of Genesis 1–3 as fundamentally mythological and ahistorical in nature undermines the reality, purpose, and necessity of Christ’s work of redemption in undoing the work of the first man (1 Cor. 15.45, 47), and the future restoration of all that was spoilt and lost in Eden (Rev. 21–22).

Notes
        1. That is, the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2.8; Rev. 2.7).
        2. That is, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2.9, 17).
        3. That is, the new heaven(s) and new earth (Isa. 65.17; 2 Pet. 3.13; Rev. 21.1).
        4. That is, pivotal aspects relating to ‘the last things’. (In Christian theology, thanatology is typically subsumed under the category of eschatology.)

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.


Addendum (3, 14, 20 Aug. 2023).  I hardly make any claim that the insights elucidated in this article are particularly novel. That said, the truths propounded herein are ever relevant and especially in need of being taught to the youngest generation in this present, evil, deceitful, godless age.


Latest revisions: assorted emendations made (10 Sept. 2019); changed ‘that is’ to ‘namely’ in par. 1 (11 Sept. 2019); added scriptural references in square brackets in par. 5; added a term in par. 4; modified ‘person and work of’ to ‘person, attributes, and work of’ in par. 2; modified third sentence in par. 4 (12 Sept. 2019); added a comma and the term ‘reality’ in par. 9 [par. 10 as from 22 Sept. 2019] (13 Sept. 2019); added a paragraph break (22 Sept. 2019); added two commas in par. 6 (24 Sept. 2019); altered one term in n. 4 (19 Oct. 2021); emended a conjunction in par. 2 (21 Oct. 2021); emended two scriptural abbreviations (6 Nov. 2021); added two hyphens in par. 2; added two paragraph breaks; added one preposition to what is now par. 5 (15 Oct. 2022).

02 September 2019

Assurance of Salvation and Justification: a Remonstrant’s Reflections

 J. D. Gallé | Monday, 2 September 2019
Who will bring an accusation against the elect of God? God is the One justifying. (Romans 8.33, BLB[1])
        The justification of persons before God – that is, the divine juridical act of declaring-righteous those who are trusting in the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead – is never subject to any doubt or debate in the mind of God. Justification is strictly God’s domain.
        Regardless of human frailty or presumption, God has determined the criteria[2] by which persons are, and will be, justified. Some individuals may doubt whether they are united to Christ. Such persons are yet uncertain that they are in the condemnation-free condition to be found solely in Christ.[3] Others, with seemingly little anxiety, may believe that they are presently in a state of justification before God, and expect the reiteration of their divine acquittal on Judgement Day.

Conclusion
        Though a thousand accusations may arise from within and without, from natural and supernatural enemies alike, for those in Christ, for those loving God,[4] the charges shall not stand. The objective truth of who is and is not (or will or will not be) justified remains unaltered. Our personal misgivings concerning our status before God, present or future, as justified or condemned, do not detract from the reality that it is God’s declaration that stands and will stand.

Notes
        1. Berean Literal Bible (2016). (This translation may be accessed by utilising the following link: <https://literalbible.com>.)
        2. Some might prefer ‘criterion’ (singular).
        3. See Romans 8.1.
        4. See Romans 8.28.


Addendum (28 Feb. 2023).  Expanding upon the (hitherto) unaddressed point of whether there is a single criterion of justification, opinion is not unanimous amongst interpreters that initial and final (eschatological) justification are based solely on faith (pistis), although this is the conventional Protestant understanding of Pauline justification.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2023. All rights reserved.