Restart

Ecuminism and the Manhattan Declaration

Nearly 300,000 persons have now signed the Manhattan Declaration (named Manhattan because the original signers met in Manhattan).  The declaration was released November 20, and is intended to be a declaration of Christian moral and theological principles in response to forces, national and global, that are leading to the breakdown of civil society.  The original draft was prepared by persons such as Robert George of Princeton University, Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School, and Chuck Colson.  However, input for the document was provided by major Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant leaders with 149 original signees.  

The 4,700 word statement analyzes major dehumanizing forces that threaten society as we know it today and then affirms three general principles.

1. The sanctity of human life.
2. The dignity of human marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.
3. The rights of conscience and religious liberty.

The analysis is extensive.  For example, the section on the sanctity of human life addresses "ethnic cleansing," war, sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to address and halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS.  It also--and at this point, the document becomes more controversial--addresses the loss of the sense of dignity of persons that drives the abortion industry and movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research.  Persons can access and add their names to the document by following the link ManhattanDeclaration.org.  

While the main focus of this Happenings article is to comment on the significance of the Manhattan Declaration, and the widespread support for the affirmations among the major part of American Christianity, it is worth noting the reaction (or lack of) among "mainline" leaders, and especially among United Methodists.  

The Declaration has been widely reported and discussed in most Christian media.  However, acknowledgment of the Declaration among United Methodist institutional leaders is conspicuous by its absence.  United Methodist News Service has carried no articles on the declaration.  The United Methodist Reporter printed one small paragraph acknowledging the Declaration and commenting that the declaration called for the possibility of civil disobedience.

This is disappointing.  The declaration basically is a reflection of traditional Christianity.  It would be supported by the vast majority of United Methodists in the pews.  It has been supported by many United Methodist pastors and laypersons (at least among those who know about it).  More importantly, it is basically in agreement with the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church.   Not only do our Social Principles and our Book of Resolutions support almost every issue raised by the Declaration, they would not be in conflict even with the more controversial ones, including the dignity of human marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman, the importance of the family, and the sanctity of human life.

However, the Manhattan Declaration obviously is an expression of traditional and evangelical Christianity and, as one seminary person related to me once, "We choose not to be identified with that form of Christianity."   The problem is that "mainline" Christianity as represented, say, by the National Council of Churches, once represented a majority of American Christians.  Now it represents less than 20%.

So, following the story of the Manhattan Declaration reveals the disconnect between United Methodist institutional corporate culture and that part of American Christianity that is Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical Protestant.  Either our leaders are unaware of what goes on in the larger world, or they are aware and choose to ignore it, or they do not ignore it and are critical of it.

Those who are critical raise accusations that such expressions are irresponsible, right-wing, and not really interested in matters such as social justice.  But the Manhattan Declaration is all about justice.  Indeed, that is its main theme.  But it is justice from a more moderate and conservative point of view and that makes it unacceptable.

As in an article by Michael Stone in the Portland Progressive Examiner:  

The Manhattan Declaration represents the greatest threat we face as a species, the threat from religious ignorance and superstition. The signers of the Declaration represent the American Taliban; they are Christo-Fascists, and they are every bit as dangerous as the religious fanatics who flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11. 

So, if mainline leaders are not interested in declarations like the Manhattan Declaration what are they interested in?

Well, for one, the bishops issued a statement on "God's renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action."  This statement, which was to be read aloud in every United Methodist Church, would direct the church's energy toward reversing global warming and concern for carbon footprints.  Following this there is a commitment of church resources toward seeking to influence the events at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.  The World Council of Churches wanted churches to sound bells, drums, gongs, or other instruments on December 13, to call attention to the importance of this event.  At this moment United Methodist apportionment money is paying the way of at least six and probably more UM agency staff and board members to go to Copenhagen and lobby or demonstrate or do whatever at the conference.  There is a question of what they are to lobby for, since the issues are so complex that it is (or should be) impossible to know what the proper Christian response should be.

The bishops want the US to get out of Afghanistan (they seemed much more adamant about this when George Bush was president than when Barack Obama is president).

Whatever is occupying the time and energies of church leaders it does not seem to be on issues relating to marriage, family, dignity of the individual, and religious liberty.  These are the issues addressed by the Manhattan Declaration.

It is quite possible there have been bishops or church agency staff persons who have signed onto the Declaration, or at least recognized that it is exists.  We at The Confessing Movement would be most pleased if names of such persons or their comments could be passed on to us. 

By Dr. Riley Case, The Confessing Movement

The Manhattan Declaration

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

These words appear on the Home Page of the Manahattan Declaration.  This declaration was made public on November 20, 2009.  At this moment (0849 on 24 November 2009) there are 76,430 signatures.  I was signature 75,987.  In the time it took me to read the declaration over 500 persons had added their signatures.

I encourage you to do as I did.  Read the declaration.  Pray over it and seek God's guidance.  Read it again.  If God so leads you, sign it, and share it with your congregation.

• Manhattan Declaration Home
• Manhattan Declaration Text
• Manhattan Declaration Text with Original Signers
• Manhattan Declaration on Facebook
• Sign the Manhattan Declaration 

Yours in Christ,

John 

Generic Evangelicals

by Dr. Riley Case

The Confessing Movement

A man was talking about his Friends Church.  "It is hard to identify it as a Friends Church," he said, "it is basically generic evangelical."
 
A woman was speaking of the Christian college her daughter attends: "I don't know what you could call it religiously," she said, "I guess you could call it generic evangelical."
 
It is not necessarily a complement to be labeled "generic evangelical."  It usually refers to a theology or a ministry where some of the bite is taken out of the Calvinist, or fundamentalist, or Wesleyan, or Baptist, or charismatic distinctives that characterize other evangelical expressions.  Some call it "evangelical lite."     
 
Yet it is a useful category.  To be generic evangelical is to hold to the essentials of the faith without an emphasis on the distinctive doctrines or practices that often are the cause for division.  In John Wesley's words, generic evangelicalism is the "Catholic Spirit" (rightly understood).   It is holding to the irreducible truths of Original Sin, the Atonement, the Incarnation, the Authority of Scripture, and Salvation by Faith, without allowing views of baptism or doctrines of the end times to divide.  Generic evangelicalism serves as the theological basis for various para-church ministries, for a large part of the mega-church movement, and for different evangelical institutions and missions groups.
 
This form of evangelicalism has a rich history.   While the American frontier revival brought unprecedented religious fervor, it was also a time of religious wars.  Denominations were proliferating, dividing and realigning at an alarming rate.  Yet in the midst of all the sectarian rivalry there developed an evangelical message and culture and mind-set that transcended all the differences.  Believe it or not, there were areas where Methodists and Baptists could get along.  By the time Dwight L. Moody was holding his city evangelistic crusades, there was amazing cooperation among the same groups that had previously fought each other so bitterly.   And, it should be mentioned, Methodism was at the center of this developing evangelical culture. 

When theological modernism was introduced to American Christianity, it was this evangelicalism that pushed back and reacted against what appeared to be a compromising of Christian faith.   The strongest reactors were known as fundamentalists.   Whether known as fundamentalists, evangelicals, or (in the case of Methodism), the "Holiness people,"  populist, (mostly) ordinary Christians (including Methodists) never bought into modernism but continued to express their faith in revivalism, gospel music, the missionary movement, and old-fashioned values.
 
The modernism vision, which captured much of the leadership of churches that would later be known as mainline, was that of a world that could be Christianized by a public education system dominated by Protestant values.  It was committed to  cooperation with science and other modern disciplines (including eugenics).   It developed an ecumenism with like-minded Protestant denominations (No Roman Catholics need apply) that would apply (liberal) Christian values to pressing social and economic problems (related to this was the original Methodist  Social Creed of 1908).  
 
By 1926 The Christian Century could declare that fundamentalism had lost the religious wars, and would soon be relegated to antiquity as a footnote.   The future was with modernism. 
 
The pronouncement was premature.   Modernism roused initial excitement but it had  no staying power.  Its message was not life-transforming.  Cooperation with science and modern disciplines soon turned into domination by science and the secularism that fueled it.  Public education dominated by Protestant values soon turned into education without the values.   Protestant ecumenism morphed into progressive political action in which the major players were church bureaucrats of the mainline denominations.
 
Fundamentalism and other forms of evangelicalism, marginalized in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, by the initial success of modernism, began to refashion themselves in the 1950s as neo-evangelicalism, helped along by such developments as the success of Billy Graham.  Since then it has gradually replaced the religion of the mainline denominations as the dominant expression of American Christianity.   Not only that, but evangelicalism's children and grandchildren are seen throughout the Christian world, especially in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia.   
 
At the present time it appears that American culture is becoming more and more hostile toward Christianity.   However, it is not Christianity in general but the evangelical expression of it with which the secular world has problems.   The secular progressive (that is, far-left liberal) blogs report with glee when studies seem to indicate Christianity is in decline.  At the same time they report with hysteria any developments that would link Christians with wanting to make America a Christian nation, or, of course, any evangelical interest in conservative politics.
 
Time to reassess.  Admittedly, Christianity, which from the beginning was such an integral part of America's heritage, is being pushed from the public square, whether in public schools, or in the media (such as television), or in the arts, or in the academic world. 
 
But this does not mean that historic Christianity is decline.   Evangelicals are alive and well in America, though in different forms than in the past.   If there are losers in this religious economy it is in the tradition-bound mainline denominations, whose efforts to be relevant render it even more irrelevant, and whose emphasis on relativity, diversity, and multi-faith appreciation, have compromised it to the point of powerlessness.    
As to the health of evangelicalism (especially generic evangelicalism), one can point to some of the following:
   1) The growing Christian school movement, and in the home-schooling movement.   Over the course of four years (2003-2007), the number of home-schooled students has increased by more than 36 percent, according to recently released estimates from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES).   While others besides evangelicals are home-schooling, studies show that about three-fourths of home-schoolers are evangelicals who cite religious reasons for home-schooling. 
    2) Christian colleges (in distinction from "church-related" colleges, many of which have become secularized) are experiencing record enrollments.
3)  Para-church ministries continue to grow.  Women of Faith conferences will hold rallies in 28 cities in 2009 with about 10,000 in each conference.   The largest Christian youth festival, LifeLight Festival, met this year in early September in Sioux Falls, S.D. and drew 320,000 participants.   A Methodist-related form of the Christian youth festival is Ichus, connected with Asbury College, which celebrated 40 years of a youth gathering that attracts up to 20,000.
    4) Missionary work.   World Vision continues to be one of the biggest relief agencies in the world.  While mainline denominations have practically abandoned the effort to send cross-cultural missionaries, more missionaries than ever before are serving outside the United States.  Many of these are connected with local-churches, especially mega-churches.
    5)  Contemporary Christian radio added 28 stations in 2008 and is now the 4th largest (in terms of stations) of the nation's 31 radio formats.  Christian music, whether Black gospel, or southern gospel, is overwhelmingly performed by, and for those who identify as evangelicals.  Gaither Praise Gatherings are big enough they don't need to advertise, yet they are held in all the major cities and attract tens of thousands in attendance.

United Methodists, not officially but in the pews, are a part of all of this.    Many United Methodists, both clergy and lay, indicate that it is the activities outside the denomination that keep them alive spiritually.  Many church members live in two religious worlds.  The denominational world, and the evangelical world of para-church ministries, home-schoolers, contemporary Christian music, and community prayer and fellowship groups. 

The official church is slow to recognize this.  The Women's Division still seeks to block all evangelical expressions in women's work in United Methodist Churches.  Non-United Methodist missionaries are in many United Methodist churches, but seldom are they there officially.  Until recently, Cokesbury stores did not handle the Sunday school material of evangelical publishers.  The University Senate has gone out of its way to de-list popular evangelical seminaries that could add much to the preparation of UM students. 

The loser in all of this is The United Methodist Church itself.  Caught up in a parochial denominationalism, the church fails to link into the energy that is in evangelical religion today.  It often would substitute a social agenda for the clear proclamation of the gospel, and liberal political activism as the spiritual basis for the church's existence.

One of the interests of groups like the Confessing Movement is to serve as a bridge between the denomination and generic evangelicalism.  Methodism once defined what evangelicalism is.  Perhaps it could do so again.

Lutheran (ELCA) and Methodist (UMC) Merger - A Bright or Dim Future?

On August 21, 2009, an article entitled United Methodist, Lutherans Take Historic Step Forward, by Linda Bloom, a United Methodist News Service (UMNS) writer based in New York, appeared in the online edition of the UMNS.

Ms. Bloom reported on the agreement on full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the United Methodist Church.  The title of the article itself reveals an editorial bias on the part of Ms. Bloom.  She assumes that the agreement is indeed a step forward.  In addition, she suggests that the agreement is a step toward something.  Both are opinions.

I have no quarrel with communing with Lutherans.  Indeed, United Methodist communion is already fully open to Lutherans, other Christians, and even non-Christians.  It is certainly in the Spirit of John Wesley to seek fellowship and common cause with all Christians.

Still, why was this agreement necessary, unless it is an initial step toward merger of or union between the two denominations?

Allow me to reproduce some sections in Ms. Bloom's article to show that this is the direction toward which we are stepping.  The full article may be found at UNMS .  I shall provide quotations from her article with some comments from me inserted.  I shall also make some concluding comments.

Full communion means that each church acknowledges the other as a partner in the Christian faith, recognizes the authenticity of each other’s baptism and Eucharist, observes the validity of their respective ministries and is committed to working together toward greater unity.

Some church leaders were already looking forward to sharing clergy in under-served areas, expanding joint mission work and strengthening seminary offerings with the resources of their communion partners.

[Comment:  UMC leaders are leading in this direction not because of the strengths of each denomination, but because of weaknesses.  Both denominations are straining to develop young clergy and enough pastors for their respective churches.  United Methodists need to cut the number of seminaries.  UMC seminaries in general a losing touch with their traditional Wesleyan roots anyway.]

United Methodist and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America leaders expect by November to appoint members of a joint commission to implement the agreement. The commission’s work includes joint planning for mission, developing worship materials to celebrate full communion and developing guidelines on sharing clergy.

Practical applications of the new agreement include providing pastors together in areas that are under-served. Palmer said that he and the Lutheran bishop in his part of Illinois “are deeply interested in talking about what a cooperative parish ministry looks like.”

[Comment:  While there is no overt claim - other than the title - that there is more to come, the current agreement will touch missions, worship, clergy preparation (seminaries), and clergy assignment.  That sounds like merger to me.]

Let me conclude with some observations. 

First, I find it interesting that Ms. Bloom's article is that she provides quotations from five United Methodists - all are clergy (three bishops, one seminary professor, and one general board staffer).  Four of the five she quotes are female.  All whom she quotes are from the northern area of the church - Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New York, and Ohio.

What happened to the celebrated UMC diversity?  If those whom Ms. Bloom quotes are representative of the leadership, I would suggest that the strength of the United Methodist Church is woefully misrepresented.  Where were the laity?  Where were the pastors (not administrators or professors, but real pastors)?  Where were the Southeast and Southwest Jurisdictions?   Where were the conservatives?  The conservative areas of the UMC and the areas that provide the greatest financial support, and the areas where membership is not decreasing at an alarming rate were not represented.

Second, reading between the lines of the article the agreement is a step toward addressing the weaknesses in both denominations - a diminishing voice and resources because of decreasing membership and decreasing number of clergy (especially younger clergy).

If the UMC is looking for Lutheran clergy to swell the number of clergy available for appointment, we will be disappointed.  Some of my wife's family are very active in an ELCA church near me.  They have been without a pastor for over 18 months.  By the way, they are doing very well.

Mergers, unions, or cooperative agreements that are produced out of weakness never create strength.  A strong institution that has a meaningful mission and is focused on that mission does not seek to merge or unite or agree to cooperate.  Only two weak entities will consider merging.  A merger will result in a weaker institution with a confused and unfocused mission.

I look at the merger that I have experienced in my service as a United Methodist pastor - the merger of the Louisville and Kentucky conferences.  The weaker of the two, I shall admit, was my conference (Louisville).  What has happened in the decade or so after merger?

• Membership continues to decline.
• Worship attendance continues to decline.
• Financial resources continue to decline.
• The number of clergy continues to decline.
• The number of staff has increased.
• The conference budget has increased.
• The amount of office space for the conference has increased.

Within the Louisville District a mega-merger was proposed within the last ten years.  Seventeen congregations - many of whom were struggling - were offered the opportunity to merge into one multi-campus, multi-staff church.  This proposal did not come from the churches, the pastors, the responsible committees, or the superintendent of the Louisville District; but from the staff of a conference agency located in Lexington.  Five congregations participated.  What has happened? 

• The Louisville District continues to decline in membership and worship attendance.
• The newly merged congregation's worship and membership is smaller than the five congregations that formed it.
• The newly merged congregation is now located in a suburban area.
• The Louisville District has diminished and declined in the area of highest percentage of ethnic minorities and and poverty.
• The Louisville District has become more suburban.
• There are fewer churches in the Louisville District.
• The staff person who proposed the mega-merger is now serving a mega-church in another conference.

Mergers do not work.  Mergers come from weakness and produce weakness.  Where is the United Methodist Church in Canada?  It does not exist.  It merged with other denominations to form the United Church of Canada.

Third, mergers do not address missional issues but institutional issues.  That is because mergers are institutional, not missional.  Mergers are initiated by institutional operatives (bureaucrats and administrators) to solve their problems or advance/enhance their careers/status (see above).  Mergers require institutions to focus energy and resources on the transformation of the institution, not the mission.  The only thing that grows in a merger is the bureaucracy or administrative staff.  Staff never consolidates; it only expands.  Institutional mission statements are maintained or reworded in merger; but the reality is that missional effort and focus in diminished.

Look at the merger of the Louisville and Kentucky conferences again.  Before the merger the two conference had one bishop and twelve districts with twelve superintendents, with staff located in Lexington and Louisville.  Today the merged conference has one bishop and twelve districts, but a much larger paid staff located in Lexington and Crestwood (Louisville).

Look at who are now perceived as leaders of the Kentucky conference.  As an indicator we should look at the clergy delegates to general and jurisdictional conferences.  Before the merger persons serving as pastors and superintendents were predominantly recognized as leaders in the conferences and elected as delegates from the conference.

After merger, conference staff has become more prevalent and gets more "air time" giving reports at annual conference.  The role of the pastor at annual conference has diminished.

In the 2008 delegations from the Kentucky Conference to the General Conference and the Southeast Jurisdictional Conference a dramatic shift from currently serving pastors/superintendents to retired clergy and/or conference staff who never served as a pastor in the conference or had not served as a pastor for many years.  43% of the delegates were active or retired conference staff.  Only 22% of the clergy delegation (3) were active and currently serving as a pastor.  One clergy member of the delegation was retired, did not even reside in Kentucky, and had never been the pastor of a church in Kentucky. 

Fourth, mergers never save what they are intended to save - money and the institution.  The financial demands of the merged entity increase.  Eventually the merged institution collapses.  The only things saved in a merger are the careers of bureaucrats who initiate the merger.

Three assumptions are made in mergers that are false at the time of the merger:

• The system is worth saving.  If the system is worth saving, then there is no need for merger.
• Merger strengthens mission.  Mission is sacrificed for the sake of merger.
• Bigger is better.  Actually, smaller institutions can react better to immediate missional needs.

The United Methodist Church needs to decide if it desires to continue toward merger with other denominations in the future.  From the way decisions are made, I will not have a seat at the table, but I will be banging on the glass door trying to be heard.

There should be one requirement for having a seat at the table.  The person should have successfully merged two adult Sunday School classes at his or her church.  If someone can do that SUCCESSFULLY they can unite two denominations.

Yours in Christ, John 

Diversity in the United Methodist Church - The Failure of Leadership Based on Quotas

By: Dr. Riley Case of the Confessing Movement

 

One of the more discouraging experiences of my ministry was serving on the Jurisdictional Nominating Committee several quadrennia ago.  We really didn't nominate.  We placed different sized pegs into different-sized peg holes.  Because there were limited slots on the various boards, conferences to be represented were chosen by lot.  But because of the quota system (it was a quota system whether called that or not)  our slots were defined by gender, race, age, or clergy-lay specifications.   So, for example, one of our nominees needed to be a male, Hispanic lay person.  The problem was that while our conference had gone through an elaborate nominating system and many persons were wanting to serve on a general board, none at the time was a male, Hispanic lay person.   Sitting at the same table with the Nominating Committee were representatives of various ethnic and age groups making sure the proper diversity and inclusiveness was achieved. 

 

Welcome to the world of diversity where what looks good is often more valued than what works, and where diversity is defined more in terms of gender, race, and age rather than diversity of experience, distribution of spiritual gifts, and inclusion of different theological perspectives.  
 
Methodism came rather late to the diversity scene.  Specifically, "diversity" came to United Methodism with the restructuring and the 1972 General Conference.  In the 1968-72 quadrennium, the Board of Education (the most powerful board in the church at that time) was composed of 39 members, 37 of whom were white male liberals.  Only 7 were pastors; 13 were associated with universities and seminaries (would that we had such interest from our universities and seminaries today).  Most of the rest were bishops and bureaucrats.  
 
During the period leading up the restructuring an effort was made to pour persons in to a cultural mold that might best be defined as educated, white, male, and liberal.  This was the old liberalism, well expressed by hymn 512 of the 1935 hymnal: "These things shall be, a loftier race than e'er the world hath known..."    Education, high principles, and eugenics would help to produce the "loftier race," with the implication that lesser races and types of persons were disdained.  Methodism at the time did not tolerate diversity, especially theological diversity.   Up until 1968 the Discipline mandated that only curriculum material officially approved was to be used in church schools; only hymn books officially approved were to be used in worship; only audio-visuals officially approved were to be shown in churches; only evangelists officially approved were to preach in churches; and only missionaries officially approved were to be supported by churches.
 
When Roy L. Smith, a leading figure in the church, wrote Why I Am a Methodist (1955) he spoke of "liberality of viewpoint" as a key feature of Methodism.  The church had achieved this "liberality of viewpoint," according to Smith, because Methodists had been educated with the "official" material in church school and because ministers were being trained with similar courses of instruction in the seminaries.   The "official" educational philosophy at the time declared that Old Testament Bible stories were not appropriate for elementary children, nor were images of Jesus on the cross (see Ethel Smither, The Use of the Bible with Children, 1937).   There was hardly any diversity involved in this system.  Evidently, Methodists were produced with "liberality of viewpoint" by being restricted to a one-size-fits-all educational system.
 
The Biblical argument for diversity flows from the idea that Christian faith transcends gender, age, race, economic status, or culture.   The Methodist message was always, "Christ died for all" (unlimited atonement); therefore, all can be saved. The gifts of the Spirit are not restricted to race, gender, economic status, or ethnic group.  When Francis Asbury made Harry Hosier, a black man, a key evangelist in early Methodism it was not to fill some diversity goal but rather because Harry Hoser had exceptional gifts. When Phoebe Palmer wrote her monumental Promise of the Spirit in the 1850s, making the case for women to speak in the church, it was not to advance some feminist agenda, but to advance the cause of Christ because Palmer knew that the church would be enriched by the spiritual gifts of women.
 
Diversity should never be seen as an end in itself, but only as a means to an end.  The end in this case should be that unreached people or cultural groups have the gospel preached to them, and that the church is built up. 
 
The old ideological liberalism can be accused of being racist, sexist, and elitist, and theologically restrictive, and needed to be discarded, but the question is whether the present emphasis on diversity and inclusiveness (as understood by present-day liberals) is not also defective.   A serious question to be asked is why, if by the second decade of the 1800s, African-American membership equaled 20% of the total of Methodism (even after the AME split), has the percentage since then steadily decreased until it is only about 4% of the total today.  And this after we have had energy and money poured into programs and advocacy groups to encourage African-American presence in the church.  Why is it, if we are so committed to diversity, that United Methodist membership is still basically white, elderly, and upper middle-class?  And why, if diversity is so highly valued, do our seminaries continue to be so biased against evangelical and charismatic theologies?
 
Is it time for another restructuring which will redefine diversity and inclusivity and direct the church on the path to winning the world for Jesus Christ?

The True Calling of the Clergy

"Is not this as it ought to be?  Since the true calling of the reverend clergy is like their divine Master's; - not to bring the righteous, but sinners to repentance.  Did some of them leave the converted and comfortable congregations, before whom they have ministered year after year; and plunge at once, like St. Paul, into the infected centers and hearts of vice; then, indeed, would they find a strong enemy to cope with; and a victory gained over him, would entitle them to a conqueror's wreath.  Better to save one sinner from an obvious vice that is destroying him, than to indoctrinate ten thousand saints.  And as from every corner, in Catholic towns, the shrines of Holy Mary and the Child Jesus perpetually remind the commonest wayfarer of his heaven; even so should Protestant pulpits be founded in the market-places, and at street corners, where the men of God might be heard by all of His children."  - Herman Melville, Redburn: His First Voyage

The Imploding Episcopalians

by Dr. Riley Case (The Confessing Movement)

Did we miss something or did the Episcopal General Convention, meeting in Anaheim, CA, in mid-July just disconnect itself from the rest of the Christian world?
 
The week started off with Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori declaring it is "heresy" to believe that an individual can be saved through a sinner's prayer of repentance.  In her opening address to the conference Jefferts asserted that it is "the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."   
   
That particular remark would wipe out the Baptists of the world, as well as almost all of the United Methodists.  Indeed, it declares as unacceptable almost all the rest of Christianity.  That is assuming that "heresy" conveys its traditional meaning as teaching opposed to the authorized doctrinal standards of the church.  This is from the denomination that gave us Bishop James Pike and Bishop John Shelby Spong, real-for-sure heretics who found it difficult to affirm anything true in historic Christianity.  One wonders what Schori appeals to as "authorized doctrinal standards."   
 
But there was more.  Having put down (through the presiding bishop) Baptists, Methodists, and all who believe that persons can be born again and reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, the convention then set itself on a course in opposition to the stated convictions of the world-wide Anglican communion by a forthright declaration that gays and lesbians were now eligible for "any ordained ministry," (including the office of bishop) (Resolution D025).  Anglican archbishops across the world, meeting in special session in Alexandria in February had specifically pled with churches (especially the American and Canadian churches) to maintain a moratorium on consecrating any more openly gay bishops.  This was after the uproar caused by the election of Gene Robinson of New Hamspire to bishop in 2003.  That election caused a serious disruption in the relationship of Anglican provinces and was related to the fact that four American dioceses and dozens of congregations, with the encouragement of overseas bishops,  have separated themselves from The Episcopal Church.     
 
The action to approve gays and lesbians for "any ordained ministry" also revoked the self-imposed Episcopal pledge to use "restraint" in approving another bishop in a same-sex relationship.   The American bishops then sought to put a spin on the action by arguing in a letter to the Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, that the action to open all offices to gays and lesbians was not a repudiation to earlier pledges for restraint but only a description of where the the church stood at the moment.  In response the Rt. Rev. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, wrote in U.K.s The Times that the American bishops' letter was "double-speak" and that the Episcopal Church's action marked a clean break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.
 
But the convention was not yet through.  Anglican archbishops had also pled with the Americans and Canadians not to develop prayers and liturgy for same-sex unions.  Rowan Williams had specifically appealed to delegates before the Anaheim convocation: "I hope and pray there won't be decisions in the coming days that could push us farther apart."
 
The convention at that point by a bishops' vote of 104-30 authorized the preparation for prayers and liturgy for same-sex unions.
 
And then finally, to show just how much they wished to identify themselves with far left causes, the convention debated resolutions condemning the United States and Israel.
 
United Methodists have a special kinship with the Anglican Church.  The Wesleys were Anglican until the day they died.  Methodism takes much of its ritual from Anglican rituals and, of course, the Article of Religion are taken from the Anglican Articles of Religion.  We have more hymns in our hymnal by Anglicans than any other denomination (including Methodists).  We need the Anglicans.
 
And America needs a strong Episcopal Church.  The American Anglicans (they became "Episcopalian" after the Revolutionary War) was the first church in America.  Even after it was decimated by the Revolutionary War (because of its British connections) the Episcopal Church was still, with the Baptists, the third largest church in America.   Since then it has been the church of the presidents and of the leaders of the nation.  It has been a prestige church and a church of great wealth.  It has the potential for a great spiritual impact for good.
 
The impact has been severely compromised and the glory is more in the past than in the present.  Episcopalians (at least bishops and clergy) in recent times have bought into theological and political liberalism.    According to a recent study by Public Religion Research, only United Church of Christ clergy are more liberal than Episcopalians.  In the survey 72% of the Episcopalian clergy support the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians (compared with only 32% of United Methodist clergy).   In the question of whether or not the Bible is inerrent a higher percent of Episcopalian clergy said no than any other denomination.  
 
In June the former Episcopal churches who have felt betrayed by a church in denial of Biblical authority formed themselves into the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  A number of overseas Anglican churches have indicated they will recognize ACNA.  This, of course, can only wreak more havoc in the world-wide Anglican communion for whom any kind of schism is the worst of all travesties.  
 
Meanwhile the Episcopal Church has initiated dozens of lawsuits over church properties.  So instead of being a force for spiritual stability in America the Episcopal Church is being known for its infighting, its lawsuits, and its shrinking membership (in the past two years the Episcopal Church has lost nearly 4% of its members).   From its standing as the 3rd largest denomination in America the Episcopal Church has slipped to 15th.   Its U.S. membership of 2 million pales in comparison to the 77 million Anglican members world-wide.  It is now a minor player on the world scene.
 
And so the question is: did we miss something or did the Episcopal General Convention just disconnect itself from  the rest of the Christian world?    And, do the United Methodists have something to learn from this fiasco?

Jacobus Arminius on the Object of the Christian Religion

The object of the Christian religion is that towards which the faith and worship of a religious man ought to tend. This object is God and his Christ -- God principally, Christ subordinately under God -- God per se, Christ as God has constituted him the object of this religion. In God, who is the primary object of the Christian religion, three things come in order under our consideration: (1) the nature of God, of which the excellence and goodness is such that religion can honourably and usefully be performed to it; (2) the acts of God, on account of which religion ought to be performed to him; and (3) the will of God, by which he wills religion to be performed to himself, and that he who performs it be rewarded; and, on the contrary, that the neglecter of it be punished.

To every treatise on the nature of God, must be prefixed this primary and chief axiom of all religion: "There is a God." Without this, vain is every inquiry into the nature of God; for, if the divine nature had no existence, religion would be a mere phantasm of man's conception. Though the existence of God has been intimated to every rational creature that perceives his voice, and though this truth is known to every one who reflects on such an intimation; yet, "that there is a God," may be demonstrated by various arguments.

First, [God's existence may be demonstrated] by certain theoretical axioms; and because when the terms in which these are expressed have been once understood, they are known to be true, they deserve to receive the name of "implanted ideas."  The first axiom is, "Nothing is or can be from itself? For thus it would at one and the same time, be and not be, it would be both prior and posterior to itself, and would be both the cause and effect of itself. Therefore, some one being must necessarily be pre-existent, from whom, as from the primary and supreme cause, all other things derive their origin. But this being is God.

The second axiom is, "Every efficient primary cause is better or more excellent than its effect." From this, it follows that, as all created minds are in the order of effects, some one mind is supreme and most wise, from which the rest have their origin. But this mind is God. 

The third axiom is, "No finite force can make something out of nothing; and the first nature has been made out of nothing." For, if it were otherwise, it neither could nor ought to be changed by an efficient or a former; and thus, nothing could be made from it. From this, it follows, either that all things which exist have been from eternity and are primary being, or that there is one primary being. But this being is God.

The same truth is proved by the practical [and fourth] axiom, or the conscience, which has its seat in all rational creatures. It excuses and exhilarates a man in good actions; and, in these which are evil, it accuses and torments -- even in those things [of both kinds] which have not come, and which never will come, to the knowledge of any creature. This stands as a manifest indication that there is some supreme judge, who will institute a strict inquiry, and will pass judgment. But this judge is God.

The magnitude, the perfection, the multitude, the variety, and the agreement, of all things that exist, supply us with the fifth argument [or axiom], which loudly proclaims that all these things proceed from one and the same being and not from many beings. But this being is God.

The sixth argument [or axiom] is from the order perceptible in things, and from the orderly disposition and direction of all of them to an end, even of those things which, devoid of reason, themselves, cannot act on account of an end, or at least, cannot intend an end. But all order is from one being, and direction to an end is from a wise and good being. But this being is God. 

The preservation of political, ecclesiastical and economical society among mankind, furnishes our seventh argument [or axiom]. Amidst such great perversity and madness of Satan and of evil men, human society could never attain to any stability or firmness, except it were preserved safe and unimpaired by One who is supremely powerful. But this is God.

We take our eighth argument [or axiom] from the miracles which we believe to have been done, and which we perceive to be done, the magnitude of which is so great as to cause them far to exceed the entire force and power of the created universe. Therefore, a cause must exist which transcends the universe and its power or capability. But this cause is God.

The predictions of future and contingent things, and their accurate and strict completion, supply the ninth argument [or axiom] as being things which could proceed from no one except from God.

In the last place, is added [the final axiom], the perpetual and universal agreement of all nations, which general consent must be accounted as equivalent to a law, nay to a divine oracle.

COROLLARY: On account of the dissensions of very learned men, we allow this question to be discussed, "from the motion which is apparent in the world, and from the fact, that whatever is moved is moved by another, can it be concluded that there is a God?

Jacobus Arminius on the Christian Religion in General

Since God is the object of all religion, in its various modifications, he must likewise be the object of this religion. But Christ, in reference to God, is also an object of it, as having been appointed by God the Father, King and Lord of the universe, and the Head of his church.

For this reason, in a treatise on the Christian religion, the following subjects come, in due order, under our consideration: (1.) The object itself, towards which faith and religious worship ought to tend. (2.) The cause, on account of which, faith and worship may and ought to be performed to the object. (3.) The very act of faith and worship, and the method of each, according to the command of God and Christ. (4.) Salvation itself, which, as being promised and desired, has the power of an impelling cause, which, when obtained, is the reward of the observance of religion, and from which arises the everlasting glory of God in Christ.

But man, by whom [the duties of] this religion must be executed, is a sinner, yet one for whom remission of sins and reconciliation have now been obtained. By this mark, it is intended to be distinguished from the religion of the Jews, which God also prescribed to sinners; but it was at a time when remission of sins had not been obtained, on which account, the mode of religion was likewise different, particularly with regard to ceremonies.

This religion, with regard to all those things which we have mentioned as coming under consideration in it, is, of all religions, the most excellent; or, rather, it is the most excellent mode of religion. Because, in it, the object is proposed in a manner the most excellent; so that there is nothing about this object which the human mind is capable of perceiving, that is not exhibited in the doctrine of the Christian religion. For God has with it disclosed all his own goodness, and has given it to be viewed in Christ.

The cause, on account of which, religion may and ought to be performed to this object, is, in every way, the most efficacious; so that nothing can be imagined, why religion may and ought to be performed to any other deity. that is not comprehended in the efficacy of this cause, in a pre-eminent manner.  The very act of faith and worship is required, and must be performed, in a manner the most signal and particular; and the salvation which arises from this act, is the greatest and most glorious, both because God will afford a fuller and more perfect sight of himself, than if salvation had been obtained through another form of religion, and because those who will become partakers of this salvation, will have Christ eternally as their head, who is the brother of men, and they will always behold him. On this account, in the attainment and possession of salvation, we shall hereafter become, in some measure, superior to the angels themselves.

Jacobus Arminius on the Name of the Christian Religion

Beginning now to treat further on the Christian religion, we will first declare what is the meaning of this term, and we will afterwards consider the matter of this religion, each in its order. The Christian religion, which the Jews called "the heresy of the Nazarenes," obtained its name from Jesus of Nazareth, whom God hath appointed as our only master, and hath made him both Christ and Lord. 

But this name agrees with him in two ways -- from the cause and from the object. From the cause [it disagrees] because Jesus Christ, as "the Teacher sent from God," prescribed this religion, both by his own voice, when he dwelt on earth, and by his apostles, whom he sent forth into all the world. From the object [it disagrees] because the same Jesus Christ, the object of this religion, according to godliness, is now exhibited, and fully or perfectly manifested; whereas, he was formerly promised and foretold by Moses and the prophets, only as being about to come. He was, indeed, a teacher far transcending all other teachers -- Moses, the prophets, and even the angels themselves -- both in the mode of his perception, and in the excellence of his doctrine.

In the mode of his perception [he exceeds all other teachers] because, existing in the bosom of the Father, admitted intimately to behold all the secrets of the Father, and endued with the plenitude of the Spirit, he saw and heard those things which he speaks and testifies. But other teachers, being endued, according to a certain measure with the Spirit, have perceived either by a vision, by dreams, by conversing "face to face," or by the intervention of an angel, those things which it was their duty to declare to others; and this Spirit itself is called "the Spirit of Christ."

In the excellence of his doctrine, also, Christ was superior to all other teachers, because he revealed to mankind, together and at once, the fullness of the very Godhead, and the complete and latest will of his Father respecting the salvation of men; so that, either as it regards the matter or the dearness of the exposition, no addition can be made to it, nor is it necessary that it should.

From their belief in this religion, and their profession of it, the professors were called Christians. (Acts xi. 26; 1 Pet. iv. 16.) That the excellence of this name may really belong to a person, it is not sufficient for him to acknowledge Christ as a teacher and prophet divinely called. But he must likewise religiously own and worship him as the object of this doctrine, though the former knowledge and faith precede this, and though from it, alone, certain persons are sometimes said to have believed in Christ.

Jacobus Arminius on Religion in a Stricter [More Specific] Sense

We have treated on religion generally, and on its principles as they are comprehended in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament. We must now treat upon it in a stricter [more specific] signification.

As religion contains the duty of man towards God, it must necessarily be founded in the mutual relation which subsists between God and man. If it happen that this relation is varied, the mode of religion must also be varied, the acts pertaining to the substance of every religion always remaining, which are knowledge, faith, love, fear, trust, dread and obedience.

The first relation between God and man is that which flows from the creation of man in the divine image, according to which religion was prescribed to him by the comprehensive law that has been impressed on the minds of men, and that was afterwards repeated by Moses in the ten commandments. For the sake of proving man's obedience, God added to this a symbolical law, about not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Through the sin of man, another relation was introduced between him and God, according to which, man, being liable to the condemnation of God, needs the grace of restoration. If God bestow this grace on man, the religion which is to be prescribed to man must now be also founded on that act, in addition to creation. Since this act [on the part of God] requires from man an acknowledgment of sin and thanksgiving for deliverance, it is apparent that, in this new relation, the mode of religion ought likewise to be varied, as, through the appointment of God, it has in reality been varied. It was the pleasure of God so to administer this variation, that it should not immediately exhibit this grace in a complete manner, but that it should retain man for a season under the sealed dominion of guilt, yet with the addition of a promise of grace to be exhibited in his own time. Hence, arises the difference of the religion which was prescribed by Moses to the children of Israel, and that which was delivered by Christ to his followers -- of which the former is called "the religion of the Old Testament and of the promise," and the latter," that of the New Testament and of the gospel;" the former is also called the Jewish religion; the latter, the Christian.

The use of the ceremonial law under Moses, and its abrogation under Christ, teach most clearly that this religion or mode of religion differs in many acts. But as the Christian religion prevails at this time, and as [its obligations are] to be performed by us, we will treat further about it, yet so as to intersperse, in their proper places, some mention, both of the primitive religion and of that of the Jews, so Jar as they are capable, and ought to serve to explain the Christian religion. But it is not our wish for this difference to be extended so far as to have the attainment of salvation, without the intervention of Christ, ascribed to those who served God under the pedagogy of the Old Testament and by faith in the promise; for the subjoined affirmation has always obtained from the time when the first promise was promulgated: "There is none other name under heaven, given among men, than that of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which men must be saved."

It appears, from this, that the following assertion, which was used by one of the ancients, is false and untheological: "Men were saved at first by the law of nature, afterwards, by that of Moses, and at length, by that of grace." This, also, is further apparent, that such a confusion of the Jewish and Christian religions as was introduced by it, is completely opposed to the dispensation or economy of God.

Western Civilization, Missions, and Methodism

By Dr. Riley Case

Dr. Ralph D.  Winter, founder of the U.S. Center for World Mission, died May 20.   Winter was named in 2005 in Time magazine as one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America.   Winter founded a mission think tank, a university, and a mission society.  But perhaps his greatest contribution to the world of mission came with his ground-breaking 1974 presentation at the Congress for World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland.  It was at this legendary summit, convened by American evangelist Billy Graham, where Winter introduced the term "unreached people groups" that had the profound effect of shifting the entire global mission strategy thereafter.   The phrase "unreached peoples" was first defined by Winter as a people group that had less than a certain percentage of Christians. Later, it was redefined as a group of people with their own distinct culture or language that does not have a viable indigenous evangelizing church movement.

For most of the 19th century and into the 20th century mission philosophy sought to Christianize the world by civilizing the world.  It was often assumed that "civilization" meant Western civilization.   Within Methodism the holiness missionaries and persons like E. Stanley Jones (Christ of the Indian Road) sought to promote a more indigenous form of Christianity that transcended cultures and civilizations.

For the moment it is difficult to understand what is the operative mission philosophy of the mainline churches.  The 2008 General conference added to the annual conference purpose statement: "to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," but the suspicion is that "transformation" in the eyes of UM leaders has more to do with social action and social justice than the conversion of "unreached peoples."

At any rate, Western civilization is increasingly being divorced from its Christian roots so that it is trending toward secularism, multiculturalism, and "inclusivism."   While this may be appealing to academic types and bureaucrats of mainline denominations in North America and Europe, it is not gaining traction world-wide.

It is good at this point to revisit Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996).  Huntington argues that the world of the twenty-first century will be divided not so much by economic systems or political systems but by different religious visions.  Basically these are visions inspired by Islam and visions inspired by Christianity (with China and Asia offering up a third alternative).  Huntington further argues that it is not Islamic extremists that will give the West problems but with Islam itself.   Ideas which seemed outlandish when the book was written in 1996 seem prophetic today.

While Christianity is growing worldwide it is not the Christianity identified with the West.   Islam, on the other hand, is also growing worldwide and some of the fastest growth is in the West.  Part of this is demographics.  Huntington points out (p. 119) that while young adult (15-24) population reaches 18% in Muslim countries, it is only 10% in Europe and 13% in the USA.

Other studies show that it takes 2.11 children per family to maintain a culture.  In Europe family size equals 1.38 children per family.  The USA averages 2.11 children per family but when Latinos are factored out the average is only 1.6.   In Muslim lands, and even in Muslim families in Europe, the birth rate is averaging well over 4 children per family.   In France 45% of all children in schools are now Muslim.

A number of social scientists argue we need a smaller birth rate because of world overpopulation.  However, it would appear it is not concern for overpopulation that drives the West's smaller birthrate, but secularization.   Secularization breeds a self-directed society and a self-directed society tends to diminish the importance of the family.What conclusions can be drawn from all this?

First, we must work against the devaluing of the Christian base for Western civilization.   The drive for special privileges (such as the redefining of the understanding of marriage as between a man and woman) for practicing homosexuals, and the break-down of morality in America are examples of why Muslims will increasingly hate us, and why we can expect increasing conflict between Islam and the West in coming years.

Second, we must guard against the secularization of our own Christian faith.   What is called "progressive" Christianity will, as with the modernism that preceded it, only serve to diminish Christian faith.  It is possible to keep compromising the faith away until there is nothing left.   It is for reasons like this that the Confessing Movement, with its strong proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, is in existence.

Third, we must see Muslims as one of the world's great "unreached people" groups. Muslims need Jesus Christ as much as anyone.  This should seem obvious.  Yet there seems to be reluctance in Western nations to engage Muslims with the claims of Christ (not so in Africa).   Not long ago the U.S. military confiscated (and reportedly burned) Bibles in Afghanistan printed in the Pashto and Dari languages to be shared with Afghani citizens and friends.  The confiscation came after extremist Afghani Muslims and American atheists objected to what was called "proselytizing."  There is no way United Methodists can be serious about making disciples for the transformation of the world if we will be intimidated into silence by persons offended by the gospel.

"Go therefore and make discipless of all nations..." (Mt. 28:18).

Western Civilization, Missions, and Methodism

The Church of Scotland's World Mission Council has declared that the Western world needs to be converted amid a "recession" in Christianity.  The Council notes that while Christianity is flourishing in African countries the church in Europe is suffering from a slump that is "unprecedented in its extent and severity."  The Council further notes a "Great Reversal" in the direction of world mission: instead of European Christians seeing Africa and Asia as mission fields needing the gospel, it is now the African and Asian countries which see Europe as a mission field.  The report comes nearly 100 years after the great Edinburgh International Missionary Council held in 1910 at which 1,200 American and Northern European Protestants strategized for winning the world for Christ. 
 
The 1910 Edinburgh Missionary Council may have been the high marker for Protestant optimism and influence in the world.  That optimism was dampened and then dashed first by World War I, then by the rise of Communism, and then by radical changes in Protestantism brought about by modernism.  This was reflected in mission philosophy following the influential report, Re-Thinking Missions, issued in 1932.  Funded primarily by John D. Rockefeller, the benefactor of theological modernism, the  report concluded that Christianity had no claim on exclusive truth, that no true seeker of any religion would be damned, and that science and other modern disciplines could better do the job of bringing about the betterment of society, than missions.
 
The report was widely heralded and brought about changes in mission philosophy in Europe and especially in Congregationalism and Presbyterianism in America (and was the major factor in the defrocking of Gresham Machen in the Presbyterian Church, the upheaval at Princeton Seminary, and the founding of Westminister Seminary).
 
The ensuing reaction on the part of evangelical churches contributed to the forming of numbers of independent mission boards and the rise of Pentecostalism.  Methodism, for its part, continued to be a haven for evangelical missionaries until the 1960s when liberation theology began to dominate the Board of Missions, and decimate the missionary force.  From 1969 to 1975, the number of overseas missionaries associated with the Department of Overseas Mission (DOM) of the National Council of Churches decreased 31 percent (8,000 to 5,000).  The slack was taken up by Southern Baptists and the myriads of independent mission agencies.  The result was the rise of evangelical Christianity in the southern hemisphere and forms of indigenous Christianity not always within the orbit of Western civilization.  Now, it appears the future of Christianity lies outside Europe and North America.
 
What then of Christianity in Europe and North America?  The Church of Scotland report comes thirteen years after Samuel P. Huntington's much-discussed work, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), in which Huntington argues, among other things, that Western civilization has entered a period of decay and decline, helped along in part by a multiculturalism (a Western phenomenon actually) which undercuts the uniqueness of Western civilization by assuming a moral parity between cultures and civilizations, and basically devalues long-standing Western values.  Huntington suggests, but does not argue, that a major component in that devaluation is the modern desire to separate Western civilization from its Christian roots.
 
The liberal blog AlterNet gloats in a May 5 posting that there are now 40 million non-believers in America, making secularism one of the fastest growing American minorities.  The posting generated 344 responses; almost all of them celebrating what they feel is the decline of American Christianity.  
 
How to sort this out?  First of all, AlterNet is hardly an unbiased observer of the religious scene.  Still, Christians, and especially evangelicals, have reason for concern that the Christian basis for Western civilization is under serious attack.  United Methodism's forty-year membership decline can be explained in part by compromises with secularism in every area of the church's life.  The push to change the constitution by amending Para. IV (Inclusiveness of the Church) to remove any standards for membership is an indication of this.  A church without standards would be little more than a service club or a social agency.
 
In addition, the proposal to separate the North American church from the overseas churches through the Regional Conference plan (also a constitutional amendment to be voted on by annual conferences) has serious implications for the global nature of United Methodism.  The Regional Conference philosophy that Africans should have an African church and Americans an American church undermines the concept of the church universal not bound by culture.    
 
It is the Confessing Movement's contention that the church of Jesus Christ must stand firmly upon the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord.  We work not on behalf of Western Civilization, and especially not for a Western Civilization wanting to separate itself from its Christian roots, but for a church that transcends cultures and brings hope to the world.

by Dr. Riley Case

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration IV

II. We have spoken to the act of Imposing the priesthood, as long as our circumscribed time will allow us. Let us contemplate its Execution, in which we have to consider the duties to be performed, and in them the feeling and condition of who performs them. The functions to be executed were two:

(1.) The Oblation of an expiatory sacrifice, and (2.) Prayer.

1. The Oblation was preceded by a preparation through the deepest privation and abasement, the most devoted obedience, vehement supplications, and the most exquisitely painful experience of human infirmities, on each of which it is not now necessary to speak.

The oblation consists of two parts succeeding each other: The First is the immolation or sacrifice of the body of Christ, by the shedding of his blood on the altar of the cross, which was succeeded by death—thus paying the price of redemption for sins by suffering the punishment due to them. The Other Part consists of the offering of his body re-animated and sprinkled with the blood which he shed—a symbol of the price which he has paid, and of the redemption which he has obtained. The First Part of this oblation was to be performed without the Holy of Holies, that is, on earth, because no effusion of blood can take place in heaven, since it is necessarily succeeded by death For death has no more sway in heaven, in the presence and sight of the majesty of the true God, than sin itself has, which contains within it the deserts of death, and as death contains within itself the punishment of sin. For thus says the scriptures, "The Son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."(Matthew 20.28) "For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26.28) "Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2.6)

But the Second Part of this offering was to be accomplished in heaven, in the Holy of Holies. For that body which had suffered the punishment of death and had been recalled to life, was entitled to appear before the Divine Majesty besprinkled with its own blood, that, remaining thus before God as a continual memorial, it might also be a perpetual expiation for transgressions. On this subject, the Apostle says: "Into the second tabernacle went the High Priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people. But Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come, not by the blood of goat, and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us;" (Hebrews 9.11) that is, by his own blood already poured out and sprinkled upon him, that he might appear with it in the presence of God. That act, being once performed, was never repeated; "for in that he died, he died unto sin once." But this is a perpetual act; "for in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." (Romans 6.10) "This man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." (Hebrews 7.24) The former was the act of the Lamb to be slain, the latter, that of the Lamb already slain and raised again from death to life. The one was completed in a state of the deepest humiliation, the other in a state of glory; and both of them out of a consummate affection for the glory of God and the salvation of sinners. Sanctified by the anointing of the Spirit, he completed the former act; and the latter was likewise his work, when he had been further consecrated by his sufferings and sprinkled with his own blood. By the former, therefore, he sanctified himself, and made a kind of preparation on earth that he might be qualified to discharge the functions of the latter in heaven.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration IV

3. Let us proceed to the mode of its being imposed or undertaken. This mode is according to covenant, which, on God’s part, received an oath for its confirmation. As it is according to covenant, it becomes a solemnity appointed by God, with whom rests the appointment to the priesthood. For the Levitical priesthood was conferred on Levi according to covenant, as the Lord declares by the prophet Malachi: "My covenant was with him of life and peace." It is, however, peculiar to this priesthood of Christ, that the covenant on which it is founded, was confirmed by an oath. Let us briefly consider each of them.

The covenant into which God entered with our High Priest, Jesus Christ, consisted, on the part of God, of the demand of an action to be performed, and of the promise of an immense remuneration. On the part of Christ, our High Priest, it consisted of an accepting of the Promise, and a voluntary engagement to Perform the Action. First, God required of him, that he should lay down his soul as a victim in sacrifice for sin, (Isaiah 53.11) that he should give his flesh for the light of the world, (John 6.51) and that he should pay the price of redemption for the sins and the captivity of the human race. God "promised" that, if he performed all this, "he should see a seed whose days should be prolonged," (Isaiah 53.11) and that he should be himself "an everlasting Priest after the order of Melchizedec," that is, he should, by the discharge of his priestly functions, be elevated to the regal dignity.

Secondly, Christ, our High Priest, accepted of these conditions, and permitted the province to be assigned to him of atoning for our transgressions, exclaiming "Lo, I come that I may do thy will, O my God." (Psalm 40.8) But he accepted them under a stipulation, that, on completing his great undertaking, he should forever enjoy the honour of a priesthood similar to that of Melchizedec, and that, being placed on his royal throne, he might, as King of Righteousness and Prince of Peace, rule in righteousness the people subject to his sway, and might dispense peace to his people. He, therefore, "for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame," (Hebrews 12.2) that, "being anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows," (Psalm 45.7) he might sit forever in the throne of equity at the right hand of the throne of God.

Great, indeed, was the condescension of the all-powerful God in being willing to treat with our High Priest rather in the way of covenant, than by a display of his authority. And strong were the pious affections of our High Priest, who did not refuse to take upon himself, on our account, the discharge of those difficult and arduous duties which were full of pain, trouble, and misery. Most glorious act, performed by thee, O Christ, who art infinite in goodness! Thou great High Priest, accept of the honours due to thy pious affection, and continue in that way to proceed to glory, to the complete consecration of our salvation! For it was the will of God, that the duties of the office should be administered from a voluntary and disinterested zeal and affection for his glory and the salvation of sinners; and it was a deed worthy of his abundant benignity, to recompense with a large reward the voluntary promptitude which Christ exhibited.

God added an oath to the covenant, both for the purpose of confirming it, and as a demonstration of the dignity and unchangeable nature of that priesthood. Though the constant and unvarying veracity of God’s nature might very properly set aside the necessity of an oath, yet as he had conformed to the customs of men in their method of solemnizing agreements, it was his pleasure by an oath to confirm his covenant; that our High Priest, relying in assured hope on the two-fold and immovable anchor of the promise and of the oath, "might despise the shame and endure the cross." The immutability and perpetuity of this priesthood have been pointed out by the oath which was added to the covenant. For whatever that be which God confirms by an oath, it is something eternal and immutable.

But it may be asked, "Are not all the words which God speaks, all the promises which he makes, and all the covenants into which he enters, of the same nature, even when they are unaccompanied by the sanctity of an oath ," Let me be permitted to describe the difference between the two cases here stated, and to prove it by an important example. There are two methods or plans by which it might be possible for man to arrive at a state of righteousness before God, and to obtain life from him. The one is according to righteousness through the law, by works and "of debt;" the other is according to mercy through the gospel, "by grace, and through faith:" These two methods are so constituted as not to allow both of them to be in a course of operation at the same time; but they proceed on the principle, that when the first of them is made void, a vacancy may be created for the second. In the beginning, therefore, it was the will of God to prescribe to man the first of these methods; which arrangement was required by his righteousness and the primitive institution of mankind. But it was not his pleasure to deal strictly with man according to the process of that legal covenant, and peremptorily to pronounce a destructive sentence against him in conformity with the rigor of the law. Wherefore, he did not subjoin an oath to that covenant, lest such an addition should have served to point out its immutability, a quality which God would not permit it to possess. The necessary consequence of this was, that when the first covenant was made void through sin, a vacancy was created by the good pleasure of God for another and a better covenant, in the manifestation of which he employed an oath, because it was to be the last and peremptory one respecting the method of obtaining righteousness and life. "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 22.18) "As I live, saith the Lord, have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, and not that he should return from his ways and live" (Ezekiel 18.23) "So I swear in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest. And to whom swear he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." (Hebrews 3.11-18) For the same reason, it is said, "The wrath of God, [from which it is possible for sinners to be liberated by faith in Christ,] abides on those who are unbelievers." (John 3.36) A similar process is observed in relation to the priesthood. For he did not confirm with an oath the Levitical priesthood, which had been imposed until the time of reformation." (Hebrews 9.10) But because it was his will that the priesthood of Christ should be everlasting, he ratified it by an oath. The apostle to the Hebrews demonstrates the whole of this subject in the most nervous style, by quotations from the 110th Psalm. Blessed are we in whose behalf God was willing to swear! but most miserable shall we be, if we do not believe on him who swears. The greatest dignity is likewise obtained to this priesthood, and imparted to it, by the addition of an oath, which elevates it far above the honour to which that of Levi attained. "For the law of a carnal commandment maketh men priests who have infirmities, and are sinners, to offer both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him perfect who did the service, as pertaining to the conscience;" (Hebrews 9.9) neither could they abolish sin, or procure heavenly blessings. "But the words of the oath, which was since the law, constituteth the Son a High Priest consecrated forevermore, who, after the power of an endless life and through the Eternal Spirit, offers himself without spot to God, and by that one offering, he perfects forever them that are sanctified, their consciences being purified to serve the living God: by how much also it was a more excellent covenant, by so much the more ought it to be confirmed, since it was established upon better promises: and that which God hath deigned to honour with the sanctity of an oath, should be viewed as an object of the most momentous importance.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration IV

2. But, that we may come to the Second Point, a priest was next to be sought, to offer the sacrifice: For that was a function of the priesthood. A sacrifice was likewise to be sought; and with this condition annexed to it, that the same person should be both priest and sacrifice. This was required by the plan of the true priesthood and sacrifice, from which the typical and symbolical greatly differs. But in the different orders of creatures neither sacrifice nor priest could be found.

It was not possible for an angel to become a priest; because "he was to be taken from among men and to be ordained from men in things pertaining to God." (Hebrews 5.1) Neither could an angel be a sacrifice; because it was not just that the death of an angel should be an expiation for a crime which a man had perpetrated: And if this had even been most proper, yet man could never have been induced to believe that an angelical sacrifice had been offered by an angel for him, or, if it had been so offered, that it was of the least avail. Application was then to be made to men themselves. But, among them, not one could be found in whom it would have been a becoming act to execute the office of the priesthood, and who had either ability or inclination for the undertaking. For all men were sinners; all were terrified with a consciousness of their delinquency; and all were detained captive under the tyranny of sin and Satan. It was not lawful for a sinner to approach to God, who is pure Light, for the purpose of offering sacrifice; because, being affrighted by his own internal perception of his crime, he could not support a sight of the countenance of an incensed God, before whom it was still necessary that he should appear. Being placed under the dominion of sin and Satan, he was neither willing, nor had he the power to will, to execute an office, the duties of which were to be discharged for the benefit of others, out of love to them. The same consideration likewise tends to the rejection of every human sacrifice. Yet the priest was to be taken from among men, and the oblation to God was to consist of a human victim.

In this state of affairs, the assistance of Wisdom was again required in the Divine Council. She declared that a man must be born from among men, who might have a nature in common with the rest of his brethren, that, being in all things tempted as they were, he might be able to sympathize with others in their sufferings; and yet, that he should neither be reckoned in the order of the rest, nor should be made man according to the law of the primitive creation and benediction; that he should not be under dominion of sin; that he should be one in whom Satan could find nothing worthy of condemnation, who should not be tormented by a consciousness of sin, and who should not even know sin, that is, one who should be "born in the likeness of sinful flesh, and yet without sin. For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners." (Hebrews 7.26) But, that he might have a community of nature with men, he ought to be born of a human being; and, that he might have no participation in crime with them, but might be holy, he ought to be conceived by the Holy Ghost, because sanctification is his proper work. By the Holy Spirit, the nativity which was above and yet according to nature, might through the virtue of the mystery, restore nature, as it surpassed her in the transcendent excellence of the miracle. But the dignity of this priesthood was greater, and its functions more weighty and important, than man even in his pure state was competent to sustain or discharge. The benefits also to be obtained by it, infinitely exceeded the value of man when in his greatest state of purity. Therefore, the Word of God, who from the beginning was with God, and by whom the worlds, and all things visible and invisible, were created, ought himself to be made flesh, to undertake the office of the priesthood, and to offer his own flesh to God as a sacrifice for the life of the world. We now have the person who was entrusted with the priesthood, and to whom the province was assigned of atoning for the common offense: It is Jesus Christ, the Son of God and of man, a high priest of such great excellence, that the transgression whose demerits have obtained this mighty Redeemer, might almost seem to have been a happy circumstance.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration IV

In discoursing on the Priesthood of Christ, we will confine our observations to three points; and, on condition that you receive the succeeding part of my oration with that kindness and attention which you have hitherto manifested, and which I still hope and desire to receive, we will describe: First. The Imposing of the Office. Secondly. Its Execution and Administration. And Thirdly. The Fruits of the Office thus Administered, and the Utility Which We Derive From It.

In respect to the Imposing of the Office, the subject itself presents us with three topics to be discussed in order. (1.) The person who imposes it. (2.) The person on whom it is imposed, or to whom it is entrusted. And (3.) The manner of his appointment, and of his undertaking this charge.

1. The person imposing it is God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since this act of imposing belongs to the economy and dispensation of our salvation, the persons who are comprised under this one Divine Monarchy are to be distinctly considered according to the rule of the scriptures, which ought to have the precedence in this inquiry, and according to the rules and guidance of the orthodox Fathers that agree with those scriptures.

It is [God] who imposes this office, and who, while the princes of darkness fret themselves and rage in vain, says to his Messiah, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." (Psalm 2.8) He it is who, when he commanded Messiah to sit at his right hand, repeated his holy and revered word with an oath, saying, "Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedec." (Psalm 110.4)

This is He who imposes the office, and that by a right the most just and deserved. For "with him we have to do, who, dwelling in the light unto which no man can approach," remains continually in the seat of his Majesty. He preserves his own authority safe and unimpaired to himself, "without any abasement or lessening of his person," as the voice of antiquity expresses it; and retains entire, within himself, the right of demanding satisfaction from the sinner for the injuries which He has sustained. From this right he has not thought fit to recede, or to resign any part of it, on account of the rigid inflexibility of his justice, according to which he hates iniquity and does not permit a wicked person to dwell in his presence. This, therefore, is the Divine Person in whose hands rest both the right and the power of imposition; the fact of his having also the will, is decided by the very act of imposition.

But an inquiry must be made into the Cause of this imposition which we shall not find, except, first, in the conflict between justice and gracious mercy; and, afterwards, in their amicable agreement, or rather their junction by means of wisdom’s conciliating assistance.

(1.) Justice demanded, on her part, the punishment due to her from a sinful creature; and this demand she the more rigidly enforced, by the greater equity with which she had threatened it, and the greater truth with which it had been openly foretold and declared.

Gracious Mercy, like a pious mother, moving with bowels of commiseration,desired to avert that punishment in which was placed the extreme misery of the creature. For she thought that, though the remission of that punishment was not due to the cause of it, yet such a favour ought to be granted to her by a right of the greatest equity; because it is one of her chief properties to "rejoice against judgment." (James 2.13)

Justice, tenacious of her purpose, rejoined, that the throne of grace, she must confess, was sublimely elevated above the tribunal of justice: but she could not bear with patient indifference that no regard should be paid to her, and her suit not to be admitted, while the authority of managing the whole affair was to be transferred to mercy. Since, however, it was a part of the oath administered to justice when she entered into office, "that she should render to every one his own," she would yield entirely to mercy, provided a method could be devised by which her own inflexibility could be declared, as well as the excess of her hatred to sin.

(2.) But to find out that method, was not the province of Mercy. It was necessary, therefore, to call in the aid of Wisdom to adjust the mighty difference, and to reconcile by an amicable union those two combatants that were, in God, the supreme protectresses of all equity and goodness. Being called upon, she came, and at once discovered a method, and affirmed that it was possible to render to each of them that which belonged to her; for if the punishment due to sin appeared desirable to Justice and odious to Mercy, it might be transmuted into an expiatory sacrifice, the oblation of which, on account of the voluntary suffering of death, (which is the punishment adjudged to sin,) might appease Justice, and open such a way for Mercy as she had desired. Both of them instantly assented to this proposal, and made a decree according to the terms of agreement settled by Wisdom, their common arbitrator.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration IV

Most miserable, and deserving of the deepest commiseration, was the condition of mankind in that state of their affairs, if this declaration be a true one, "Happy is the people whose God is the Lord!" (Psalm 144.15) And this inevitable misery would have rested upon Adam and his race for ever, had not Jehovah, full of mercy and commiseration, deigned to receive them into favour, and resolved to enter into another covenant with the same parties; not according to that which they had transgressed, and which was then become obsolete and had been abolished; but into a new covenant of grace. But the Divine justice and truth could not permit this to be done, except through the agency of an umpire and surety, who might undertake the part of a Mediator between the offended God and sinners. Such a Mediator could not then approach to God with an eucharistic sacrifice for benefits conferred upon the human race, or with prayers which might intreat only for a continuance and an increase of them: But he had to approach into the Divine presence to offer sacrifice for the act of hostility which they had committed against God by transgressing his commandment, and to offer prayers for obtaining the remission of their transgressions. Hence arose the necessity of an Expiatory Sacrifice; and, on that account, a new priesthood was to be instituted, by the operation of which the sin that had been committed might be expiated, and access to the throne of God’s grace might be granted to man through a sinner: this is the priesthood which belongs to our Christ, the Anointed One, alone.

But God, who is the Supremely Wise Disposer of times and seasons, would not permit the discharge of the functions appertaining to this priesthood to commence immediately after the formation of the world, and the introduction of sin. It was his pleasure, that the necessity of it should be first correctly understood and appreciated, by a conviction on men’s consciences of the multitude, heinousness and aggravated nature of their sins. It was also his will, that the minds of men should be affected with a serious and earnest desire for it, yet so that they might in the mean time be supported against despair, arising from a consciousness of their sins, which could not be removed except by means of that Divine priesthood, the future commencement of which inspired them with hope and confidence. All these purposes God effected by the temporary institution of that typical priesthood, the duties of which infirm and sinful men "after the law of a carnal commandment" could perform, by the immolation of beasts sanctified for that service; which priesthood was at first established in different parts of the world, and afterwards among the Israelites, who were specially elected to be a sacerdotal nation. When the blood of beasts was shed, in which was their life, (Leviticus 17.14) the people contemplated, in the death of the animals, their own demerits, for the beasts had not sinned that they by death should be punished as victims for transgression.

After investigating this subject with greater diligence, and deliberately weighing it in the equal balances of their judgment, they plainly perceived and understood that their sins could not possibly be expiated by those sacrifices, which were of a species different from their own, and more despicable and mean than human beings. From these premises they must of necessity have concluded, that, notwithstanding they offered those animals, they in such an act delivered to God nothing less than their own bond, sealing it in his presence with an acknowledgment of their personal sins, and confessing the debt which they had incurred.

Yet, because these sacrifices were of Divine Institution, and because God received them at the hands of men as incense whose odour was fragrant and agreeable, from these circumstances the offenders conceived the hope of obtaining favour and pardon, reasoning thus within themselves, as did Sampson’s mother: "If the Lord were pleased to kill us, he would not have received burnt-offering and a meat-offering at our hands." (Judges 13.23)

With such a hope they strengthened their spirits that were ready to faint, and, confiding in the Divine promise, they expected in all the ardour of desire the dispensation of a priesthood which was prefigured under the typical one; "searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the Sufferings of Christ, and the Glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1.11) But, since the mind pants after the very delightful consideration of this priesthood, our oration hastens towards it; and, having some regard to the lateness of the hour, and wishing not to encroach on your comfort, we shall omit any further allusion to that branch of the priesthood which has hitherto occupied our attention.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration IV

From this circumstance [the relationship between God and humanity through which God blesses and humanity responds in performing certain duties] is to be traced the existence of the office of the priesthood, the duties of which were to be discharged before God in behalf of others—an office undoubtedly of vast dignity and of special honour among mankind.

Although the priest must be taken from among men, and must be appointed in their behalf, yet it does not appertain to men themselves, to designate whom they will to sustain that office; neither does it belong to any one to arrogate that honour to himself. But as the office itself is an act of the divine pleasure, so likewise the choice of the person who must discharge its duties, rests with God himself: and it was his will, that the office should be fulfilled by him who for some just reason held precedence among his kindred by consanguinity. This was the father and master of the family, and his successor was the first born. We have examples of this in the holy patriarchs, both before and after the deluge. We behold this expressly in Noah, Abraham, and Job.

There are also those, (not occupying the lowest seats in judgment,) who say that Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices to Adam their father, that he might offer them to the Lord; and they derive this opinion from the word aykh used in the same passage. Though these examples are selected from the description of that period when sin had made its entrance into the world, yet a confirmation of their truth is obtained in this primitive institution of the human race, of which we are now treating. For it is peculiar to that period, that all the duties of the priesthood were confined within the act of offering only an eucharistic sacrifice and supplications. Having therefore in due form executed these functions, the priest, in the name of his compeers, was by the appeased Deity admitted to a familiar intercourse with Him, and obtained from Him a charge to execute among his kindred, in the name of God himself, and as "the messenger, or angel, of the Lord of Hosts." For the Lord revealed to him the Divine will and pleasure; that, on returning from his intercourse with God, he might declare it to the people.

This will of God consisted of two parts: (1.) That which he required to be performed by his covenant people; and (2.) That which it was his wish to perform for their benefit. In this charge, which was committed to the priest, to be executed by him, the administration of prophecy was also included; on which account it is said, "They should seek the LAW at the mouth of the priest, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts." (Malichi 2.7) And since that second part of the Divine will was to be proclaimed from an assured trust and confidence in the truth of the Divine promises, and with a holy and affectionate feeling toward his own species—in that view, he was invested with a commission to dispense benedictions. In this manner, discharging the duties of a double embassy, (that of men to God, and that of God to men,) he acted, on both sides, the part of a Mediator of the covenant into which the parties had mutually entered.

Nevertheless, not content with having conferred this honour on him whom he had sanctified, our God, all-bountiful, elevated him likewise to the delegated or vicarious dignity of the regal office, that he, bearing the image of God among his brethren, might then be able to administer justice to them in His Name, and might manage, for their common benefit, those affairs with which he was entrusted. From this source arose what may be considered the native union of the Priestly and the Kingly offices, which also obtained among the holy patriarchs after the entrance of sin, and of which express mention is made in the person of Melchizedec. This was signified in a general manner by the patriarch Jacob, when he declared Reuben, his first born son, to be "the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power," which were his due on account of the right of primogeniture. For certain reasons, however, the kingly functions were afterwards separated from the priestly, by the will of God, who, dividing them into two parts among his people the children of Israel, transferred the kingly office to Judah and the priestly to Levi.

But it was proper, that this approach to God, through the oblation of an eucharistic sacrifice and prayers, should be made with a pure mind, holy affections, and with hands, as well as the other members of the body, free from defilement. This was required, even before the first transgression. "Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy; for I the Lord your God am holy." (Leviticus 19.2) "God heareth not sinners." (John 9.31) "Bring no more vain oblations, for your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1.15) The will of God respecting this is constant and perpetual.

But Adam, who was the first man and the first priest, did not long administer his office in a becoming manner; for, refusing to obey God, he tasted the fruit of the forbidden tree; and, by that foul crime of disobedience and revolt, he at once defiled his soul which had been sanctified to God, and his body. By this wicked deed he both lost all right to the priesthood, and was in reality deprived of it by the Divine sentence, which was clearly signified by his expulsion from Paradise, where he had appeared before God in that which was a type of His own dwelling-place. This was in accordance with the invariable rule of Divine Justice: "Be it far from me, [that thou shouldst any longer discharge before me the duties of the priesthood:] for them that honour me, I will honour; and they that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed." (1 Samuel 2.30)

But he did not fall alone: All whose persons he at that time represented and whose cause he pleaded, (although they had not then come into existence,) were with him cast down from the elevated summit of such a high dignity. Neither did they fall from the priesthood only, but likewise from the covenant, of which the priest was both the Mediator and the Internuncio; and God ceased to be the King and God of men, and men were no longer recognized as his people. The existence of the priesthood itself was at an end; for there was no one capable of fulfilling its duties according to the design of that covenant. The eucharistic sacrifice, the invocation of the name of God, and the gracious communication between God and men, all ceased together.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration IV

Having now in an appropriate manner offered up those vows which well become the commencement of our undertaking, we will, by the help of God, proceed to the subject posed, after I have intreated all of you, who have been pleased to grace this solemn act of ours with your noble, learned and most gratifying presence, to give me that undivided attention which the subject deserves, while I speak on a matter of the most serious importance, and, according to your accustomed kindness, to shew me that favour and benevolence which are to me of the greatest necessity. That I may not abuse your patience, I engage to consult brevity as much as our theme will allow. But we must begin with the very first principles of Priesthood, that from thence the discourse may appropriately be brought down to the Priesthood of Christ, on which we profess to treat.

First. The first of those relations which subsist between God and men, has respect to something given and something received. The latter requires another relation supplementary to itself—a relation which taking its commencement from men, may terminate in God; and that is, an acknowledgment of a benefit received, to the honour of the munificent Donor. It is also a debt, due on account of a benefit already conferred, but which is not to be paid except on the demand and according to the regulation of the Giver; whose intention it has always been, that the will of a creature should not be the measure of his honour. His benignity likewise is so immense, that he never requires from those who are under obligations to him, the grateful acknowledgment of the benefit communicated in the first instance, except when he has bound them to himself by the larger, and far superior benefit, of a mutual covenant. But the extreme trait in that goodness, is, that he has bound himself to bestow on the same persons favours of yet greater excellence by infinite degrees.

This is the order which he adopts; he wishes himself first to be engaged to them, before they are considered to be engaged to Him. For every covenant; that is concluded between God and men, consists of two parts: (1.) The preceding promise of God, by which he obliges himself to some duty and to acts correspondent with that duty: and (2.) The subsequent definition and appointment of the duty, which, it is stipulated, shall in return be required of men, and according to which a mutual correspondence subsists between men and God. He promises, that he will be to them a king and a God, and that he will discharge towards them all the offices of a good King; while he stipulates, as a counter obligation, that they become his people, that in this relation they live according to his commands and that they ask and expect all blessings from his goodness. These two acts—a life according to his commands, and an expectation of all blessings from his goodness—comprise the duty of men towards God, according to the covenant into which he first entered with them.

On the whole, therefore, the duties of two functions are to be performed between God and men who have entered into covenant with him: First, a regal one, which is of supreme authority: Secondly, a religious one, of devoted submission.

(1.) The use of the former is in the communication of every needful good, and in the imposing of laws or the act of legislation. Under it we likewise comprehend the gift of prophecy, which is nothing more than the annunciation of the royal pleasure, whether it be communicated by God himself, or by some one of his deputies or ambassadors as a kind of internuncio to the covenant. That no one may think the prophetic office, of which the scriptures make such frequent mention, is a matter of little solicitude to us, we assign it the place of a substitute under the Chief Architect.

(2.) But the further consideration of the regal duty being at present omitted, we shall proceed to a nearer inspection of that which is religious.. We have already deduced its origin from the act of covenanting; we have propounded it, in the exercise of the regal office, as something that is due; and we place its proper action in thanksgiving and intreaty. This action is required to be religiously performed, according to their common vocation, by every one of the great body of those who are in covenant; and to this end they have been sanctified by the word of the covenant, and have all been constituted priests to God, that they might offer gifts and prayers to The Most High. But since God loves order, he who is himself the only instance of order in its perfection, willed that, out of the number of those who were sanctified, some one should in a peculiar manner be separated to him; that he who was thus set apart should, by a special and extraordinary vocation, be qualified for the office of the priesthood; and that, approaching more intimately and with greater freedom to the throne of God, he should, in the place of his associates in the same covenant and religion, take the charge and management of whatever affairs were to be transacted before God on their account.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration IV

ORATION IV

THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST

The Noble the Lord Rector—the Very Famous, Reverend, Skillful, Intelligent, and Learned Men, who are the Fathers of this Most Celebrated University—the Rest of You, Most Worthy Strangers of Every Degree—and You, Most Noble and Studious Young Men, who are the Nursery of the Republic and the Church, and who are Increasing Every Day in Bloom and vigour:

If there be any order of men in whom it is utterly unbecoming to aspire after the honours of this world, especially after those honours which are accompanied by pomp and applause, that, without doubt, is the order ecclesiastical—a body of men who ought to be entirely occupied with a zeal for God, and for the attainment of that glory which is at his disposal. Yet, since, according to the laudable institutions of our ancestors, the usage has obtained in all well regulated Universities, to admit no man to the office of instructor in them, who has not previously signalized himself by some public and solemn testimony of probity and scientific ability—this sacred order of men have not refused a compliance with such public modes of decision, provided they be conducted in a way that is holy, decorous, and according to godliness. So far, indeed, are those who have been set apart to the pastoral office from being averse to public proceedings of this kind, that they exceedingly covet and desire them alone, because they conceive them to be of the first necessity to the Church of Christ....

...I do not, therefore, suppose one person, in this numerous assembly, can be so ignorant of the public ceremonies of this University, or can hold them in such little estimation, as either to evince surprise at the undertaking in which we are now engaged, or wish to give it an unfavourable interpretation. But since it has always been a part of the custom of our ancestors, in academic festivities of this description, to choose some subject of discourse, the investigation of which in the fear of the Lord might promote the Divine glory and the profit of the hearers, and might excite them to pious and importunate supplication, I also can perceive no cause why I ought not conscientiously to comply with this custom. And although at the sight of this very respectable, numerous and learned assembly, I feel strongly affected with a sense of my defective eloquence and tremble not a little, yet I have selected a certain theme for my discourse which agrees well with my profession, and is full of grandeur, sublimnity and adorable majesty.

In making choice of it, I have not been overawed by the edict of Horace, which says, "Select, all ye who write, a subject fit, A subject not too mighty for your wit! And ere you lay your shoulders to the wheel, Weigh well their strength, and all their wetness feel!"

For this declaration is not applicable in the least to theological subjects, all of which by their dignity and importance exceed the capacity and mental energy of every human being, and of angels themselves. A view of them so affected the Apostle Paul, (who, rapt up into the third heaven, had heard words ineffable,) that they compelled him to break forth into this exclamation: "Who is sufficient for these things," (2 Corinthians 2.16) If, therefore, I be not permitted to disregard the provisions of this Horatian statute, I must either transgress the boundaries of my profession, or be content to remain silent. But I am permitted to disregard the terms of this statute; and to do so, is perfectly lawful.

For whatever things tend to the glory of God and to the salvation of men, ought to be celebrated in a devout spirit in the congregations of the saints, and to be proclaimed with a grateful voice. I therefore propose to speak on THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST...  I choose this theme that I may obtain, in behalf of my oration, such grace and favour from the excellence of its subject, as I cannot possibly confer on it by any eloquence in the mode of my address. Since, however, it is impossible for us either to form in our minds just and holy conceptions about such a sublime mystery, or to give utterance to them with our lips, unless the power of God influence our mental faculties and our tongues, let us by prayer and supplication implore his present aid, in the name of Jesus Christ our great High Priest. "Do thou, therefore, O holy and merciful God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Fountain of all grace and truth, vouchsafe to grant thy favourable presence to us who are a great congregation assembled together in thy holy name. Sprinkle thou our spirits, souls, and bodies, with the most gracious dew of thy immeasurable holiness, that the converse of thy saints with each other may be pleasing to thee. Assist us by the grace of thy Holy Spirit, who may yet more and more illuminate our minds—imbued with the true knowledge of Thyself and thy Son; may He also inflame our hearts with a sincere zeal for thy glory; may He open my mouth and guide my tongue, that I may be enabled to declare concerning the Priesthood of thy Son those things which are true and just and holy, to the glory of thy name and to the gathering of all of us together in the Lord. Amen."

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 3 - Oration III

8. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH

The divine Omnipotence and Wisdom have principally employed these arguments, to prove the Divinity of this blessed word. But, that the Church might not defile herself by that basest vice, ingratitude of heart, and that she might perform a supplementary service in aid of God her Author and of Christ her Head, she also by her testimony adds to the Divinity of this word. But it is only an addition; she does not impart Divinity to it; her province is merely an indication of the Divine nature of this word, but she does not communicate to it the impress of Divinity. For unless this word had been Divine when there was no Church in existence, it would not have been possible for her members "to be born of this word, as of incorruptible seed," (1 Peter 1.23) to become the sons of God, and, through faith in this word, "to be made partakers of the Divine Nature." (2 Peter 1.4) The very name of "authority" takes away from the Church the power of conferring Divinity on this doctrine. For Authority is derived from an Author: But the Church is not the Author, she is only the nursling of this word, being posterior to it in cause, origin, and time. We do not listen to those who raise this objection: "The Church is of greater antiquity than the scripture, because at the time when that word had not been consigned to writing, the Church had even then an existence." To trifle in a serious matter with such cavils as this, is highly unbecoming in Christians, unless they have changed their former godly manners and are transformed into Jesuits. The Church is not more ancient than this saying: "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head ;" (Genesis 3.15) although she had an existence before this sentence was recorded by Moses in Scripture. For it was by the faith which they exercised on this saying, that Adam and Eve became the Church of God; since, prior to that, they were traitors, deserters and the kingdom of Satan—that grand deserter and apostate. The Church is indeed the pillar of the truth, (1 Timothy 3.15) but it is built upon that truth as upon a foundation, and thus directs to the truth, and brings it forward into the sight of men. In this way the Church performs the part of a director and a witness to this truth, and its guardian, herald, and interpreter. But in her acts of interpretation, the Church is confined to the sense of the word itself, and is tied down to the expressions of Scripture: for, according to the prohibition of St. Paul, it neither becomes her to be wise above that which is written;"(1 Corinthians 4.6) nor is it possible for her to be so, since she is hindered both by her own imbecility, and the depth of things divine.

But it will reward our labour, if in a few words we examine the efficacy of this testimony, since such is the pleasure of the Papists, who constitute "the authority of the Church" the commencement and the termination of our certainty, when she bears witness to the scripture that it is the word of God. In the first place, the efficacy of the testimony does not exceed the veracity of the witness. The veracity of the Church is the veracity of men. But the veracity of men is imperfect and inconstant, and is always such as to give occasion to this the remark of truth, "All men are liars." Neither is the veracity of him that speaks, sufficient to obtain credit to his testimony, unless the veracity of him who bears witness concerning the truth appear plain and evident to him to whom he makes the declaration. But in what manner will it be possible to make the veracity of the Church plain and evident? This must be done, either by a notion conceived , long time before, or by an impression recently made on the minds of the hearers. But men possess no such innate notion of the veracity of the Church as is tantamount to that which declares, "God is true and cannot lie." (Titus 1.2) It is necessary, therefore, that it be impressed by some recent action; such impression being made either from within or from without. But the Church is not able to make any inward impression, for she bears her testimony by external instruments alone, and does not extend to the inmost parts of the soul. The impression, therefore, will be external; which can be no other than a display and indication of her knowledge and probity, as well as testimony, often truly so called. But all these things can produce nothing more than an opinion in the minds of those to whom they are offered. Opinion, therefore, and not knowledge, is the supreme effect of this efficacy.

But the Papists retort, "that Christ himself established the authority of his Church by this saying, "He that heareth you, heareth me." (Luke 10.16) When these unhappy reasoners speak thus, they seem not to be aware that they are establishing the authority of Scripture before that of the Church. For it is necessary that credence should be given to that expression as it was pronounced by Christ, before any authority can, on its account, be conceded to the Church. But the same reason will be as tenable in respect to the whole Scripture as to this expression. Let the Church then be content with that honour which Christ conferred on her when he made her the guardian of his word, and appointed her to be the director and witness to it, the herald and the interpreter.

III. Yet since the arguments arising from all those observations which we have hitherto adduced, and from any others which are calculated to prove the Divinity of the scriptures, can neither disclose to us a right understanding of the scriptures, nor seal on our minds those meanings which we have understood, (although the certainty of faith which God demands from us, and requires us to exercise in his word, consists of these meanings,) it is a necessary consequence, that to all these things ought to be added something else, by the efficacy of which that certainty may be produced in our minds. And this is the very subject on which we are not prepared to treat in this the third part of our discourse.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration III

7. THE CONSTANCY OF ITS [THE WORD OF GOD] PROFESSORS AND MARTYRS

But what shall we say respecting the constancy of the professors and martyrs, which they displayed in the torments that they endured for the truth of this doctrine? Indeed, if we subject this constancy to the view of the most inflexible enemies of the doctrine, we shall extort from unwilling judges a confession of its Divinity. But, that the strength of this argument may be placed in a clearer light, the mind must be directed to four particulars: the multitude of the martyrs, and their condition; the torments which their enemies inflicted on them, and the patience which they evinced in enduring them.

(1.) If we direct our inquiries to the multitude of them, it is innumerable, far exceeding thousands of thousands; on this account it is out of the power of any one to say, that, because it was the choice of but a few persons, it ought to be imputed to frenzy or to weariness of a life that was full of trouble.

(2.) If we inquire into their condition, we shall find nobles and peasants, those in authority and their subjects, the learned and the unlearned, the rich and the poor, the old and the young; persons of both sexes, men and women, the married and the unmarried, men of a hardy constitution and inured to dangers, and girls of tender habits who had been delicately educated, and whose feet had scarcely ever before stumbled against the smallest pebble that arose above the surface of their smooth and level path. Many of the early martyrs were honourable persons of this description, that no one might think them to be inflamed by a desire of glory, or endeavouring to gain applause by the perseverance and magnanimity that they had evinced in the maintenance of the sentiments which they had embraced.

(3.) Some of the torments inflicted on such a multitude of persons and of such various circumstances in life, were of a common sort, and others unusual, some of them quick in their operation and others of them slow. Part of the unoffending victims were nailed to crosses and part of them were decapitated; some were drowned in rivers, whilst others were roasted before a slow fire. Several were ground to powder by the teeth of wild beasts, or were torn in pieces by their fangs; many were sawn asunder, while others were stoned; and not a few of them were subjected to punishments which cannot be expressed, but which are accounted most disgraceful and infamous, on account of their extreme turpitude and indelicacy. No species of savage cruelty was omitted which either the ingenuity of human malignity could invent, which rage the most conspicuous and furious could excite, or which even the infernal labouratory of the court of hell could supply.

(4.) And yet, that we may come at once to the patience of these holy confessors, they bore all these tortures with constancy and equanimity; nay, they endured them with such a glad heart and cheerful countenance, as to fatigue even the restless fury of their persecutors, which has often been compelled, when wearied out, to yield to the unconquerable strength of their patience, and to confess itself completely vanquished. And what was the cause of all this endurance? It consisted in their unwillingness to recede in the least point from that religion, the denial of which was the only circumstance that might enable them to escape danger, and, in many instances, to acquire glory. What then was the reason of the great patience which they shewed under their acute sufferings? It was because they believed, that when this short life was ended, and after the pains and distresses which they were called to endure on earth, they would obtain a blessed immortality. In this particular the combat which God has maintained with Satan, appears to have resembled a duel; and the result of it has been, that the Divinity of God’s word has been raised as a superstructure out of the infamy and ruin of Satan.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration III

6. THE SANCTITY OF THOSE BY WHOM [THE WORD OF GOD] HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED

The sanctity of those by whom the word was first announced to men and by whom it was committed to writing, conduces to the same purpose—to prove its Divinity. For since it appears that those who were entrusted with the discharge of this duty, had divested themselves of the wisdom of the world, and of the feelings and affections of the flesh, entirely putting off the old man—and that they were completely eaten up and consumed by their zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of men—it is manifest that such great sanctity as this had been inspired and infused into them, by Him alone who is the Holiest of the holy.

Let Moses be the first that is introduced: He was treated in a very injurious manner by a most ungrateful people, and was frequently marked out for destruction; yet was he prepared to purchase their salvation by his own banishment. He said, when pleading with God, "Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." (Exodus 32.32) Behold his zeal for the salvation of the people entrusted to his charge—a zeal for the glory of God! Would you see another reason for this wish to be devoted to destruction? Read what he had previously said: "Wherefore should the Egyptians speak and say? For mischief did the Lord bring them out to slay them in the mountains," (Exodus 32.12) "because he was not able to bring them out unto the land which he swear unto their Fathers." (Numbers 14.16) We observe the same zeal in Paul, when he wishes that himself "were accursed from Christ for his brethren the Jews, his kinsmen according to the flesh," (Romans 9) from whom he had suffered many and great indignities.

David was not ashamed publicly to confess his heavy and enormous crimes, and to commit them to writing as an eternal memorial to posterity. Samuel did not shrink from marking in the records of perpetuity the detestable conduct of his sons; and Moses did not hesitate to bear a public testimony against the iniquity and the madness of his ancestors. If even the least desire of a little glory had possessed their minds, they might certainly have been able to indulge in taciturnity, and to conceal in silence these circumstances of disgrace. Those of them who were engaged in describing the deeds and achievements of other people, were unacquainted with the art of offering adulation to great men and nobles, and of wrongfully attributing to their enemies any unworthy deed or motive. With a regard to truth alone, in promoting the glory of God, they placed all persons on an equality; and made no other distinction between them than that which God himself has commanded to be made between piety and wickedness. On receiving from the hand of God their appointment to this office, they at once and altogether bade farewell to all the world, and to all the desires which are in it. "Each of them said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren; for they observed the word of God, and kept his covenant." (Deuteronomy 33.9)

Jacobus Arminius - Works Vol. 1 - Oration III

5. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE DOCTRINE

Let the antiquity, the propagation, the preservation, and the truly admirable defense of this doctrine be added—and they will afford a bright and perspicuous testimony of its divinity. If that which is of the highest antiquity possesses the greatest portion of truth," as Tertullian most wisely and justly observes, then this doctrine is one of the greatest truth, because it can trace its origin to the highest antiquity. It is likewise Divine, because it was manifested at a time when it could not have been devised by any other mind; for it had its commencement at the very period when man was brought into existence. An apostate angel would not then have proposed any of his doctrines to man, unless God had previously revealed himself to the intelligent creature whom he had recently formed: That is, God hindered the fallen angel, and there was then no cause in existence by which he might be impelled to engage in such an enterprise. For God would not suffer man, who had been created after his own image, to be tempted by his enemy by means of false doctrine, until, after being abundantly instructed in that which was true, he was enabled to know that which was false and to reject it. Neither could any odious feeling of envy against man have tormented Satan, except God had considered him worthy of the communication of his word, and had deigned, through that communication, to make him a partaker of eternal. felicity, from which Satan had at that period unhappily fallen.

The Propagation, Preservation, and Defense of this doctrine, most admirable when separately considered, will all be found divine, if, in the first place, we attentively fix our eyes upon those men among whom it is propagated; then on the foes and adversaries of this doctrine; and, lastly, on the manner in which its propagation, preservation and defense have hitherto been and still are conducted.

(1.) If we consider those men among whom this sacred doctrine flourishes, we shall discover that their nature, on account of its corruption, rejects this doctrine for a two-fold reason; (i.) The first is, because in one of its parts it is so entirely contrary to human and worldly wisdom, as to subject itself to the accusation of Folly from men of corrupt minds. (ii.) The second reason is, because in another of its parts it is decidedly hostile and inimical to worldly lusts and carnal desires. It is, therefore, rejected by the human understanding and refused by the will, which are the two chief faculties in man; for it is according to their orders and commands that the other faculties are either put in motion or remain at rest. Yet, notwithstanding all this natural repugnance, it has been received and believed. The human mind, therefore, has been conquered, and the subdued will has been gained, by Him who is the author of both.

(2.) This doctrine has some most powerful and bitter enemies: Satan, the prince of this world, with all his angels, and the world his ally: These are foes with whom there can be no reconciliation. If the subtlety, the power, the malice, the audacity, the impudence, the perseverance, and the diligence of these enemies, be placed in opposition to the simplicity, the inexperience, the weakness, the fear, the inconstancy, and the slothfulness of the greater part of those who give their assent to this heavenly doctrine; then will the greatest wonder be excited, how this doctrine, when attacked by so many enemies, and defended by such sorry champions, can stand and remain safe and unmoved. If this wonder and admiration be succeeded by a supernatural and divine investigation of its cause, then will God himself be discovered as the propagator, preserver, and defender of this doctrine. (3.) The manner also in which its propagation, preservation and defense are conducted, indicates divinity by many irrefragible tokens. This doctrine is carried into effect, without bow or sword—without horses chariots, or horsemen; yet it proceeds prosperously along, stands in an erect posture, and remains unconquered, in the name of the Lord of Hosts: While its adversaries, though supported by such apparently able auxiliaries and relying on such powerful aid, are overthrown, fall down together, and perish. It is accomplished, not by holding out alluring promises of riches, glory, and earthly pleasures, but by a previous statement of the dreaded cross, and by the prescription of such patience and forbearance as far exceed all human strength and ability. "He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel; for I will shew him How Great Things he must suffer for my name’s sake." (Acts 9.15-16.) "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves." (Matthew 10.16)

Its completion is not effected by the counsels of men, but in opposition to all human counsels—whether they be those of the professors of this doctrine, or those of its adversaries. For it often happens, that the counsels and machinations which have been devised for the destruction of this doctrine, contribute greatly towards its propagation, while the princes of darkness fret and vex themselves in vain, and are astonished and confounded, at an issue so contrary to the expectations which they had formed from their most crafty and subtle counsels.

St. Luke says, "Saul made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and, haling men and women, committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word." (Acts 7.3-4) And by this means Samaria received the word of God. In reference to this subject St. Paul also says, "But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; so that my bonds are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places." (Philippians 1.12-13) For the same cause that common observation has acquired all its just celebrity: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." What shall we say to these things? "The stone which the builders refused, is become the head stone of the corner: This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes." (Psalm 118. 22-23)

Subjoin to these the tremendous judgments of God on the persecutors of this doctrine, and the miserable death of the tyrants. One of these, at the very moment when he was breathing out his polluted and unhappy spirit, was inwardly constrained publicly to proclaim, though in a frantic and outrageous tone, the divinity of this doctrine in these remarkable words: "Thou Hast Conquered, O Galilean!"

Who is there, now, that, with eyes freed from all prejudice, will look upon such clear proofs of the divinity of Scripture, and that will not instantly confess: the Apostle Paul had the best reasons for exclaiming, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not; lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4.3-4) As if he had said, "This is not human darkness; neither is it drawn as a thick veil over the mind by man himself; but it is diabolical darkness, and spread by the devil, the prince of darkness, upon the mind of man, over whom, by the just judgment of God, he exercises at his pleasure the most absolute tyranny. If this were not the case, it would be impossible for this darkness to remain; but, how great soever its density might be, it would be dispersed by this light which shines with such overpowering brilliancy."

Jacobus Arminus - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration III

4. MIRACLES

An illustrious evidence of the same divinity is afforded in the miracles, which God has performed by the stewards of his word, his prophets and apostles, and by Christ himself, for the confirmation of his doctrine and for the establishment of their authority. For these miracles are of such a description as infinitely to exceed the united powers of all the creatures and all the powers of nature itself, when their energies are combined. But the God of truth, burning with zeal for his own glory, could never have afforded such strong testimonies as these to false prophets and their false doctrine: nor could he have borne such witness to any doctrine even when it was true, provided it was not his, that is, provided it was not divine.

Christ, therefore, said, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works." (John 10.37-38) It was the same cause also, which induced the widow of Sarepta to say, on receiving from the hands of Elijah her son, who, after his death, had been raised to life by the prophet: "Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth." (1 Kings 17.24) That expression of Nicodemus has the same bearing: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." (John 3.2) And it was for a similar reason that the apostle said, "The signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Corinthians 12.12) There are indeed miracles on record that were wrought among the gentiles, and under the auspices of the gods whom they invoked: It is also predicted, concerning False Prophets, and Antichrist himself, that they will exhibit many signs and wonders: (Revelation 19.20)

But neither in number, nor in magnitude, are they equal to those which the true God has wrought before all Israel, and in the view of the whole world. Neither were those feats of their real miracles, but only astonishing operations performed by the agency and power of Satan and his instruments, by means of natural causes, which are concealed from the human understanding, and escape the cognizance of men. But to deny the existence of those great and admirable miracles which are related to have really happened, when they have also the testimony of both Jews and gentiles, who were the enemies of the true doctrine—is an evident token of bare-faced impudence and execrable stupidity.

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration III

3. THE PROPHECIES

Let us next inspect the prophecies scattered through the whole body of the doctrine; some of which belong to the substance of the doctrine, and others contribute towards procuring authority to the doctrine and to its instruments. It should be particularly observed, with what eloquence and distinctness they foretell the greatest and most important matters, which are far removed from the scrutinizing research of every human and angelical mind, and which could not possibly be performed except by power Divine: Let it be noticed at the same time with what precision the predictions are answered by the periods that intervene between them, and by all their concomitant circumstances; and the whole world will be compelled to confess, that such things could not have been foreseen and foretold, except by an omniscient Deity. I need not here adduce examples; for they are obvious to any one that opens the Divine volume. I will produce one or two passages, only, in which this precise agreement of the prediction and its fulfillment is described. When speaking of the children of Israel under the Egyptian bondage, and their deliverance from it according to the prediction which God had communicated to Abraham in a dream, Moses says, "And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the self-same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt:" (Exodus 12.41) Ezra speaks thus concerning the liberation from the Babylonish captivity, which event, Jeremiah foretold, should occur within seventy years: "Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia," &c. (Ezra 1.1) But God himself declares by Isaiah, that the divinity of the scripture may be proved, and ought to be concluded, from this kind of prophecies. These are his words: "Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are Gods." (Isaiah 41.23)

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration III

2. THE AGREEMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE IN ITS PARTS

Let us compare the parts of this doctrine together, and we shall discover in all of them an agreement and harmony, even in points the most minute, that it is so great and evident as to cause us to believe that it could not be manifested by men, but ought to have implicit credence placed in it as having certainly proceeded from God.

Let the Predictions alone, that have been promulgated concerning Christ in different ages, be compared together. For the consolation of the first parents of our race, God said to the serpent, "The seed of the woman shall bruise thy head." (Genesis 3.15) The same promise was repeated by God, and was specially made to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the nations be blessed." (Genesis 22.18) The patriarch Jacob, when at the point of death, foretold that this seed should come forth from the lineage and family of Judah, in these words: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." (Genesis 49.10) Let the alien prophet also be brought forward, and to these predictions he will add that oracular declaration which he pronounced by the inspiration and at the command of the God of Israel, in these words: Balaam said, "There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth." (Numbers 24.17) This blessed seed was afterwards promised to David, by Nathan, in these words: "I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom." (2 Samuel 7.12) On this account Isaiah says, "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." (xi, 1.) And, by way of intimating that a virgin would be his mother, the same prophet says, "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel!" (Isaiah 7.14)

It would be tedious to repeat every declaration that occurs in the psalms and in the other Prophets, and that agrees most appropriately with this subject. When these prophecies are compared with those occurrences that have been described in the New Testament concerning their fulfillment, it will be evident from the complete harmony of the whole, that they were all spoken and written by the impulse of one Divine Spirit. If some things in those sacred books seem to be contradictions, they are easily reconciled by means of a right interpretation.

I add, that not only do all the parts of this doctrine agree among themselves, but they also harmonize with that Universal Truth which has been spread through the whole of Philosophy; so that nothing can be discovered in Philosophy, which does not correspond with this doctrine. If any thing appear not to possess such an exact correspondence, it may be clearly confuted by means of true Philosophy and right reason.

Let the Style and Character of the scriptures be produced, and, in that instant, a most brilliant and refulgent mirror of the majesty which is luminously reflected in it, will display itself to our view in a manner the most divine. It relates things that are placed at a great distance beyond the range of the human imagination—things which far surpass the capacities of men. And it simply relates these things without employing any mode of argumentation, or the usual apparatus of persuasion: yet its obvious wish is to be understood and believed. But what confidence or reason has it for expecting to obtain the realization of this its desire? It possesses none at all, except that it depends purely upon its own unmixed authority, which is divine. It publishes its commands and its interdicts, its enactments and its prohibitions to all persons alike; to kings and subjects, to nobles and plebians, to the learned and the ignorant, to those that "require a sign" and those that "seek after wisdom," to the old and the young; over all these, the rule which it bears, and the power which it exercises, are equal. It places its sole reliance, therefore, on its own potency, which is able in a manner the most efficacious to restrain and compel all those who are refractory, and to reward those who are obedient.

Let the Rewards and Punishments be examined, by which the precepts are sanctioned, and there are seen both a promise of life eternal and a denunciation of eternal punishments. He who makes such a commencement as this, may calculate upon his becoming an object of ridicule, except he possess an inward consciousness both of his own right and power; and except he know, that, to subdue the wills of mortals, is a matter equally easy of accomplishment with him, as to execute his menaces and to fulfill his premises. To the scriptures themselves let him have recourse who may be desirous to prove with the greatest certainty its majesty, from the kind of diction which it adopts: Let him read the charming swan-like Song of Moses described in the concluding chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy: Let him with his mental eyes diligently survey the beginning of Isaiah’s prophecy: Let him in a devout spirit consider the hundred and fourth Psalm. Then, with these, let him compare whatever choice specimens of poetry and eloquence the Greeks and the Romans can produce in the most eminent manner from their archives; and he will be convinced by the most demonstrative evidence, that the latter are productions of the human spirit, and that the former could proceed from none other than the Divine Spirit. Let a man of the greatest genius, and, in erudition, experience, and eloquence, the most accomplished of his race—let such a well instructed mortal enter the lists and attempt to finish a composition at all similar to these writings, and he will find himself at a loss and utterly disconcerted, and his attempt will terminate in discomfiture. That man will then confess, that what St. Paul declared concerning his own manner of speech, and that of his fellow-labourers, may be truly applied to the whole scripture: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (1 Corinthians 2.13)

Jacobus Arminius - Works, Vol. 1 - Oration III

1. THE DIVINITY OF SCRIPTURE

Let scripture itself come forward, and perform the chief part in asserting its own Divinity. Let us inspect its substance and its matter. It is all concerning God and his Christ, and is occupied in declaring the nature of both of them, in further explaining the love, the benevolence, and the benefits which have been conferred by both of them on the human race, or which have yet to be conferred; and prescribing, in return, the duties of men towards their Divine Benefactors. The scripture, therefore, is divine in its object.

(2.) But how is it occupied in treating on these subjects? It explains the nature of God in such a way as to attribute nothing extraneous to it, and nothing that does not perfectly agree with it. It describes the person of Christ in such a manner, that the human mind, on beholding the description, ought to acknowledge, that "such a person could not have been invented or devised by any created intellect," and that it is described with such aptitude, suitableness and sublimnity, as far to exceed the largest capacity of a created understanding. In the same manner the scripture is employed in relating the love of God and Christ towards us, and in giving an account of the benefits which we receive. Thus the Apostle Paul, when he wrote to the Ephesians on these subjects, says, that from his former writings, the extent of "his knowledge of the mystery of Christ" might be manifest to them; (Ephesians 3.4) that is, it was divine, and derived solely from the revelation of God.

Let us contemplate the law in which is comprehended the duty of men towards God. What shall we find, in all the laws of every nation, that is at all similar to this, or (omitting all mention of "equality,") that may be placed in comparison with those ten short sentences? Yet even those commandments, most brief and comprehensive as they are, have been still further reduced to two chief heads—the love of God, and the love of our neighbour. This law appears in reality to have been sketched and written by the right hand of God. That this was actually the case, Moses shews in these words, What nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deuteronomy 4.8)

Moses likewise says, that so great and manifest is the divinity which is inherent in this law, that it compelled the heathen nations, after they had heard it, to declare in ecstatic admiration of it. "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people?" (Deuteronomy 4.6) The scripture, therefore, is completely divine, from the manner in which it treats on those matters which are its subjects.

(3.) If we consider the End, it will as clearly point out to us the divinity of this doctrine. That End is entirely divine, being nothing less than the glory of God and man’s eternal salvation. What can be more equitable than that all things should be referred to him from whom they have derived their origin? What can be more consonant to the wisdom, goodness, and power of God, than that he should restore, to his original integrity, man who had been created by him, but who had by his own fault destroyed himself; and that he should make him a partaker of his own Divine blessedness? If by means of any word God had wished to manifest himself to man, what end of manifestation ought he to have proposed that would have been more honourable to himself and more salutary to man? That the word, therefore, was divinely revealed, could not be discerned by any mark which was better or more legible, than that of its showing to man the way of salvation, taking him as by the hand and leading him into that way, and not ceasing to accompany him until it introduced him to the full enjoyment of salvation: In such a consummation as this, the glory of God most abundantly shines forth and displays itself. He who may wish to contemplate what we are declaring concerning this End, in a small but noble part of this word, should place "the Lord’s Prayer" before the eyes of his mind; he should look most intently upon it; and, as far as that is possible for human eyes, he should thoroughly investigate all its parts and beauties. After he has done this, unless he confess, that in it this double end is proposed in a manner that is at once so nervous, brief, and accurate, as to be above the strength and capacity of every created intelligence, and unless he acknowledge, that this form of prayer is purely divine, he must of necessity have a mind surrounded and enclosed by more than Egyptian darkness.

Jacobus Arminius - Oration III - Part 4

(continued from the previous posting)

Let us now consider this Certainty itself. But since a revelation has been made in the word which has been published, and since the whole of it is contained in that word, (so that This Word is itself our Theology,) we can determine nothing concerning the certainty of Theology in any other way than by offering some explanation concerning our certain apprehension of that word. We will assume it as a fact which is allowed and confirmed, that this word is to be found in no other place than in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament; and we shall on this account confine this certain apprehension of our mind to that word. But in fulfilling this design, three things demand our attentive consideration: First. The Certainty, and the kind of certainty which God requires from us, and by which it is his pleasure that this word should be received and apprehended by us as the Chief Certainty. Secondly. The reasons and arguments by which the truth of that word, which is its divinity, may be proved. Thirdly. How a persuasion of that divinity may be wrought in our minds, and this Certainty may be impressed on our hearts.

I. The Certainty "with which God wishes this word to be received, is that of faith; and it therefore depends on the veracity of him who utters it." By this Certainty "it is received," not only as true, but as divine; and it is not of that involved and mixed kind "of faith" by which any one, without understanding the meanings expressed by the word as by a sign, believes that those books which are contained in the Bible, are divine: for not only is a doubtful opinion opposed to faith, but an obscure and perplexed conception is equally inimical. Neither is it that species "of historical faith" which believes the word to be divine that it comprehends only by a theoretical understanding. But God demands that faith to be given to his word, by which the meanings expressed in this word may be understood, as far as it is necessary for the salvation of men and the glory of God; and may be so assuredly known to be divine, that they may be believed to embrace not only the Chief Truth, but also the Chief Good of man. This faith not only believes that God and Christ exist, it not only gives credence to them when they make declarations of any kind, but it believes in God and Christ when they affirm such things concerning themselves, as, being apprehended by faith, create a belief in God as our Father, and in Christ as our saviour. This we consider to be the office of an understanding that is not merely theoretical, but of one that is practical. For this cause not only is certainty, attributed in the Scriptures to true and living faith, but to it are likewise ascribed both a full assurance (Hebrews 6.2) and trust or confidence (2 Corinthians 3.4) and it is God who requires and demands such a species of certainty and of faith.

II. We may now be permitted to proceed by degrees from this point, to a consideration of those arguments which prove to us the divinity of the word; and to the manner in which the required certainty and faith are produced in our minds. To constitute natural vision we know that, (beside an object capable of being seen,) not only is an external light necessary to shine upon it and to render it visible, but an internal strength of eye is also required, which may receive within itself the form and appearance of the object which has been illuminated by the external light, and may thus be enabled actually to behold it. The same accompaniments are necessary to constitute spiritual vision; for, beside this external light of arguments and reasoning, an internal light of the mind and soul is necessary to perfect this vision of faith. But infinite is the number of arguments on which this world builds and establishes its divinity. We will select and briefly notice a few of those which are more usual, lest by too great a prolixity we become too troublesome and disagreeable to our auditory.

Jacobus Arminius - Oration III - Part 3

(continued from the previous posting)

II. Let these observations [about Certainty] now be applied to our present purpose. The Object of our Theology is God, and Christ in reference to his being God and Man. God is a true Being, and the only necessary one, on account of the necessity of his and he is also a necessary Being, because he will endure to all eternity. The things which are attributed to God in our Theology partly belong to his nature, and partly agree with it by his own free will. By his nature, life, wisdom, goodness, justice, mercy, will and power belong to him, by a natural and absolute necessity. By his free will, all his volitions and actions concerning the creatures agree with his nature, and that immutably; because he willed at the same time, that they should not be retracted or repealed.

All those things which are attributed to Christ, belong to him by the free will of God, but on this condition, that "Christ be the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever," (Hebrews 13.8) entirely exempt from any future change, whether it be that of a subject or its attributes, or of the affection which exists between the two.

All other things, which are found in the whole superior and inferior nature of things, (whether they be considered simply in themselves, or as they are mutually affected among themselves,) do not extend to any degree of this necessity. The truth and necessity of our Theology, therefore, far exceed the necessity of all other sciences, in as much as both these [the truth and necessity,] are situated in the things themselves.

The certainty of the mind, while it is engaged in the act of apprehending and knowing things, cannot exceed the Truth and Necessity of the thing’s themselves; on the contrary, it very often may not reach them, [the truth and necessity,] through some defect in its capacity. For the eyes of our mind are in the same condition with respect to the pure truth of things, as are the eyes of owls with respect to the light of the sun. On this account, therefore, it is of necessity, that the object of no science can be known with greater certainty than that of Theology; but it follows rather, that a knowledge of this object may be obtained with the greatest degree of certainty, if it be presented in a qualified and proper manner to the inspection of the understanding according to its capacity. For this object is not of such a nature and condition as to be presented to the external senses; nor can its attributes, properties, affections, actions and passions be known by means of the observation and experience of the external senses. It is too sublime for them; and the attributes, properties, affections, actions and passions, which agree with it, are so high that the mind, even when assisted by reason and discourse, can neither know it, investigate its attributes, nor demonstrate that they agree with the subject, whatever the principles may be which it has applied, and to whatever causes it may have had recourse, whether they be such as arise from the object itself, from its attributes, or from the agreement which subsists between them.

The Object is known to itself alone; and the whole truth and necessity are properly and immediately known to Him to whom they belong; to God in the first place and in an adequate degree; to Christ, in the second place, through the communication of God. To itself, in an adequate manner, in reference to the knowledge which it has of itself; in an inferior degree to God, in reference to his knowledge of him, [Christ.]

Revelation is therefore necessary by which God may exhibit himself and his Christ as an object of sight and knowledge to our understanding; and this exhibition to be made in such a manner as to unfold at once all their attributes, properties, affections, actions and passions, as far as it is permitted for them to be known, concerning God and his Christ, to our salvation and to their glory; and that God may thus disclose all and every portion of those theorems in which both the subjects themselves and all their attending attributes are comprehended. Revelation is necessary, if it be true that God and his Christ ought to be known, and both of them be worthy to receive Divine honours and worship. But both of them ought to be known and worshipped; the revelation, therefore, of both of them is necessary; and because it is thus necessary, it has been made by God. For if nature, as a partaker and communicator of a good that is only partial, is not deficient in the things that are necessary; how much less ought we even to suspect such a deficiency in God, the Author and Artificer of nature, who is also the Chief Good?

But to inspect this subject a little more deeply and particularly, will amply repay our trouble; for it is similar to the foundation on which must rest the weight of the structure—the other doctrines which follow. For unless it should appear certain and evident, that a revelation has been made, it will be in vain to inquire and dispute about the word in which that revelation has been made and is contained.

1. In the first place, then, the very nature of God most clearly evinces that a revelation has been made of himself and Christ. His nature is good, beneficent, and communicative of his blessedness, whether it be that which proceeds from it by creation, or that which is God himself. But there is no communication made of Divine good, unless God be made known to the understanding, and be desired by the affections and the will. But he cannot become an object of knowledge except by revelation. A revelation, therefore, is made, as a necessary instrument of communication.

2. The necessity of this revelation may in various ways be inferred and taught from the nature and condition of man. First, by nature, man possesses a mind and understanding. But it is just that the mind and understanding should be turned towards their Creator; this, however, cannot be done without a knowledge of the Creator, and such knowledge cannot be obtained except by revelation; a revelation has, therefore, been made.

Secondly, God himself formed the nature of man capable of Divine Good. But in vain would it have had such a capacity, if it might not at some time partake of this Divine Good; but of this the nature of man cannot be made a partaker except by the knowledge of it; the knowledge of this Divine Good has therefore been manifested. Thirdly. It is not possible, that the desire which God has implanted within man should be vain and fruitless. That desire is for the enjoyment of an Infinite Good, which is God; but that Infinite Good cannot be enjoyed, except it be known; a revelation, therefore, has been made, by which it may be known.

3. Let that relation be brought forward which subsists between God and man, and the revelation that has been made will immediately become manifest. God, the Creator of man, has deserved it as his due, to receive worship and honour from the workmanship of his hands, on account of the benefit which he conferred by the act of creation. Religion and piety are due to God, from man his creature; and this obligation is coeval with the very birth of man, as the bond which contains this requisition was given on the very day in which he was created. But religion could not be a human invention. For it is the will of God to receive worship according to the rule and appointment of his own will. A revelation was therefore made, which exacts from man the religion due to God, and prescribes that worship which is in accordance with his pleasure and his honour.

4. If we turn our attention towards Christ, it is amazing how great the necessity of a manifestation appears, and how many arguments immediately present themselves in behalf of a revelation being communicated. Wisdom wishes to be acknowledged as the deviser of the wonderful attempering and qualifying of justice and mercy. Goodness and gracious mercy, as the administrators of such an immense benefit sought to be worshipped and honoured. And power, as the hand-maid of such stupendous wisdom and goodness, and as the executrix of the decree made by both of them, deserved to receive adoration. But the different acts of service which were due to each of them, could not be rendered to them without revelation.

The wisdom, mercy and power of God, have, therefore, been revealed and displayed most copiously in Christ Jesus. He performed a multitude of most wonderful works, by which we might obtain the salvation that we had lost; he endured most horrid torments and inexpressible distress, which, when pleaded in our favour, served to obtain this salvation for us; and by the gift of the Father he was possessed of an abundance of graces, and, at the Divine command, he became the distributor of them. Having, therefore, sustained all these offices for us, it is his pleasure to receive those acknowledgments, and those acts of Divine honour and worship, which are due to him on account of his extraordinary merits.But in vain will he expect the performance of these acts from man, unless he be himself revealed. A revelation of Christ has, therefore, been made.

Consult actual experience, and that will supply you with numberless instances of this manifestation. The devil himself, who is the rival of Christ, has imitated these instances of gracious manifestation, has held converse with men under the name and semblance of the true God, has demanded acts of devotion from them, and prescribed to them a mode of religious worship. We have, therefore, the truth and the necessity of our Theology agreeing together in the highest degree; we have an adequate notion of it in the mind of God and Christ, according to the word which is called emfutov "engrafted." (James 1.21) We have a revelation of this Theology made to men by the word preached; which revelation agrees both with the things themselves and with the notion which we have mentioned, but in a way that is attempered and suited to the human capacity. And as all these are preliminaries to the certainty which we entertain concerning this Theology, it was necessary to notice them in these introductory remarks.

(continued on the next posting)

Jacobus Arminius - Oration III - Part 2

But that our oration may proceed in an orderly course, it will be requisite in the first place briefly to describe Certainty in general; and then to treat at greater length on the Certainty Of Theology.

I. Certainty, then, is a property of the mind or understanding, and a mode of knowledge according to which the mind knows an object as it is, and is certain that it knows that object as it is. It is distinct from Opinion; because it is possible for opinion to know a matter as it is, but its knowledge is accompanied by a suspicion of the opposite falsity. Two things, therefore, are required, to constitute certainty. (1) The truth of the thing itself, and (2) such an apprehension of it in our minds as we have just described. This very apprehension, considered as being formed from the truth of the thing itself, and fashioned according to such truth, is also called Truth on account of the similitude; even as the thing itself is certain, on account of the action of the mind which apprehends it in that manner. Thus do those two things, (certainty and truth,) because of their admirable union, make a mutual transfer of their names, the one to the other.

But truth may in reality be viewed in two aspects—one simple, and the other compound. (1) The former, in relation to a thing as being in the number of entities; (2) the latter, in reference to something [inherent] in a thing, being present with it or one of its circumstantials—or in reference to a thing as producing something else, or as being produced by some other—and if there be any other affections and relations of things among themselves. The process of truth in the mind is after the same manner. Its action is of two kinds. (1) On a simple being or entity which is called "a simple apprehension;" and (2) on a complex being, which is termed composition." The mode of truth is likewise, in reality, two-fold—necessary and contingent; according to which, a thing, whether it be simple or complex, is called "necessary" or "contingent." The necessity of a simple thing is the necessary existence of the thing itself, whether it obtain the place of a subject or that of an attribute. The necessity of a complex thing is the unavoidable and essential disposition and habitude that subsists between the subject and the attribute.

That necessity which, as we have just stated, is to be considered in simple things, exists in nothing except in God and in those things which, although they agree with him in their nature, are yet distinguished from him by our mode of considering them. All other things, whatever may be their qualities, are contingent, from the circumstance of their being brought into action by power; neither are they contingent only by reason of their beginning, but also of their continued duration. Thus the existence of God, is a matter of necessity; his life, wisdom, goodness, justice, mercy, will and power, likewise have a necessary existence. But the existence and preservation of the creatures are not of necessity. Thus also creation, preservation, government, and whatever other acts are attributed to God in respect of his creatures, are not of necessity. The foundation of necessity is the nature of God; the principle of contingency is the free will of the Deity.The more durable it has pleased God to create anything, the nearer is its approach to necessity, and the farther it recedes from contingency; although it never pass beyond the boundaries of contingency, and never reach the inaccessible abode of necessity.

Complex necessity exists not only in God, but also in the things of his creation. It exists in God, partly on account of the foundation of his nature, and partly on account of the principle of his free-will. But its existence in the creatures is only from the free will of God, who at once resolved that this should be the relation and habitude between two created objects. Thus "God lives, understands, and loves," is a necessary truth from his very nature as God. "God is the Creator," "Jesus Christ is the saviour," "An angel is a created spirit endowed with intelligence and will," and "A man is a rational creature," are all necessary truths from the free will of God.

From this statement it appears, that degrees may be constituted in the necessity of a complex truth; that the highest may be attributed to that truth which rests upon the nature of God as its foundation; that the rest, which proceed from the will of God, may be excelled by that which (by means of a greater affection of his will,) God has willed to invest with such right of precedence; and that it may be followed by that which God has willed by a less affection of his will. ...

But the causes of this Certainty are three. For it is produced on the mind, either by the senses, by reasoning and discourse, or by revelation. The first is called the certainty of experience; the second, that of knowledge; and the last, that of faith. The first is the certainty of particular objects which come within the range and under the observation of the senses; the second is that of general conclusions deduced from known principles; and the last is that of things remote from the cognizance both of the senses and reason.

(continued with the next posting)

Jacobus Arminius - Oration III - Part 1

ORATION III

THE CERTAINTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY

Although the observations which I have already offered in explanation of the Object, the Author and the End of sacred Theology, and other remarks which might have been made, if they had fallen into the hands of a competent interpreter, although all of them contain admirable commendations of this Theology, and convince us that it is altogether divine, since it is occupied concerning God, is derived from God, and leads to God; yet they will not be able to excite within the mind of any person a sincere desire of entering upon such a study, unless he be at the same time encouraged by the bright rays of an assured hope of arriving at a knowledge of the desirable Object, and of obtaining the blessed End. For since the perfection of motion is rest, vain and useless will that motion be which is not able to attain rest, the limit of its perfection. But no prudent person will desire to subject himself to vain and useless labour. All our hope, then, of attaining to this knowledge is placed in Divine revelation. For the anticipation of this very just conception has engaged the minds of men, "that God cannot be known except through himself, to whom also there can be no approach but through himself." On this account it becomes necessary to make it evident to man, that a revelation has been made by God; that the revelation which has been given is fortified and defended by such sure and approved arguments, as will cause it to be considered and acknowledged as divine; and that there is a method, by which a man may understand the meanings declared in the word, and may apprehend them by a firm and assured faith. To the elucidation of the last proposition, this third part of our labour must be devoted. God grant that I may in this discourse again follow the guidance of his word as it is revealed in the scriptures, and may bring forth and offer to your notice such things as may contribute to establish our faith, and to promote the glory of God, to the uniting together of all of us in the Lord. I pray and beseech you also, my very famous and most accomplished hearers, not to disdain to favour me with a benevolent and patient hearing, while I deliver this feeble oration in your presence.

As we are now entering upon a consideration of the Certainty of Sacred Theology, it is not necessary that we should contemplate it under the aspect of Legal and Evangelical; for in both of them there is the same measure of the truth, and therefore, the same measure of knowledge, and that is certainty. We will treat on this subject, then, in a general manner, without any particular reference or application.  (continued in following postings)

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration II) - Part 3

THE END OF THEOLOGY

We have been engaged in viewing the Author,: let us now advert to the End. This is the more eminent and divine according to the greater excellence of that matter of which it is the end. In that light, therefore, this science is far more illustrious and transcendent than all others; because it alone has a relation to the life that is spiritual and supernatural, and has an End beyond the boundaries of the present life: while all other sciences have respect to this animal life, and each has an End proposed to itself, extending from the center of this earthly life and included within its circumference....

...But the same person who is the Author and Object, is also the End of Theology. The very proportion and analogy of these things make such a connection requisite. For since the Author is the First and the Chief Being, it is of necessity that he be the First and Chief Good. He is, therefore, the extreme End of all things. And since He, the Chief Being and the Chief Good, subjects, lowers and spreads himself out, as an object to some power or faculty of a rational creature, that by its action or motion it may be employed and occupied concerning him, nay, that it may in a sense be united with him; it cannot possibly be, that the creature, after having performed its part respecting that object, should fly beyond it and extend itself further for the sake of acquiring a greater good. It is, therefore, of necessity that it restrain itself within him, not only as within a boundary beyond which it is impossible for it to pass on account of the infinitude of the object and on account of its own importance, but also as within its End and its Good, beyond which, because they are both the Chief in degree, it neither wishes nor is capable of desiring anything; provided this object be united with it as far as the capacity of the creature will admit. God is, therefore, the End of our Theology, proposed by God himself, in the acts prescribed in it; intended by man in the performance of those actions, and to be bestowed by God, after man shall have piously and religiously performed his duty. But because the chief good was not placed in the promise of it, nor in the desire of obtaining it, but in actually receiving it, the end of Theology may with the utmost propriety be called THE UNION OF GOD WITH MAN.

But it is not an Essential union, as if two essences, (for instance that of God and man,) were compacted together or joined into one, or as that by which man might himself be absorbed into God. The former of these modes of union is prohibited by the very nature of the things so united, and the latter is rejected by the nature of the union. Neither is it a formal union, as if God by that union might be made in the form of man, like a Spirit united to a body imparting to it life and motion, and acting upon it at pleasure, although, by dwelling in the body, it should confer on man the gift of life eternal. But it is an objective union by which God, through the agency of his pre-eminent and most faithful faculties and actions, (all of which he wholly occupies and completely fills,) gives such convincing proofs of himself to man, that God may then be said to be "all in all."

... This union is immediate, and without any bond that is different to the limits themselves. For God unites himself to the understanding and to the will of his creature, by means of himself alone, and without the intervention of image, species or appearance. This is what the nature of this last and supreme union requires, as being that in which consists the Chief Good of a rational creature, which cannot find rest except in the greatest union of itself with God. But by this union, the understanding beholds in the clearest vision, and as if "face to face," God himself, and all his goodness and incomparable beauty. And because a good of such magnitude and known by the clearest vision cannot fail of being loved on its own account; from this very consideration the will embraces it with a more intense love, in proportion to the greater degree of knowledge of it which the mind has obtained.

But here a double difficulty presents itself, which must first be removed, in order that our feet may afterwards without stumbling run along a path that will then appear smooth and to have been for some time well trodden. (1) The one is, "How can it be that the eye of the human understanding does not become dim and beclouded when an object of such transcendent light is presented to it?"  (2) The other is, "How can the understanding, although its eye may not be dim and blinded, receive and contain that object in such great measure and proportion?"

The cause of the first is, that the light exhibits itself to the understanding not in the infinity of its own nature, but in a form that is qualified and attempered. And to what is it thus accommodated? Is it not to the understanding? Undoubtedly, to the understanding; but not according to the capacity which it possessed before the union: otherwise it could not receive and contain as much as would suffice to fill it and make it happy. But it is attempered according to the measure of its extension and enlargement, to admit of which the understanding is exquisitely formed, if it be enlightened and irradiated by the gracious and glorious shining of the light accommodated to that expansion. If it be thus enlightened, the eye of the understanding will not be overpowered and become dim, and it will receive that object in such a vast proportion as will most abundantly suffice to make man completely happy. ... In this act of the mind and will in seeing a present God, in loving him, and therefore in the enjoyment of him, the salvation of man and his perfect happiness consist. To which is added , conformation of our body itself to this glorious state of soul, which, whether it be effected by the immediate action of God on the body, or by means of an agency resulting from the action of the soul on the body, it is neither necessary for us here to inquire, nor at this time to discover. From hence also arises and shines forth illustriously the chief and infinite glory of God, far surpassing all other glory, that he has displayed in every preceding function which he administered. ...

But the observations we have hitherto made on the End of Theology, were accommodated to the manner of that which is legal. We must now consider the End as it is proposed to Evangelical Theology. The End of this is (1) God and Christ, (2) the union of man with both of them, and (3) the sight and fruition of both, to the glory of both Christ and God. On each of these particulars we have some remarks to make from the scriptures, and which most appropriately agree with, and are peculiar to, the Evangelical doctrine.

But before we enter upon these remarks, we must shew that the salvation of man, to the glory of Christ himself, consists also in the love, the sight, and the fruition of Christ. There is a passage in the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, which imposes this necessity upon us, because it appears to exclude Christ from this consideration. For in that place the apostle says, "When Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15.24)

From this passage three difficulties are raised, which must be removed by an appropriate explanation. They are these: (1) "If Christ ‘shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father,’ he will no longer reign himself in person." (2) "If he ‘shall be subject to the Father,’ he will no more preside over his Church:" and (3) "If ‘God shall be all in all,’ then our salvation is not placed in the union, sight and fruition of him."

I will proceed to give a separate answer to each of these objections. The kingdom of Christ embraces two objects: The Mediatorial function of the regal office, and the Regal glory: The ... function, will be laid aside, because there will then be no necessity or use for it, but the royal glory will remain because it was obtained by the acts of the Mediator, and was conferred on him by the Father according to covenant. The same thing is declared by the expression "shall be subject," which here signifies nothing more than the laying aside of the super-eminent power which Christ had received from the Father, and which he had, as the Father’s Vicegerent, administered at the pleasure of his own will: And yet, when he has laid down this power, he will remain, as we shall see, the head and the husband of his Church. That sentence has a similar tendency in which it is said, "God shall be ALL IN ALL." ... Therefore, on the authority of this passage, nothing is taken away from Christ which we have been wishful to attribute to him in this discourse according to the scriptures.

... Christ promises an union with himself in these words, "If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14. 23) Here is a promise of good: therefore the good of the Church is likewise placed in union with Christ; and an abode is promised, not admitting of termination by the bounds of this life, but which will continue for ever, and shall at length, when this short life is ended, be consummated in heaven. ... For the union, which had commenced here on earth, will then at length be consummated and perfected.

If any one entertain doubts concerning the vision of Christ, let him listen to Christ in this declaration: "He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14.21) Christ ... promises to his followers the sight of his glory, as something salutary to them; and his Father is intreated to grant this favour. ...

... the fruition of Christ is sufficiently established by the same passages as those by which the sight of him is confirmed ... Since eternal felicity is called by the name of "the supper of the lamb," and is emphatically described by this term, "the marriage of the Lamb," I think it is taught with adequate clearness in these expressions, that happiness consists in the fruition or enjoyment of the Lamb.

...Having finished the proof of those expressions, the truth of which we engaged to demonstrate, we will now proceed to fulfill our promise of explanation, and to show that all and each of these benefits descend to us in a peculiar and more excellent manner, from Evangelical Theology, than they could have done from that which is Legal, if by it we could really have been made alive.

2. And, that we may, in the first place, dispatch the subject of Union, let the brief remarks respecting marriage which we have just made, be brought again to our remembrance. For that word more appropriately honours this union, and adorns it with a double and remarkable privilege; one part of which consists of a deeper combination, the other of a more glorious title. ...

... From such an union as this, there arises, not only a communion of blessings, but a previous communion of the persons themselves; from which the possession of blessings is likewise assigned, by a more glorious title, to her who is united in the bonds of marriage. The church comes into a participation not only of the blessings of Christ, but also of his title. For, being the wife of the King, she enjoys it as a right due to her to be called QUEEN; which dignified appellation the scripture does not withhold from her. ...

... But there would have been no necessity for this union, if righteousness and salvation had come to us by the law. That was, therefore, a happy necessity, which, out of compassion to the emergency of our wretched condition, the divine condescension improved to our benefit, and filled with such a plenitude of dignity! But the manner of this our union with Christ is no small addition to that union which is about to take place between us and God the Father. This will be evident to any one who considers what and how great is the bond of mutual union between Christ and the Father.

3. If we turn our attention to sight or vision, we shall meet with two remarkable characters which are peculiar to Evangelical Theology.

(1) In the first place, the glory of God, as if accumulated and concentrated together into one body, will be presented to our view in Christ Jesus; which glory would otherwise have been dispersed throughout the most spacious courts of a "heaven immense;" much in the same manner as the light, which had been created on the first day, and equally spread through the whole hemisphere, was on the fourth day collected, united and compacted together into one body, and offered to the eyes as a most conspicuous and shining object. ...

(2) We shall then not only contemplate, in God himself, the most excellent properties of his nature, but shall also perceive that all of them have been employed in and devoted to the procuring of this good for us, which we now possess in hope, but which we shall in reality then possess by means of this union and open vision.

The excellence, therefore, of this vision far exceeds that which could have been by the law; and from this source arises a fruition of greater abundance and more delicious sweetness. For, as the light in the sun is brighter than that in the stars, so is the sight of the sun, when the human eye is capable of bearing it, more grateful and acceptable, and the enjoyment of it is far more pleasant. From such a view of the Divine attributes, the most delicious sweetness of fruition will seem to be doubled. For the first delight will arise from the contemplation of properties so excellent; the other from the consideration of that immeasurable condescension by which it has pleased God to unfold all those his properties, and the whole of those blessings which he possesses in the exhaustless and immeasurable treasury of his riches, and to give this explanation, that he may procure salvation for man and may impart it to his most miserable creature. This will then be seen in as strong a light, as if the whole of that which is essentially God appeared to exist for the sake of man alone, and for his solo benefit.

There is also the addition of this peculiarity concerning it: "Jesus Christ shall change our vile body, [the body of our humiliation,] that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. (Philippians 3.21) ... Hence it is, that all things are said to be made new in Christ Jesus. (2 Corinthians 5.17)...

... Who does not now see, how greatly the felicity prepared for us by Christ, and offered to us through Evangelical Theology excels that which would have come to us by "the righteousness of the law," if indeed it had been possible for us to fulfill it? ...

... That I may not be yet more prolix, I leave it as a subject of reflection to the devoted piety of your private meditations, most accomplished auditors, to estimate the vast and amazing greatness of the glory of God which has here manifested itself, and to calculate the glory due from us to him for such transcendent goodness.

In the mean time, let all of us, however great our number, consider with a devout and attentive mind, what duty is required of us by this doctrine, which having received its manifestation from God and Christ, plainly and fully announces to us such a great salvation, and to the participation of which we are most graciously invited. It requires to be received, understood, believed, and fulfilled, in deed and in reality. It is worthy of all acceptation, on account of its Author; and necessary to be received on account of its End.

1. Being delivered by so great an Author, it is worthy to be received with a humble and submissive mind; to have much diligence and care bestowed on a knowledge and perception of it; and not to be laid aside from the hand, the mind, or the heart, until we shall have "obtained the End of it—THE SALVATION OF OUR SOULS." ...

... 2. To all the preceding considerations, let the End of this doctrine be added, and it will be of the greatest utility in enforcing this the work of persuasion on minds that are not prodigal of their own proper and Chief Good—an employment in which its potency and excellence are most apparent. Let us reflect, for what cause God has brought us out of darkness into this marvelous light; has furnished us with a mind, understanding, and reason; and has adorned us with his image. Let this question be revolved in our minds, "For what purpose or End has God restored the fallen to their pristine state of integrity, reconciled sinners to himself, and received enemies into favour," and we shall plainly discover all this to have been done, that we might be made partakers of eternal salvation, and might sing praises to him forever. ...

But we shall not be able to aspire after this End, much less to attain it, except in the way which is pointed out by that Theological Doctrine which has been the topic of our discourse. If we wander from this End, our wanderings from it extend, not only beyond the whole earth and sea, but beyond heaven itself... This doctrine is "the gate of heaven..."  ...Let us enter into this gate; let us ascend this ladder; and let us cling to this chain. Ample and wide is the opening of the gate, and it will easily admit believers; the position of the ladder is movable, and will not suffer those who ascend it to be shaken or moved; the joining which unites one link of the chain with another is indissoluble, and will not permit those to fall down who cling to it,...

But on you, O chosen youths, this care is a duty peculiarly incumbent; for God has destined you to become "workers together with him," in the manifestation of the gospel, and instruments to administer to the salvation of others. Let the Majesty of the Holy Author of your studies, and the necessity of the End, be always placed before your eyes. ...

...If you [follow the scriptures], "they will make you that you shall not be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ; (2 Peter 1.8) but you will become good ministers of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine; (1 Timothy 4.6) and ready to every good work; (Titus 3.1) workmen who need not to be ashamed;" (2 Timothy 2.15) sowing the gospel with diligence and patience; and returning to your Lord with rejoicing, bringing with you an ample harvest, through the blessing of God and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: to whom be praise and glory from this time, even forever more! Amen !

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration II) - Part 2

Being about to treat of the Author [of Theology], I will not collect together the lengthened reports of his well merited praises, for with you this is unnecessary. I will only declare (1.) Who the Author is; (2.) In what respect he is to be considered; (3.) Which of his properties were employed by him in the revelation of Theology; and (4.) In what manner he has made it know.

I. We have considered the Object of Theology in regard to two particulars. And that each part of our subject may properly and exactly answer to the other, we may also consider its Author in a two-fold respect—that of Legal and of Evangelical Theology. In both cases, the same person is the Author and the Object ...

... 1. Scripture describes to us the Author of legal theology before the fall in these words: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:" (Genesis 2.16-17) A threat was added in express words, in case the man should transgress, and a promise, in the type of the tree of life, if he complied with the command. But there are two things, which, as they preceded this act of legislation, should have been previously known by man: (1.) The nature of God, which is wise, good, just, and powerful; (2.) The authority by which he issues his commands, the right of which rests on the act of creation. Of both these, man had a previous knowledge, from the manifestation of God, who familiarly conversed with him, and held communication with his own image through [the] Spirit ...

2. The same thing is evinced by the nature of the object. For since God is the Author of the universe, ... his excellence and dignity must necessarily far exceed the capacity of the universe, and, for the same reason, that of man. On this account, he is said in scripture, "to dwell in the light unto which no man can approach." (1 Timothy 6.16) ...

Nor is he himself alone inaccessible, but, as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts." (Isaiah 55.9) ... Those actions, therefore, could not have been made known and understood, in the manner in which it is allowable to know and understand them, except by the revelation of God. ... But the thoughts of God, and his will, (both that will which he wishes to be done by us, and that which he has resolved to do concerning us,) are of free disposition, which is determined by the divine power and liberty inherent in himself; and since he has, in all this, called in the aid of no counselor, those thoughts and that will are of necessity "unsearchable and past finding out." (Romans 11.33) Of these, Legal Theology consists; and as they could not be known before the revelation of them proceeded from God, it is evidently proved that God is its Author. ...

II. Let us now look at Evangelical Theology. We have made the Author of it to be Christ and God, at the command of the same scriptures as those which establish the divine claims of Legal Theology, and because the nature of the object requires it with the greater justice, in proportion as that object is the more deeply hidden in the abyss of the divine wisdom, and as the human mind is the more closely surrounded and enveloped with the shades of ignorance.

(1.) Exceedingly numerous are the passages of scripture which serve to aid and strengthen us in this opinion. We will enumerate a few of them: First, those which ascribe the manifestation of this doctrine to God the Father; Then, those which ascribe it to Christ. ...

(2.) Let us consider the necessity of this manifestation from the nature of its Object.  This is indicated by Christ when speaking of Evangelical Theology, in these words: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son." (Matthew 11.27) Therefore no man can reveal the Father or the Son, and yet in the knowledge of them are comprised the glad tidings of the gospel.  ... [T]he Object of Evangelical Theology must have been revealed by God and Christ, or it must otherwise have remained hidden and surrounded by perpetual darkness; or, (which is the same thing,) that Evangelical Theology would not have come within the range of our knowledge, and, on that account, as a necessary consequence, there could have been none at all.

If it be an agreeable occupation to any person, (and such it must always prove,) to look more methodically and distinctly through each part, let him cast the eyes of his mind on those properties of the Divine Nature which this Theology displays, clothed in their own appropriate mode; let him consider those action of God which this doctrine brings to light, and that will of God which he has revealed in his gospel: When he has done this, (and of much more than this the subject is worthy,) he will more distinctly understand the necessity of the Divine manifestation.

If any one would adopt a compendious method, let him only contemplate Christ; and when he has diligently observed that admirable union of the Word and Flesh, his investiture into office and the manner in which its duties were executed; when he has at the same time reflected, that the whole of these arrangements and proceedings are in consequence of the voluntary economy, regulation, and free dispensation of God; he cannot avoid professing openly, that the knowledge of all these things could not have been obtained except by means of the revelation of God and Christ. ...

... But there is another consideration in the manifestation of the gospel, not indeed with respect to the persons testifying, but in regard to the manner in which they come to be considered. For the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, have not only a natural relation among themselves, but another likewise which derives its origin from the will; yet the latter entirely agrees with the natural relation that subsists among them. There is an internal procession in the persons; and there is an external one, which is called in the scriptures and in the writings of the Father, by the name of "Mission" or "sending." To the latter mode of procession, special regard must be had in this revelation. For the Father manifests the Gospel through his Son and Spirit.

(i.) He manifests it through the Son, as to his being, sent for the purpose of performing the office of Mediator between God and sinful men; as to his being the Word made flesh, and God manifest in the flesh; and as to his having died, and to his being raised again to life, whether that was done in reality, or only in the decree and foreknowledge of God.

(ii.) He also manifests it through his Spirit, as to his being the Spirit of Christ, whom he asked of his Father by his passion and his death, and whom he obtained when he was raised from the dead, and placed at the right hand of the Father. ...

III. But the revelation of Evangelical Theology is attributed to Christ in regard to his Mediatorship, and to the Holy Ghost in regard to his being the appointed substitute and Advocate of Christ the Mediator. This is done most consistently and for a very just reason, both because Christ, as Mediator, is placed for the ground-work of this doctrine, and because in the duty of mediation those actions were to be performed, those sufferings endured, and those blessings asked and obtained, which complete a goodly portion of the matters that are disclosed in the gospel of Christ. No wonder, therefore, that Christ in this respect, (in which he is himself the object of the gospel,) should likewise be the revealer of it, and the person who asks and procures all evangelical graces, and who is at once the Lord of them and the communicator. And since the Spirit of Christ, our Mediator and our head, is the bond of our union with Christ, from which we also obtain communion with Christ, and a participation in all his blessings—it is just and reasonable, that, in the respect which we have just mentioned, Christ should reveal to our minds, and seal upon our hearts, the evangelical charter and evidence of that faith by which he dwelleth in our hearts. The consideration of this matter exhibits to us (1.) the cause why it is possible for God to restrain himself with such great forbearance, patience, and long suffering, until the gospel is obeyed by those to whom it is preached; and (2.) it affords great consolation to our ignorance and infirmities....

...IV. We have seen that, (1.) God is the Author of Legal Theology; and God and his Christ, that of Evangelical Theology. We have seen at the same time (2.) in what respect God and Christ are to be viewed in making known this revelation, and (3.) according to what properties of the Divine Nature of both of them it has been perfected.

We will now just glance at the Manner. The manner of the Divine manifestation appears to be threefold, according , the three instruments or organs of our capacity. (1.) The External Senses, (2.) The Inward Fancy or Imagination, and (3.) The Mind or Understanding. God sometimes reveals himself and his will by an image or representation offered to the external sight, or through an audible speech or discourse addressed to the ear. Sometimes he introduces himself by the same method to the imagination; and sometimes he addresses the mind in a manner ineffable, which is called Inspiration. Of all these modes scripture most clearly supplies us with luminous examples. But time will not permit me to be detained in enumerating them, lest I should appear to be yet more tedious to this most accomplished assembly.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration II) - Part 1

ORATION II

THE AUTHOR AND THE END OF THEOLOGY

They who are conversant with the demonstrative species of oratory, and choose for themselves any subject of praise or blame, must generally be engaged in removing from themselves, what very readily assails the minds of their auditors, a suspicion that they are impelled to speak by some immoderate feeling of love or hatred; and in showing that they are influenced rather by an approved judgment of the mind; and that they have not followed the ardent flame of their will, but the clear light of their understanding, which accords with the nature of the subject which they are discussing. But to me such a course is not necessary. For that which I have chosen for the subject of my commendation, easily removes from me all ground for such a suspicion.

I do not deny, that here indeed I yield to the feeling of love; but it is on a matter which if any one does not love, he hates himself, and perfidiously prostitutes the life of his soul. Sacred Theology is the subject whose excellence and dignity I now celebrate in this brief and unadorned Oration; and which, I am convinced, is to all of you an object of the greatest regard. Nevertheless, I wish to raise it, if possible, still higher in your esteem. This, indeed, its own merit demands; this the nature of my office requires. Nor is it any part of my study to amplify its dignity by ornaments borrowed from other objects; for to the perfection of its beauty can be added nothing extraneous that would not tend to its degradation and loss of its comeliness. I only display such ornaments as are, of themselves, its best recommendation. These are, its Object, its Author, its End and its Certainty. Concerning the Object, we have already declared [in Oration I] whatever the Lord had imparted; and we will now speak of its Author and its End. God grant that I may ,follow the guidance of this Theology in all respects, and may advance nothing except what agrees with its nature, is worthy of God and useful to you, to the glory of his name, and to the uniting of all of us together in the Lord. I pray and beseech you also, my most excellent and courteous hearers, that you will listen to me, now when I am beginning to speak on the Author, and the End of Theology, with the same degree of kindness and attention as that which you evinced when you heard my preceding discourse on its Object.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 11

I am fully aware that this animal life requires the discharge of various functions; that the superintendence of them must be entrusted to those persons who will execute each of them to the common advantage of the republic; and that the knowledge necessary for the right management of all such duties, can only be acquired by continued study and much labour. But if the very persons to whom the management of these concerns has been officially committed, will acknowledge the important principle—that in preference to all others, those things should be sought which appertain to the kingdom of God and his righteousness, (Matthew 6.33), they will confess that their ease and leisure, their meditations and cares, should yield the precedence to this momentous study.

Though David himself was the king of a numerous people, and entangled in various wars, yet he never ceased to cultivate and pursue this study in preference to all others. To the benefit which he had derived from such a judicious practice, he attributes the portion of wisdom which he had obtained, and which was "greater than that of his enemies." (Psalm 119.98), and by it also "he had more understanding than all his teachers." (Psalm 119.99)

The three most noble treatises which Solomon composed, are to the present day read by the Church with admiration and thanksgiving; and they testify the great advantage which the royal author obtained from a knowledge of Divine things, while he was the chief magistrate of the same people on the throne of his Father....

...But these our admonitions more particularly concern you, most excellent and learned youths, who, by the wish of your parents or patrons, and at your own express desire, have been devoted, set apart, and consecrated to this study; not to cultivate it merely with diligence, for the sake of promoting your own salvation, but that you may at some future period be qualified to engage in the eligible occupation, (which is most pleasing to God,) of teaching, instructing, and edifying the Church of the saints—"which is the body of Christ, and the fullness of him that filleth all in all." (Ephesians 1.23) ... 

...Propose to yourselves for imitation that chosen instrument of Christ, the Apostle Paul, whom you with the greater willingness acknowledge as your teacher, and who professes himself to be inflamed with such an intense desire of knowing Christ, that he not only held every worldly thing in small estimation when put in competition with this knowledge, but also "suffered the loss of all things, that he might win the knowledge of Christ." (Philippians 3.8)

Look at Timothy, his disciple, whom he felicitates on this account—"that from a child he had known the holy scriptures." (2 Timothy 3.15) You have already attained to a share of the same blessedness; and you will make further advances in it, if you determine to receive the admonitions, and to execute the charge, which that great teacher of the Gentiles addresses to his Timothy.

But this study requires not only diligence, but holiness, and a sincere desire to please God. For the object which you handle, into which you are looking, and which you wish to know, is sacred—nay, it is the holy of holies. To pollute sacred things, is highly indecent; it is desirable that the persons by whom such things are administered, should communicate to them no taint of defilement. ...

This caution should be re-iterated by you, for a more solid and lawful reason when you proceed to offer sacrifices to God Most High, and to his Christ, before whom also the holy choir of angels repeat aloud that thrice-hallowed song, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!" While you are engaged in this study, do not suffer your minds to be enticed away by other pursuits and to different objects. Exercise yourselves, continue to exercise yourselves in this, with a mind intent upon what has been proposed to you according to the design of this discourse. If you do this, in the course of a short time you will not repent of your labour; but you will make such progress in the way of the knowledge of the Lord, as will render you useful to others. ...

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 10

The necessity of faith in the cross does not arise from the circumstance of the doctrine of the cross being preached and propounded to men; but, since faith in Christ is necessary according to the decree of God, the doctrine of the cross is preached, that those who believe in it may be saved. Not only on account of the decree of God is faith in Christ necessary, but it is also necessary on account of the promise made unto Christ by the Father, and according to the Covenant which was ratified between both of them. This is the word of that promise: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance." (Psalm 2.8) But the inheritance of Christ is the multitude of the faithful; "the people, who, in the days of his power shall willingly come to him, in the beauties of holiness." (Psalm 110.3) "in thee shall all nations be blessed; so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." (Galalatians 3.8-9) In Isaiah it is likewise declared, "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. He shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself [which is faith in him] shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53.10-11) Christ adduces the covenant which has been concluded with the Father, and founds a plea upon it when he says, "Father glorify thy Son; that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal." (John 17.1-4)

Christ therefore by the decree, the promise and the covenant of the Father, has been constituted the saviour of all that believe on him, according to the declaration of the Apostle: "And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation, to all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5.9) This is the reason why the Gentiles without Christ are said to be "alien from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." Yet through faith "those who some time were thus afar off and in darkness" are said to be made nigh, and "are now light in the Lord." (Ephesians 2.12-13; 5.8) It is requisite, therefore, earnestly to contend for the Necessity of the Christian religion, as for the altar and the anchor of our salvation, lest, after we have suffered the Son to be taken away from us and from our Faith, we should also be deprived of the Father:

"For whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." (1 John 2.23) But if we in the slightest degree connive at the diminution or limitation of this Necessity, Christ himself will be brought into contempt among Christians, his own professing people; and will at length be totally denied and universally renounced. For it is not an affair of difficulty to take away the merit of salvation, and the power to save from Him to whom we are not compelled by any necessity to offer our oaths of allegiance. Who believes, that it is not necessary to return thanks to him who has conferred a benefit? Nay, who will not openly and confidently profess, that he is not the Author of salvation whom it is not necessary to acknowledge in that capacity. The union, therefore, of both the objects, God and Christ, must be strongly urged and enforced in our Christian Theology; nor is it to be endured that under any pretext they be totally detached and removed from each other, unless we wish Christ himself to be separated and withdrawn from us, and for us to be deprived at once of him and of our own salvation.

The present subject would require us briefly to present to your sight all and each of those parts of which the consideration of this object ought to consist, and the order in which they should be placed before our eyes; but I am unwilling to detain this most famous and crowded auditory by a more prolix oration.

Since, therefore, thus wonderfully great are the dignity, majesty, splendour and plenitude of Theology, and especially of our Christian Theology, by reason of its double object which is God and Christ, it is just and proper that all those who glory in the title of "men formed in the image of God," or in the far more august title of "Christians" and "men regenerated after the image of God and Christ, should most seriously and with ardent desire apply themselves to the knowledge of this Theology; and that they should think no object more worthy, pleasant, or useful than this, to engage their labourious attention or to awaken their energies. For what can be more pleasant, than to be continually irradiated and enlightened by the salutary beams of his Divine Pattern? What is more useful than, by such illumination, to be assimilated yet more and more to the heavenly Original? Indeed there is not any thing the knowledge of which can be more useful than this is, in the very search for it; or, when discovered, can be more profitable to the possessor. What employment is more becoming and honourable in a creature, a servant, and a son than to spend whole days and nights in obtaining a knowledge of God his Creator, his Lord, and his Father? What can be more decorous and comely in those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ, and who are sanctified by his Spirit, than diligently and constantly to meditate upon Christ, and always to carry him about in their minds, and hearts, and also on their tongues?

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 9

(continued from the previous posting)

Secondly, having seen the subordination of both the objects of Christian Theology, let us in a few words advert to its Necessity. This derives its origin from the comparison of our contagion and vicious depravity, with the sanctity of God that is incapable of defilement, and with the inflexible rigor of his justice, which completely separates us from him by a gulf so great as to render it impossible for us to be united together while at such a vast distance, or for a passage to be made from us to him—unless Christ had trodden the wine press of the wrath of God, and by the streams of his most precious blood, plentifully flowing from the pressed, broken, and disparted veins of his body, had filled up that otherwise impassable gulf, "and had purged our consciences, sprinkled with his own blood, from all dead works " (Hebrews 9.14, 22); that, being thus sanctified, we might approach to "the living God and might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life." (Luke 1.75)

But such is the great Necessity of this subordination, that, unless our faith be in Christ, it cannot be in God: The Apostle Peter says, "By him we believe in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God." (1 Peter 1.21). On this account the faith also which we have in God, was prescribed, not by the law, but by the gospel of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is properly "the word of faith" and "the word of promise."

The consideration of this necessity is of infinite utility, (i) both in producing confidence in the consciences of believers, trembling at the sight of their sins, as appears most evidently from our preceding observations; (ii) and in establishing the necessity of the Christian Religion. I account it necessary to make a few remarks on this latter topic, because they are required by the nature of our present purpose and of the Christian Religion itself.

I observe, therefore, that not only is the intervention of Christ necessary to obtain salvation from God, and to impart it unto men, but the faith of Christ is also necessary to qualify men for receiving this salvation at his hands; not that faith in Christ by which he may be apprehended under the general notion of the wisdom, power, goodness and mercy of God, but that faith which was announced by the Apostles and recorded in their writings, and in such a saviour as was preached by those primitive heralds of salvation.

I am not in the least influenced by the argument by which some persons profess themselves induced to adopt the opinion, "that a faith in Christ thus particular and restricted, which is required from all that become the subjects of salvation, agrees neither with the amplitude of God’s mercy, nor with the conditions of his justice, since many thousands of men depart out of this life, before even the sound of the Gospel of Christ has reached their ears." For the reasons and terms of Divine Justice and Mercy are not to be determined by the limited and shallow measure of our capacities or feelings; but we must leave with God the free administration and just defense of these his own attributes. The result, however, will invariably prove to be the same, in what manner soever he may be pleased to administer those divine properties—for, "he will always overcome when he is judged." (Romans 3.4). Out of his word we must acquire our wisdom and information. In primary, and certain secondary matters this word describes—the Necessity of faith in Christ, according to the appointment of the just mercy and the merciful justice of God. "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." (John 3.36) This is not an account of the first kindling of the wrath of God against this willful unbeliever; for he had then deserved the most severe expressions of that wrath by the sins which he had previously committed against the law; and this wrath "abides upon him," on account of his continued unbelief, because he had been favoured with the opportunity as well as the power of being delivered from it, through faith in the Son of God. Again: If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 6.24) And, in another passage, Christ declares, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17.3) The Apostle says, "It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." That preaching thus described is the doctrine of the cross, "to the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness:

But unto them which are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1.21-24) This wisdom and this power are not those attributes which God employed when he formed the world, for Christ is here plainly distinguished from them; but they are the wisdom and the power revealed in that gospel which is eminently "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." (Romans 1.16) Not only, therefore, is the cross of Christ necessary to solicit and procure redemption, but the faith of the cross is also necessary in order to obtain possession of it.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 8

... How shall we be able to adore, worship and invoke [Jesus Christ], unless "we believe on him? How can we believe in him, unless we hear of him? And how can we hear concerning him," except he be revealed to us by the word? (Romans 10.14). From this cause, then, arose the necessity of making a revelation concerning Jesus Christ; and on this account two objects, (that is, God and his Christ,) are to be placed as a foundation to that Theology which will sufficiently contribute towards the salvation of sinners, according to the saying of our saviour Christ: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom than hast sent." (John 17.3). Indeed, these two objects are not of such a nature as that the one may be separated from the other, or that the one may be collaterally joined to the other; but the latter of them is, in a proper and suitable manner, subordinate to the former. Here then we have a Theology, which, from Christ, its object, is most rightfully and deservedly termed Christian, which is manifested not by the Law, but in the earliest ages by promise, and in these latter days by the Gospel, which is called that "of Jesus Christ," although the words (Christian and Legal) are sometimes confounded. But let us consider the union and the subordination of both these objects.

I. Since we have God and his Christ for the object of our Christian Theology, the manner in which Legal Theology explains God unto us, is undoubtedly much amplified by this addition, and our Theology is thus infinitely ennobled above that which is legal.

For God has unfolded in Christ all his own goodness. "For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fullness dwell;" (Colossians 1.19), and that the "fullness of the Godhead should dwell in him," not by adumbration or according to the shadow, but "bodily:" For this reason he is called "the image of the invisible God;" (Colossians 1.15)...  For those things which lay hidden and indiscernible within the Father, like the fine and deep traces in an engraved seal, stand out, become prominent, and may be most clearly and distinctly seen in Christ, as in an exact and protuberant impression, formed by the application of a deeply engraved seal on the substance to be impressed.

1. In this Theology God truly appears, in the highest degree, the best and the greatest of Beings:

(1) The Best, cause he is not only willing, as in the former Theology, to communicate himself (for the happiness of men,) to those who correctly discharge their duty, but to receive into his favour and to reconcile to himself those who are sinners, wicked, unfruitful, and declared enemies, and to bestow eternal life on them when they repent.

(2) The Greatest, because he has not only produced all things from nothing, through the annihilation of the latter, and the creation of the former, but because he has also effected a triumph over sin, (which is far more noxious than nothing, and conquered with greater difficulty,) by graciously pardoning it, and powerfully putting it away;" and because he has "brought in everlasting righteousness," by means of a second creation, and a regeneration which far exceeded the capacity of "the law that acted as schoolmaster." (Galatians 3.24). For this cause Christ is called "the wisdom and the power of God," (1 Corinthians 1.24)...

(3) In this Theology, God is described to us as in every respect immutable, not only in regard to his nature but also to his will, which, as it has been manifested in the gospel, is peremptory and conclusive, and, being the last of all, is not to be corrected by another will. For "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever"; (Hebrews 13.8) ...  Under the law, the state of this matter was very different, and that greatly to our ultimate advantage. For if the will of God unfolded in the law had been fatal to us, as well as the last expression of it, we, of all men most miserable, should have been banished forever from God himself on account of that declaration of his will; and our doom would have been in a state of exile from our salvation. I would not seem in this argument to ascribe any mutability to the will of God. I only place such a termination and boundary to his will, or rather to something willed by him...

2. This Theology offers God in Christ as an object of our sight and knowledge, with such clearness, splendour and plainness, that we with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 3.18). In comparison with this brightness and glory, which was so pre-eminent and surpassing, the law itself is said not to have been either bright or glorious ... For it "had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth." (2 Corinthians 3.8). This was indeed "the wisdom of God which was kept secret since the world began :" (1 Corinthians 2.7, Romans 16.25). Great and inscrutable is this mystery; yet it is exhibited in Christ Jesus, and "made manifest" with such luminous clearness, that God is said to have been "manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3.16) ...

3. The Object of our Theology being clothed in this manner, so abundantly fills the mind and satisfies the desire, that the apostle openly declares, he was determined "to know nothing among the Corinthians save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2.2)... 

II. Having finished that part of our subject which related to this Union, let us now proceed to the Subordination which subsists between these two objects. We will first inspect the nature of this subordination, and then its necessity:

First. Its nature consists in this, that every saving communication which God has with us, or which we have with God, is performed by means of the intervention of Christ.

1. The communication which God holds with us is (i) either in his benevolent affection towards us, or, (ii) in his gracious decree concerning us, or, (iii) in his saving efficacy in us. In all these particulars, Christ comes in as a middle man between the parties. For (i) when God is willing to communicate to us the affection of his goodness and mercy, he looks upon his Anointed One ... (ii) When he is pleased to make some gracious decree of his goodness and mercy, he interposes Christ between the purpose and the accomplishment, to announce his pleasure ... (iii) When he is willing out of this abundant affection to impart to us some blessing, according to his gracious decree, it is through the intervention of the same Divine person. For in Christ as our Head, the Father has laid up all these treasures and blessings; and they do not descend to us, except through him, or rather by him, as the Father’s substitute, who administers them with authority, and distributes them according to his own pleasure.

2. But the communication which we have with God, is also made by the intervention of Christ. It consists of three degrees - access to God, cleaving to him, and the enjoyment of him.

These three particulars become the objects of our present consideration, as it is possible for them to be brought into action in this state of human existence, and as they may execute their functions by means of faith, hope, and that charity which is the offspring of faith.

(1) Three things are necessary to this access; (i) that God be in a place to which we may approach; (ii) that the path by which we may come to him be a high-way and a safe one; and (iii) that liberty be granted to us and boldness of access. All these facilities have been procured for us by the mediation of Christ.

(i) For the Father dwelleth in light inaccessible, and sits at a distance beyond Christ on a throne of rigid justice, which is an object much too formidable in appearance for the gaze of sinners; yet he hath appointed Christ to be "apropitiation. through faith in his blood" (Romans 3.25) ... 

(ii) It is the same Lord Jesus Christ who "hath not only through his flesh consecrated for us a new and living way," by which we may go to the Father, (Hebrews 10.20), but who is likewise "himself the way" which leads in a direct and unerring manner to the Father. (John 14.6).

(iii) "By the blood of Jesus" we have liberty of access, nay we are permitted "to enter into the holiest," and even "within the veil whither Christ, as a High Priest presiding over the house of God and our fore runner, is entered for us,." (Hebrews 5.20), that "we may draw near with a true heart, in the sacred and full assurance of faith, (Hewbrews 10.22), and may with great confidence of mind "come boldly unto the throne of grace." (Hebrews 4.16). Have we therefore prayers to offer to God? Christ is the High Priest who displays them before the Father. He is also the altar from which, after being placed on it, they will ascend as incense of a grateful odour to God our Father. Are sacrifices of thanksgiving to be offered to God? They must be offered through Christ... Are good works to be performed? We must do them through the Spirit of Christ, that they may obtain the recommendation of him as their author; and they must be sprinkled with his blood, that they may not be rejected by the Father on account of their deficiency.

(2) But it is not sufficient for us only to approach to God; it is likewise good for us to cleave to him. To confirm this act of cleaving and to give it perpetuity, it ought to depend upon a communion of nature. But with God we have no such communion. Christ, however, possesses it, and we are made possessors of it with Christ ...

(3) The enjoyment remains to be considered. It is a true, solid and durable taste of the Divine goodness and sweetness in this life, not only perceived by the mind and understanding, but likewise by the heart, which is the seat of all the affections. Neither does this become ours, except in Christ, by whose Spirit dwelling in us that most divine testimony is pronounced in our hearts, that "we are the children of God, and heirs of eternal life." (Romans 8.16). On hearing this internal testimony, we conceive joy ineffable, "possess our souls in hope and patience," and in all our straits and difficulties we call upon God and cry, Abba Father, with an earnest expectation of our final access to God, of the consummation of our abiding in him and our cleaving to him, (by which we shall have "all in all,") and of the most blessed fruition, which will consist of the clear and unclouded vision of God himself. But the third division of our present subject, will be the proper place to treat more fully on these topics.

(continued on the next posting)

Moral Side of the News (December 7, 2008) - Atheists sue Kentucky over reference to God

Ten Kentucky residents and the national American Atheists Inc. are suing to overturn Kentucky legislation "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."  The suit says the legislation, passed with little notice in 2006 to create the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, is "grossly, and outrageously, at variance with" with Kentucky and U.S. constitutional bans on government-sponsored religion.

 In addition to seeking to have the legislation overturned, the plaintiffs are seeking financial damages, saying they "suffer anxiety from the belief that the existence of these unconstitutional laws suggest that their very safety as residents of Kentucky may be in the hands of fanatics, traitors, or fools."

At issue are two clauses inserted in a floor amendment by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, and approved by lawmakers.  One clause says the "safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God" and cites statements to that effect by Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.  A permanent plaque quoting that text is posted at the state's Emergency Operations Center, as required by the clause.

The other clause, listing the executive director's duties, begins with a requirement to publicize "the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."  

 What do you think? Do the law’s critics have a point about state promotion of religion, or are this another attempt to deny the country’s and the state’s religious heritage? What about the attempt to collect financial damages on the grounds that the plaintiffs "suffer anxiety from the belief that the existence of these unconstitutional laws suggest that their very safety as residents of Kentucky may be in the hands of fanatics, traitors, or fools."

Let us first be aware of the tactics of the Left that are being displayed in this and other instances.  The Left cannot amass a majority of voters in the political process, so they seek to rule by judicial fiat.  This suit is just one of many examples of the attempt by the Left to rule over the majority.  Of course, they believe that it is for our own good.

The suit also takes stereotypical Leftist approach in attempting to demonize their opponents.  The lack of respect for persons of faith is apparent.  There is no willingness to treat those who disagree as reasonable persons, but as “fanatics, traitors, or fools.”

We Conservatives who are persons of faith are used to this tactic.  According to the Left our motives are evil and sinful.  Our opinions are based on fear, hatred, and neurosis.  Our opinions and thought processes are stupid.  Anyone who is in the Center or to the Right is an extremist or a fanatic.  It would be nice at some point for the Left to stop the name calling and actually engage in an adult discussion.  Enough of the playground antics!

So what is the problem in this particular issue?  Let us look at the constitutional and legal issues first, and then, more importantly, the moral issue.

Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States reads in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”  This first of the Bill of Rights limits the rights of Congress only and protects the rights of the individual.  At the time of the adoption of this amendment there were states who had established or official religions (Massachusetts was the last state to de-establish a religion - in 1839).

The writers and adopters of the Constitution were reacting to the European practice of establishing specific Christian denominations as the official and supported religion of the national government.  It is apparent, however, that this practice continued in the United States at the state level.  The intent of the amendment was to limit Congress, not the states.

The application of the first amendment was changed in the minds of many when Amendment XIV was ratified in 1868.  This amendment was one of the post-Civil War amendments.  It  was intended to secure the rights of former slaves.  Some have gone beyond the initial intent to apply the limitations to the states as well.

Amendment XI, Section 1, reads in part, “...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...”

If we look, therefore, at the original intent of the Constitution of the United States, there was no concept of limiting states with regard to the establishment of religion.  Neither was there the intent to apply the Amendment I through Amendment XIV to the states.

The issue, though it will get into the federal court system I am sure, is currently in the court system of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  We must turn to the Constitution of Kentucky to analyze the issue.

The very first section of the Constitution of Kentucky enumerates seven rights and is considered Kentucky’s Bill of Rights.  The second right is “The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.”

(As an aside, I am glad these persons bringing the suit recognize the wisdom of Kentucky’s Bill of Rights.  The first and seventh establish “The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties” and “The right to bear arms in defense of themselves...”)

Section 5 of the Constitution of Kentucky describes the right of religious freedom of the citizen of Kentucky.  It reads in part, “No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion ... [T]he civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.”

(As another aside:  This section of the constitution also states, “... [N]or shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed ...”  This clause would be an excellent route for the introduction of school vouchers!)

It seems to me that the Kentucky Constitution is in keeping with the original intent of the U.S. Constitution with regard to religion and religious liberty.  The constitution itself does not see a contradiction in granting a special status through exempting from taxation religious entities in section 170 and the protection of religious liberty in section 1.

Why is there no contradiction?  There is none because the writers and adopters of the Constitution of Kentucky recognized the importance of religion - specifically the Christian religion, or more generally, the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation and state, as the foundation for our rights and our culture. 

The legislation that states that the “... safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God...” is consistent with the constitutional protections and recognitions of the importance of religion.

The complainants can only argue that the state remove the language that offends them because of their religion, in which case the state would be favoring their religious view.  The state has the obligation not to favor a particular religious view.  The complainants are asking the state court system to favor their religious view that denies God.

As to the moral implications of this suit, I would suggest that we should seek more ways for the Commonwealth of Kentucky to endorse a dependence on God and the importance of faith in the lives of its citizens.  The government should not establish a particular religion and thereby grant support to it, but the government should encourage religion.

In a practical way we can see this need in our school system.  There is an intense need for teaching morality that is based on something more than what the individual craves at the moment.

Christianity and the Judeo-Christian heritage is not the enemy.  The enemy to our culture, society, and communal well-being is that which will relegate God to the religious ghetto.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 7

[Legal] Theology [that is, Man relating to God through the Law of God] ... could serve for no salutary purpose, at that time: such was its dreadful efficacy in convincing man of sin and consigning him to certain death. This unhappy change, this unfavourable vicissitude of affairs was introduced by the fault and the infection of sin; which was likewise the cause why "the law which was ordained to life and honour" (Romans 7.10), became fatal and destructive to our race, and the procurer of eternal ignominy.

(1.) Other properties, therefore, of the Divine Nature were to be called into action; every one of God’s benefits was to be unfolded and explained; mercy, long suffering, gentleness, patience, and clemency were to be brought forth out of the repository of his primitive goodness, and their services were to be engaged, if it was proper for offending man to be reconciled to God and reinstated in his favour.

(2.) Other actions were to be exhibited: "A new creation" was to be effected; "a new providence," accommodated in every respect to this new creation, was to be instituted and put in force; "the work of redemption" was to be performed; "remission of sins" was to be obtained; "the loss of righteousness" was to be repaired; "the Spirit of grace" was to be asked and obtained; and a "lost salvation" restored.

(3.) Another decree was likewise to be framed concerning the salvation of man; and another covenant, a new one," was to be made with him, "not according to that former one, because those" who were parties on one side "had not continued in that covenant" (Hebrews 8.11) but, by another and a gracious will, they "were to be sanctified" who might be "consecrated to enter into the Holiest by a new and living way." (Hebrews 10.20) All these things were to be prepared and laid down as foundations to the new manifestation.

Another revelation, therefore, and a different species of Theology, were necessary to make known those properties of the Divine Nature, which we have described, and which were most wisely employed in repairing our salvation; to proclaim the actions which were exhibited; and to occupy themselves in explaining that decree and new covenant which we have mentioned.

But since God, the punisher and most righteous avenger of sinners, was either unwilling, or (through the opposition made by the justice and truth which had been originally manifested in the law,) was unable to unfold those properties of his nature, to produce those actions, or to make that decree, except by the intervention of a Mediator, in whom, without the least injury to his justice and truth, he might unfold those properties, perform those actions, might through them produce those necessary benefits, and might conclude that most gracious decree; on this account a Mediator was to be ordained, who, by his blood, might atone for sinners, by his death might expiate the sin of mankind, might reconcile the wicked to God, and might save them from his impending anger; who might set forth and display the mercy, long suffering and patience of God, might provide eternal redemption, obtain remission of sin, bring in an everlasting righteousness, procure the Spirit of grace, confirm the decree of gracious mercy, ratify the new covenant by his blood, recover eternal salvation, and who might bring to God those that were to be ultimately saved.

A just and merciful God, therefore, did appoint as Mediator, his beloved Son, Jesus Christ. He obediently undertook that office which was imposed on him by the Father, and courageously executed it; nay, he is even now engaged in executing it. He was, therefore, ordained by God as the Redeemer, the saviour, the King, and, (under God,) the Head of the heirs of salvation. It would have been neither just nor reasonable, that he who had undergone such vast labours, and endured such great sorrows, who had performed so many miracles, and who had obtained through his merits so many benefits for us, should ingloriously remain among us in meanness and obscurity, and should be dismissed by us without honour. It was most equitable, that he should in return be acknowledged, worshipped, and invoked, and that he should receive those grateful thanks which are due to him for his benefits.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 6

...Theology, as it appears to me, principally effects four things in fixing our conceptions, which we have ... mentioned, on that Deity who is true, and in drawing them away from the invention and formation of false Deities.First, it explains, in an elegant and copious manner, the relation in which the Deity stands, lest we should ascribe to his nature any thing that is foreign to it, or should take away from it any one of its properties. In reference to this, it is said, "Ye heard the voice, but saw no similitude; take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, lest you make you a graven image." (Deuteronomy 4.15, 16).

Secondly, it describes both the universal and the particular actions of the only true God, that by them it may distinguish the true Deity from those which are fabulous. On this account it is said, "The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, shall perish from the earth, and under these heavens." (Jerimiah 10.11). ...And the Apostle declares, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and by man’s device:" (Acts 17.29). ... 

...Thirdly, it makes frequent mention of the covenant into which the true Deity has entered with his worshippers, that by the recollection of it the mind of man may be stayed upon that God with whom the covenant was concluded. In reference to this it is said, "Thus shalt thou say unto the Children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is. my memorial unto all generations", (Exodus 3.15). ... 

...Fourthly, it distinguishes and points out the true Deity, even by a most appropriate, particular, and individual mark, when it introduces the mention of the persons who are partakers of the same Divinity; thus it gives a right direction to the mind of the worshipper, and fixes it upon that God who is THE FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. This was manifested with some degree of obscurity in the Old Testament, but with the utmost clearness in the New. Hence the Apostle says, "I bow my knee unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 3.14). All these remarks are comprehended and summed up by Divines, in this brief sentence, "That God must be invoked who has manifested himself in his own word."

But the preceding observations concerning the Object of Theology, properly respect Legal Theology, which was accommodated to man’s primeval state. For when man in his original integrity acted under the protecting favour and benevolence of a good and just God, he was able to render to God that worship which had been prescribed according to the law of legal righteousness, that says, "This do, and thou shalt live;" he was able to "love with all his heart and soul" that Good and Just Being; he was able, from a consciousness of his integrity, to repose confidence in that Good and Just One; and he was able to evince towards him, as such, a filial fear, and to pay him the honour which was pleasing and due to him, as from a servant to his Lord.

God also, on his part, without the least injury to his justice, was able to act towards man, while in that state, according to the proscript of legal righteousness, to reward his worship according to justice, and, through the terms of the legal covenant, and consequently "of debt," to confer life upon him. This God could do, consistency with his goodness, which required the fulfillment of the promise. There was no call for any other property of his nature, which might contribute by its agency to accomplish this purpose: No further progress of Divine goodness was necessary than that which might repay good for good, the good of perfect felicity, for the good of entire obedience: No other action was required, except that of creation, (which had then been performed,) and that of a preserving and governing providence, in conformity with the condition with which man was placed: No other volition of God was needed, than that by which he might both require the perfect obedience of the law and might repay that obedience with life eternal. In that state of human affairs, therefore, the knowledge of the nature described in those properties, the knowledge of those actions, and of that will, to which may be added the knowledge of the Deity to whom they really pertained, was necessary for the performance of worship to God, and was of itself amply sufficient.

But when man had fallen from his primeval integrity through disobedience to the law, and had rendered himself "a child of wrath" and had become devoted to condemnations, this goodness mingled with legal justice could not be sufficient for the salvation of man. Neither could this act of creation and providence, nor this will suffice; and therefore this legal Theology was itself insufficient. For sin was to be condemned if men were absolved; and, as the Apostle says, (in the eighth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans,) "it could not be condemned by the law." Man was to be justified: but he could not be justified by the law, which, while it is the strength of sin, makes discovery of it to us, and is the procurer of wrath.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 5

Our sacred Theology ... is chiefly occupied in ascribing to the One True God, to whom alone they really belong, those attributes of which we have already spoken, his nature, actions, and will. For it is not sufficient to know, that there is some kind of a NATURE, simple, infinite, wise, good, just, omnipotent, happy in itself, the Maker and Governor of all things, that is worthy to receive adoration, whose will it is to be worshipped, and that is able to make its worshippers happy.

To this general kind of knowledge there ought to be added, a sure and settled conception, fixed on that Deity, and strictly bound to the single object of religious worship to which alone those qualities appertain. The necessity of entertaining fixed and determinate ideas on this subject, is very frequently inculcated in the sacred page: "I am the Lord thy God." (Exodus 20.2).  "I am the Lord and there is none else." (Isaiah 45.5). Elijah also says, "If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." (1 Kings 18.21).

This duty is the more sedulously inculcated in scripture, as man is more inclined to depart from the true idea of Deity. For whatever clear and proper conception of the Divine Being the minds the Heathens had formed, the first stumbling-block over which they fell appears to have been this, they did not attribute that just conception to him to whom it ought to have been given; but they ascribed it either, (1) to some vague and uncertain individual, as in the expression of the Roman poet, "O Jupiter, whether thou be heaven, or air, or earth!" or, (2) [to] some imaginary and fabulous Deity, whether it be among created things, or a mere idol of the brain, neither partaking of the Divine nature nor any other, which the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans and to the Corinthians, produces as a matter of reproach to the Gentiles. (Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 8) or, (3) ...  to the unknown God; the title of Unknown being given to their Deity by the very persons who were his worshippers. The Apostle relates this crime as one of which the Athenians were guilty: But it is equally true when applied to all those who err and wander from the true object of adoration, and yet worship a Deity of some description. To such persons that sentence justly belongs which Christ uttered in conversation with the woman of Samaria: "Ye worship YE KNOW NOT WHAT." (John 4.22).

Although those persons are guilty of a grievous error who transgress in this point, so as to be deservedly termed Atheists, in Scripture aqeoi "men without God;" yet they are by far more intolerably insane, who, having passed the extreme line of impiety, are not restrained by the consciousness of any Deity. The ancient heathens considered such men as peculiarly worthy of being called Atheists. On the other hand, those who have a consciousness of their own ignorance occupy the step that is nearest to sanity. For it is necessary to be careful only about one thing; and that is, when we communicate information to them, we must teach them to discard the falsehood which they had imbibed, and must instruct them in the truth alone. When this truth is pointed out to them, they will seize it with the greater avidity, in proportion to the deeper sorrow which they feel at the thought that they have been surrounded for a long series of years by a most pernicious error.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 4

Our Theology, then, delivers three things concerning this object, as necessary and sufficient to be known in relation to the preceding subjects of belief. The First is concerning the nature of God. The Second concerning his actions. And the Third concerning his will.

(1) Concerning his nature; that it is worthy to receive adoration, on account of its justice; that it is qualified to form a right judgment of that worship, on account of its wisdom; and that it is prompt and able to bestow rewards, on account of its goodness and the perfection of its own blessedness.

(2) Two actions have been ascribed to God for the same purpose; they are Creation and Providence. (i) The Creation of all things, and especially of man after God’s own image; upon which is founded his sovereign authority over man, and from which is deduced the right of requiring worship from man and enjoining obedience upon him, according to that very just complaint of God by Malachi, "If then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, were is my fear," (Malichi 1.6).

(ii) That Providence is to be ascribed to God by which he governs all things, and according to which he exercises a holy, just, and wise care and oversight over man himself and those things which relate to him, but chiefly over the worship and obedience which he is bound to render to his God.

(3) Lastly, it treats of the will of God expressed in a certain covenant into which he has entered with man, and which consists of two parts: (i) The one, by which he declares it to be his pleasure to receive adoration from man, and at the same time prescribes the mode of performing that worship; for it is his will to be worshipped from obedience, and not at the option or discretion of man.

(ii) The other, by which God promises that he will abundantly compensate man for the worship which he performs; requiring not only adoration for the benefits already conferred upon man, as a trial of his gratitude; but likewise that He may communicate to man infinitely greater things to the consummation of his felicity. For as he occupied the first place in conferring blessings and doing good, because that high station was his due, since man was about to be called into existence among the number of creatures; so likewise it is his desire that the last place in doing good be reserved for him, according to the infinite perfection of his goodness and blessedness, who is the fountain of good and the extreme boundary of happiness, the Creator and at the same time the Glorifier of his worshippers. It is according to this last action of his, that he is called by some persons "the Object of Theology," and that not improperly, because in this last are included all the preceding.

In the way which has been thus compendiously pointed out, the infinite disputes of the schoolmen, concerning the formal relation by which God is the Object of Theology, may, in my opinion, be adjusted and decided. But as I think it a culpable deed to abuse your patience, I shall decline to say any more on this part of the subject.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 3

... We must consider this object [God] more strictly; for we treat of it in reference to its being the object of our theology, according to which we have a knowledge of God in this life. We must therefore clothe it in a certain mode, and invest it in a formal manner, as the logical phrase is; and thus place it as a foundation to our knowledge.

Three Considerations of this matter offer themselves to our notice: The First is, that we cannot receive this object in the infinity of its nature; our necessity, therefore, requires it to be proposed in a manner that is accommodated to our capacity. The Second is, that it is not proper, in the first moment of revelation, for such a large measure to be disclosed and manifested by the light of grace, as may be received into the human mind when it is illuminated by the light of glory, and, (by that process,) enlarged to a greater capacity: for by a right use of the knowledge of grace, we must proceed upwards, (by the rule of divine righteousness,) to the more sublime knowledge of glory, according to that saying, "To him that hath shall be given." The Third is, that this object is not laid before our theology merely to be known, but, when known, to be worshipped. For the Theology which belongs to this world, is Practical and through Faith:

Theoretical Theology belongs to the other world, and consists of pure and unclouded vision, according to the expression of the apostle, "We walk by faith, and not by sight;" (2 Corinthians 5.7), and that of another apostle, "Then shall we be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3.2). For this reason, we must clothe the object of our theology in such a manner as may enable it to incline us to worship God, and fully to persuade and win us over to that practice.

This last design is the line and rule of this formal relation according to which God becomes the subject of our Theology.

But that man may be induced, by a willing obedience and humble submission of the mind, to worship God, it is necessary for him to believe, from a certain persuasion of the heart: (1.) That it is the will of God to be worshipped, and that worship is due to him. (2.) That the worship of him will not be in vain, but will be recompensed with an exceedingly great reward. (3.) That a mode of worship must be instituted according to his command. To these three particulars ought to be added, a knowledge of the mode prescribed.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 2

... Let us consider the conditions that are generally employed to commend the object of any science. That OBJECT is most excellent (1) which is in itself the best, and the greatest, and immutable; (2) which, in relation to the mind, is most lucid and clear, and most easily proposed and unfolded to the view of the mental powers; and (3) which is likewise able, by its action on the mind, completely to fill it, and to satisfy its infinite desires. These three conditions are in the highest degree discovered in God, and in him alone, who is the subject of theological study.

1. He [God] is the best being; he is the first and chief good, and goodness itself; he alone is good, as good as goodness itself; as ready to communicate, as it is possible for him to be communicated: his liberality is only equaled by the boundless treasures which he possesses, both of which are infinite and restricted only by the capacity of the recipient, which he appoints as a limit and measure to the goodness of his nature and to the communication of himself. He is the greatest Being, and the only great One; for he is able to subdue to his sway even nothing itself, that it may become capable of divine good by the communication of himself. "He calleth those things which are not, as though they were," (Romans 4.17) and in that manner, by his word, he places them in the number of beings, although it is out of darkness that they have received his commands to emerge and to come into existence. "All nations before him are as nothing, the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, and the princes nothing." (Isaiah 40.17, 22, 23). The whole of this system of heaven and earth appears scarcely equal to a point "before him, whose center is every where, but whose circumference is no where." He is immutable, always the same, and endureth forever; "his years have no end." (Psalm 102).

Nothing can be added to him, and nothing can be taken from him; with him "is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1.17). Whatsoever obtains stability for a single moment, borrows it from him, and receives it of mere grace. Pleasant, therefore, and most delightful is it to contemplate him, on account of his goodness; it is glorious in consideration of his greatness; and it is sure, in reference to his immutability.

2. He is most resplendent and bright; he is light itself, and becomes an object of most obvious perception to the mind, according to this expression of the apostle, That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find Him, though he be not far from every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being; for we are also his offspring:" (Acts 17.27-28). And according to another passage, "God left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 24.17). Being supported by these true sayings, I venture to assert, that nothing can be seen or truly known in any object, except in it we have previously seen and known God himself.

In the first place he is called "Being itself," because he offers himself to the understanding as an object of knowledge. But all beings, both visible and invisible, corporeal and incorporeal, proclaim aloud that they have derived the beginning of their essence and condition from some other than themselves, and that they have not their own proper existence till they have it from another. All of them utter speech, according to the saying of the Royal Prophet: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy-work." (Psalm 19.1). That is, the firmament sounds aloud as with a trumpet, and proclaims, that it is "the work of the right hand of the Most High." ...

3. He alone can completely fill the mind, and satisfy its (otherwise) insatiable desires. For he is infinite in his essence, his wisdom, power, and goodness. He is the first and chief verity, and truth itself in the abstract. But the human mind is finite in nature, the substance of which it is formed; and only in this view is it a partaker of infinity—because it apprehends Infinite Being and the Chief Truth, although it is incapable of comprehending them. David, therefore, in an exclamation of joyful self-gratulation, openly confesses, that he was content with the possession of God alone, who by means of knowledge and love is possessed by his creatures. These are his words: "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee." (Psalm 73. 25).

If thou be acquainted with all other things, and yet remain in a state of ignorance with regard to him alone, thou art always wandering beyond the proper point, and thy restless love of knowledge increases in the proportion in which knowledge itself is increased. The man who knows only God, and who is ignorant of all things else, remains in peace and tranquillity, and, (like one that has found "a pearl of great price," although in the purchase of it he may have expended the whole of his substance,) he congratulates himself and greatly triumphs. This luster or brightness of the object is the cause why an investigation into it, or an inquiry after it, is never instituted without obtaining it; and, (such is its fullness,) when it has once been found, the discovery of it is always attended with abundant profit.

Arminian Theology - The Works of Jacobus Arminius - The Object of Theology (Oration I) - Part 1

To Almighty God alone belongs the inherent and absolute right, will, and power of determining concerning us. Since, therefore, it has pleased him to call me, his unworthy servant, from the ecclesiastical functions which I have for some years discharged in the Church of his Son in the populous city of Amsterdam, and to give me the appointment of the Theological Professorship in this most celebrated University, I accounted it my duty, not to manifest too much reluctance to this vocation, although I was well acquainted with my incapacity for such an office, which with the greatest willingness and sincerity I then confessed and must still acknowledge. Indeed, the consciousness of my own insufficiency operated as a persuasive to me not to listen to this vocation; of which fact I can cite as a witness that God who is both the Inspector and the Judge of my conscience. Of this consciousness of my own insufficiency, several persons of great probity and learning are also witnesses; for they were the cause of my engaging in this office, provided it were offered to me in a legitimate order and manner. But as they suggested, and as experience itself had frequently taught me, that it is a dangerous thing to adhere to one’s own judgment with pertinacity and to pay too much regard to the opinion which we entertain of ourselves, because almost all of us have little discernment in those matters which concern ourselves, I suffered myself to be induced by the authority of their judgment to enter upon this difficult and burdensome province, which may God enable me to commence with tokens of his Divine approbation and under his propitious auspices....

... In discussing the dignity and excellence of sacred Theology, I shall briefly confine it within four titles. In imitation of the method which obtains in human sciences, that are estimated according to the excellence of their OBJECT, their AUTHOR, and their END, and of the IMPORTANCE of the reasons by which each of them is supported—I shall follow the same plan, speaking, first, of The OBJECT of Theology, then of its AUTHOR, afterwards of its END, and lastly, of its CERTAINTY.

I pray God, that the grace of his Holy Spirit may be present with me while I am speaking; and that he would be pleased to direct my mind, mouth and tongue, in such a manner as to enable me to advance those truths which are holy, worthy of our God, and salutary to you his creatures, to the glory of his name and for the edification of his Church.

I intreat you also, my most illustrious and polite hearers, kindly to grant me your attention for a short time while I endeavour to explain matters of the greatest importance; and while your observation is directed to the subject in which I shall exercise myself, you will have the goodness to regard IT, rather than any presumed SKILL in my manner of treating it. The nature of his great subject requires us, at this hour especially, to direct our attention, in the first instance, to the Object of Theology. For the objects of sciences are so intimately related, and so essential to them, as to give them their appellations.

But God is himself the Object of Theology. The very term indicates as much: for Theology signifies a discourse or reasoning concerning God. This is likewise indicated by the definition which the Apostle gives of this science, when he describes it as "the truth which is after godliness." (Titus 1.1) The Greek word here used for godliness, is eusebeia signifying a worship due to God alone, which the Apostle shews in a manner of greater clearness, when he calls this piety by the more exact term qeosebeia. All other sciences have their objects, noble indeed, and worthy to engage the notice of the human mind, and in the contemplation of which much time, leisure and diligence may be profitably occupied.

Arminian Theology - The Five Articles of Remonstrance

The Five Articles of Remonstrance refers 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.

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.

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior 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 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.”

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.”

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.

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.

My Opinion: Church and State

Is it just me or over the last two centuries and more has there been a shift in the motivation behind the separation of church and state in our country.  It seems to me that originally people came to this country in order to establish a place where they could express their Christian faith in the manner in which they chose and with the doctrine they had developed.  The concept of the freedom of religion was freedom in the broad context of Christianity.  Protestants and Roman Catholics had no problem establishing a strong connection with various colonies in America.  The colony to "dis-establish" a religion was Massachusetts - in the 1830s.

The Constitution of the United States only kept the government of the United States from establishing - or declaring as official - a particular Christian denomination.  That was the context of the framers of the US Constitution.  Their idea, I believe, was to recognize that our country is a Christian nation whose founding principles are formed out of a broad Christian heritage.  Their intent, I believe, was not to ban Christianity from the public life of our nation, but it was to avoid giving favored status and governmental support to a particular denomination over others.  It was to eliminate a particular religious doctrinal test for holding a public office.  In short it was to even the playing field among the various Christian denominations.

In fact, I believe that the founding fathers wanted a fertile religious soil in America for many Christian denominations to thrive (and compete).  A Christian nation would thrive when the faith of the people thrived.

What is happening today is a reversal of the desires of the founding fathers.  The document they authored, our constitution, is used to limit the Christian religion and its role in the public life of our nation while expanding the role and presence of other religions.

Originally, the separation of Church and State in the US Constitution was a means by which the people protected the Christian churches (denominations and local congregations) from the State.  Now it has become a doctrine by which persons seek to use the State to "protect" the people from Christianity.

The State now has been taken from the original position of neutrality toward specific Christian doctrines, practices, and denominations to a new (antithetical) position of opposition to Christian doctrines, practices, and denominations.