Arminian Today

ANALYSIS OF THE NINTH CHAPTER OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

This Analysis was prepared by ARMINIUS in 1593, and was sent to Gellius SNECANUS, a Minister in West Friesland, who entertained views of Christian doctrine similar to those of Arminius. It was published in the Latin editions of the works of Arminius, as an appendix to the foregoing treatise, as illustrative of many points therein discussed.

TO THE DISTINGUISHED MAN OF GOD, GELLIUS SNECANUS, MY FELLOW MINISTER, MOST BELOVED IN CHRIST, JAMES ARMINIUS WISHES HEALTH AND SUCCESS THROUGH CHRIST

I can not easily describe, most excellent sir, with how much delight I was affected by reading and seriously considering your commentary on the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. For when I saw that your idea of the scope of the Apostle, and of the use of his principle arguments, was the same, as I had recently presented to my congregation, in explaining the same chapter, I was greatly confirmed in that opinion, both because I have great confidence in your judgment, and because I found proofs in the arguments, which you advanced. I could not, therefore, do less than to write, in return, to you to present my thanks, and to inform you how I have proceeded in explaining this chapter, and what impelled me to take this course; not to prove our mutual agreement only, but to confirm it as much as is in my power. I candidly confess that this chapter has always seemed to me to be involved in the greatest obscurity, and its explanation has appeared most difficult, until light, introduced in this way, dispelled the shades, and placed the subject, illustrated by its own clearness, before my mind, so as to be plainly understood.

I come to the subject itself. In the first place, the scope of the chapter is the same with that of the whole epistle: That the Gospel, not the law, is the power of God unto salvation, not to him that worketh, but to him that believeth, since, in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested in the obtainment of salvation by faith in Christ. This chapter performs its part, and indeed is peculiarly engaged in the support of that proposition. It defends the proposition against the objections of the Jews, who, with all their power endeavour to overturn it as hostile and destructive to their own views, and so defends it as to confirm its truth more and more, and, by refuting those objections, adds strength and stability to the foundation already laid, in that very divine word and purpose, which the Jews were strenuously wresting, in their own favour, to the overthrow of Paul’s doctrine.

That such is the design of the chapter, the connection shows, the relation of which may be sought, partly from this antecedent proposition. Many of the Jews are cast off, which is included, also, in the introduction of this chapter — “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren,” partly from the negation contained in the sixth verse — “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.” Both of which, being embraced in one enunciation, may be suitably rendered thus — Though most of the Jews are rejected, yet the word of God does not therefore fail. Hence it appears, most clearly, that the Jews had made an assertion, against Paul, opposed to this negation, that, by the interposition of that antecedent, (which was, immediately, deduced from the doctrine of Paul) they might convict that doctrine, from which a consequence so absurd might be deduced, of falsity, and refute it as absurd, in this manner: — “If most of the Jews are rejected, the word of God must fail; — But it can not be that the word of God should fail; — Therefore, most of the Jews are not rejected.” How does this operate against the apostle? He had proposed a doctrine, which necessarily included the rejection of the Jews to a very considerable extent, namely, righteousness and salvation are to be obtained by faith in Christ, not by the works of the law. It was easy for the Jews to deduce from this, — “If righteousness and salvation consist in faith in Christ, whom Paul preaches, it follows that the Jews, for the most part, are rejected from the covenant.” The reason of this conclusion is this. “Because most of the Jews do not believe in Christ.” But it is false that most of the Jews are rejected by God; for then the word of God would fail. Therefore, the doctrine of the apostle Paul, from which that consequence is deduced, is absurd. The apostle considered that it was necessary for them to refute this objection, which threatened overthrow and destruction to his doctrine, by showing that the undoubted principle, which the Jews used as the prop of their objection, was not only not injurious to his cause, but even very favourable to it.

It is necessary to properly settle the state of the question in controversy between the apostle and the Jews. For this will be of great importance to the whole matter. It is not — “are most of the Jews rejected?” or — “Is the word of God of none effect?” For the apostle confesses that it would be impious even to admit the latter thought. The former he will afterwards prove by the clear testimony of the Scripture. But the question embraces both these; — “Will the word of God fail, even if most of the Jews are rejected?” Even this is not sufficient. The answer of this question does not settle the whole dispute, or exhaust all the difficulties. For, if the apostle, by the force of his arguments, should gain this point, that some, and indeed most of the Jews, are rejected, and yet the word of God remains sure, would not this question remain: “Does not the word of God fail, if those of the Jews are rejected, who, with the greatest zeal, seek the righteousness of the Law?” That question must still remain, as it would be easy for the Jews to make an exception to the solution of that question — “Though the word of God may remain sure, if many of the Jews are rejected, yet we can not be included in the number, else the word of God would fail.” This element, therefore, having been added, will complete the entire statement of the question, thus: “Does not the word God become of none effect, if those of the Jews, who seek righteousness, not of faith, but of the law, are rejected by God.”

This question is suited to his design; the solution of this finishes the discussion, and exhausts all the difficulties; of this the apostle treats, as is evident from his arguments, which all bear upon its solution. Nor indeed is that, which gave rise to the question, to be separated from the question, and to refute which that principle having reference to the certainty of the word of God, was adduced by the Jews, and which the apostle also endeavoured, as strongly as possible, to assert against them. In this question, therefore, this is to be chiefly attended to, — “would the word of the covenant, entered into with the Jews, be in vain, if the doctrine of the apostle in reference to the attainment of righteousness and salvation by faith alone in Christ, not by the law, or the works of the law, should find a place, and should be regarded as the fundamental principle of salvation?” How much difference exists between those two conditions of the question, and of how much importance that difference is, you readily see. For the question, proposed in this mode, “would not the word of God be vain, if most of the Jews are rejected?” could be answered in this way. “God indeed, in the word of promise, invited all the Jews and called them to a participation of the covenant, but yet, by His eternal decree and purpose, He determined in fact to make only some of the Jews partakers, passing by the rest, and leaving them in their former state.” Some indeed say that this is the sum of the answer of the apostle to the proposed question. But the question, proposed in this last manner, — “Would not the word of God fail, if those of the Jews, who seek righteousness, not of faith, but of the law, are rejected by God?” — can only be answered in this way. “God, in His word, and in the declaration of His promise, signified that He considered, in the relation of children, only, those of the Jews, who should seek righteousness and salvation by faith, but in the relation of foreigners, those who should seek the same by the law.” But the two answers are very different. In the former, the decree of Predestination is defined according to the sentiment of Beza and others; in the latter, according to your sentiment. Far be it from me, however, to make a statement such as to confirm your view or my own concerning the decree of Predestination by the answer, which I see to be alone adapted to the question so stated. The passage itself will, indeed, declare, if examined, that the state of the question is that, which I have presented, if a right judgment can really be formed, concerning the state of the question, from the. arguments adduced in its discussion, and from the conclusion arrived at, which no one will deny, who has ever saluted the threshold of knowledge.

Many would wonder why an Arminian blog would include thoughts of John Calvin on the issue of original sin.  The reason is that Arminius held Calvin in high honor.  If you have never studied the life of John Calvin, I would encourage you to do so (as I would ask Calvinists to study the life of Arminius).  Calvin was an intellectual giant.  The man was a remarkable preacher and student of the Word of God.  I don’t agree with him on all issues but like Arminius, I can appreciate much of what Calvin wrote.

Arminius said the following about Calvin:

“Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin’s Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself [a Dutch divine, 1551–1608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy. His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination, like the writings of all men.”

I agree with Arminius’ last sentence there in particular.  Notice that Arminius said that we should study Calvin “but with discrimination, like the writings of all men.”  Amen!  No one including Arminius is above Scripture.  The Bible should be our final authority in all things (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  The Bible alone faithfully reveals the Word of God to us (2 Peter 1:16-21).  The Bible alone sanctifies us (John 17:17).  The Bible alone rises above all the works of mankind (Psalm 119:160).

May we take the Word of God and test all things including our favorite theologians (1 Thessalonians 5:21).  May we remain faithful to obey the inerrant Word of God (James 2:14-26).

As the preceding Disputation treated of God the Father and God the Son, order requires us now to enter on the subject of the Holy Ghost.

I. The word Spirit signifies primarily, properly, and adequately, a thing which in its first act and essence is most subtle and simple, but which in its second act and efficacy is exceedingly active, that is, powerful and energetic. Hence it has come to pass, that this word is received, by way of distinction and opposition, sometimes for a personal and self-existing energy and power, and sometimes for an energy inhering to some other thing according to the mode of quality or property: but this word belongs primarily and properly to a self-existing power; and to an inhering power or energy, only secondarily and by a metaphorical communication. (John iii, 8; Psalm civ, 4; Luke i, 35; Kings ii, 9.)

II. But it is, in the first place, and with the greatest truth, ascribed to God, (John iv, 24,) both because He according to Essence is a pure and most simple act; and because according to Efficacy he is most active, and most prompt and powerful to perform, that is, because He is the first and Supreme Being, as well as the first and Supreme Agent. But it is with singular propriety attributed to the hypostatical energy which exists in God, and which is frequently marked with an addition, thus, “The Spirit of Elohim,” (Gen. i, 9,) “The Spirit of Jehovah,” (Isa. xi, 2,) and “His Holy Spirit.” (lxiii, 10.) By these expressions is signified, that He is the person by whom God the Father and the Son perform all things in heaven and earth, (Matt. xii, 28; Luke xi, 20,) and that He is not only Holy in himself, but likewise the Sanctifier of all things which are in any way holy and so called. Our present discourse is concerning the Holy Spirit understood according to this last signification.

III. We may not attempt to define the Holy Spirit, (for such an attempt is unlawful,) but we may be allowed in some degree to describe Him according to the Scriptures, after the following manner: He is the person subsisting in the Sacred and undivided Trinity, who is the Third in order, emanates from the Father and is sent by the Son; and therefore He is the Spirit proceeding from both, and, according to his Person, distinct from both; an infinite, eternal illimitable Spirit, and of the same Divinity with God the Father and the Son. This description we will now consider in order, according to its several parts. (Matt. xxviii, 19; John i, 26; and Luke iii, 16; John xiv, 16; 1 Cor. ii, 10, 11; Gen. i, 2; Psalm cxxxix, 7-12.)

IV. On this subject four things come under our consideration and must be established by valid arguments.

(1.) That the Holy Spirit ufisamenon is subsistent and a Person; not something after the manner of a quality and property, (suppose that of goodness, mercy, or patience,) which exists within the Deity.

(2.) That He is a Person proceeding from the Father and the Son, and therefore is in order the Third in the Trinity.

(3.) That according to his Person He is distinct from the Father and the Son.

(4.) That He is infinite, eternal, immeasurable, and of the same Divinity with the Father and the Son, that is, not a creature, but God.

V. The first is proved by those attributes which the whole of mankind are accustomed to ascribe to a thing that has an existence, and which they conceive under the notion of “a Person:” for we assert, that all those things belong to the Holy Spirit, whether they agree with a person in the first Act or in the second.

(1.) From those things which agree in the first Act with a thing that has an existence and is a Person, we draw the following conclusion: That to which belongs Essence or Existence, Life, Understanding, Will and Power, is justly called “a Person,” or nothing whatever in the nature of things can receive that appellation. But to the Holy Spirit belong:

(i.) Essence or Existence: for He is in God, (1 Cor. ii, 11,) emanates from God and is sent by the Son. (John xv, 26.)

(ii.) Life: for He “brooded over the waters,” (Gen. i, 2,) as a hen covers her chickens with her wings; and He is the Author of animal and of spiritual life to all things living. (Job xxxiii, 4; John iii, 5; Rom. viii, 2, 11.)

(iii.) Understanding: “The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” (1 Cor. ii, 10.)

(iv.) Will: for He “distributes his gifts to every man severally as He will.” (1 Cor. xii, 11.)

(v.) Lastly, Power: with which, the prophets, and other holy persons, and in particular the Messiah himself, were furnished and strengthened. (Micah iii, 8; Ephes. iii, 16; Isa. xi, 2.)

VI. The same thing is proved

(2.) from those things which are usually attributed to a Person in the second Act. For of this description are the actions which are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, and which usually belong to nothing except a subsistence and a person. Such are to create, (Job xxxiii, 4; Psalm civ, 30,) to preserve, to vivify or quicken, to instruct or furnish them with knowledge, faith, charity, hope, the fear of the Lord, fortitude, patience, and other virtues; to “rush mightily upon Sampson;” (Judges xiv, 6;) to “depart from Saul;” (1 Sam. xvi, 14;) to “rest upon the Messiah;” (Isa. xi, 2;) to “come upon and overshadow Mary;” (Luke i, 35;) to send the prophets; (Isa. lxi, 1;) to appoint bishops; (Acts xx, 28;) to descend in a bodily appearance like a dove upon Christ, (Luke iii, 22,) and similar operations. To these may also be added those metaphorical expressions which attributes such passions to Him as agree with no other thing than a subsistence and a person, and as are signified in the following passages: “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.” (Joel ii, 28.) “Jesus breathed on them, and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost.” (John xx, 22.) “They vexed his Holy Spirit. (Isa. lxiii, 10.) “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.” Ephes. iv, 30.) To blaspheme and speak a word against the Holy Ghost. (Matt. xii, 31, 32.) “He hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace,” (Heb. x, 29.)

VII. A similar bearing have those passages of Scripture which reckon the Holy Spirit in the same series with the Father and the Son. Of which class is that commanding men “to be baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” (Matt. xxviii, 19;) that which says, “There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.” (1 John v, 7;) that which declares, “The same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God, effect the diversities of operations, institute the differences of administrations, and pour out the diversities of gifts; (1 Cor. xii, 4 — 6;) and that which beseeches, “that the grace of’ the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost may be with all believers.” (2 Cor. xiii, 13.) For it would be absurd to number an inly- existent quality, or property, in the same series with two subsistences or persons.

VIII. The second topic of consideration [§ 15,] contains three members:

(i.) of which the first, that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is proved by those passages of Scripture in which he receives the appellation of “the Spirit of God and of the Father,” and of “the Spirit who is of God;” and by those in which the Spirit is said to proceed and go forth from, to be given, poured out, and sent forth by the Father, and by whom the Father acts and operates. (John xiv, 16, 26; xv, 26; Joel ii, 28; Gal. iv, 6.)

(ii.) The second member, that is, the procession from the Son, is proved by similar passages, which style Him “the Spirit of the Son,” (Gal. iv, 6,) and which declare, that He is given and sent by the Son, (John xv, 26,) and that He therefore receives from the Son and glorifies Him. (xvi, 14.) To which must likewise be added, from another passage, (xx, 22,) a mode of giving, which is called “breathing,” or inspiration.

(iii.) The third member, that is, His being the third person in the Holy Trinity in order, but not in time and degree, appears principally from the fact, that the Spirit of the Father and the Son is said to be sent and given by the Father and the Son, and that the Father and the Son are said to work by Him. It is also manifest from the order which was observed in the institution of Baptism, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. xxviii, 19.)

IX. All those passages of Scripture which have been produced in the preceding Theses for another purpose, prove “that the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Father and the Son, not only according to name, but likewise according to person,” which is the third part of the description which we have given. [§ 4.] Among other passages, the following expressly affirm this distinction: “I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter.” (John xiv, 16.) “That Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name.” (xiv, 26.) “When that Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father.” (xv, 26.) “The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me; because Jehovah hath annointed me,” &c. (Isa. lxi, 1.) There are numerous other passages in confirmation of this distinction: so that the blindness of Sabellius was most wonderful, who could possibly be in darkness amidst such a splendour of daylight.

X. Lastly. The fourth part comes now to be considered.

(1.) The Infinity of the Holy Spirit is proved, both by his Omniscience, by which he is said to “search all things, yea, the deep things of God,” and to know all the things which are in God; (1 Cor. ii, 10, 11; John xvi, 13;) and by his Omnipotence, by which He hath created and still preserves all things, (Job. xxxiii, 4) and according to both of which He is styled “the Spirit of wisdom and of knowledge,” and “the power of the Highest.” (Luke i, 35.)

(2.) His Eternity is established, (Isa. xi, 2) both by the creation of all things; for whatsoever is before all things which have been made, that is eternal; and by the titles with which He is signalized, for he is called “the power of the Highest,” and the finger of God.” (Luke xi, 20.) These titles cannot apply to a thing that has its beginning in time.

(3.) A most luminous argument for His Immensity lies in this. It is said, that “no one can flee from the Spirit of God; (Psalm cxxxix, 7;) and that the Spirit of the Lord dwells in all his saints, as in a temple. (1 Cor. vi, 19.)

XI. From all these particulars it clearly appears, that the Holy Ghost is of the same Divinity with the Father and the Son, and is truly distinguished by the name of God. For He who is not a creature, and yet has a real subsistence, must be God; and He who is from God, and who proceeds from the Father, not by an external emanation, nor by a creation performed through the intervention of any other Divine power, but by an internal emanation, He, being the power of God, by what right shall He be despoiled of the name of “God?” For when He is said to be given, poured out, and sent; this does not betoken any diminution of his Divinity, but is an intimation of his origin from God, of his procession from the Father and the Son, and of his mission to his office. A clear indication of his Deity is also apparent from its being said, that He also with plenary power distributes Divine gifts according to his own will, (1 Cor. xii, 11,) and he bestows his gifts with an authority equal to that with which “God” the Father is said to “work his operations,”

(4.) and to that with which the Son, who is called “the Lord,” is said to “institute administrations.”

XII. This doctrine of the sacred and undivided Trinity contains a mystery which far surpasses every human and angelical understanding, if it be considered according to the internal union which subsists between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and according to the relation among them of origin and procession. But if regard be had to that economy and dispensation by which the Father and the Son, and both of them through the Holy Spirit, accomplish our salvation; the contemplation is one of admirable sweetness, and produces in the hearts of believers the most exhuberant fruits of faith, hope, charity, confidence, fear, and obedience, to the praise of God the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, and of the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier. May “the Love of God the Father, the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Communion of the Holy Ghost, be with us,” and with all saints. Amen! (2 Cor. xiii, 14.)

“If the Spirit be third in dignity and order, what necessity is there for his being also the third in nature? Indeed the doctrine of piety has perhaps taught that He is third in dignity. But to employ the expression ‘the third in nature,’ we have neither learned out of the Holy Scriptures, nor is it possible to collect it as a consequence from what precedes. For as the Son is in truth Second in order, because He is from the Father, and Second in dignity, because the Father exists that He may be himself the principle and the cause, and because through the Son there is a procession and an access to God the Father; (but He is no more second in nature, because the Deity is one in both of them.) So, undoubtedly, is likewise the Holy Spirit, though He follows the Son both in order and dignity, as we completely grant, yet He is not at all resembling one who exists in the nature of another. Basilius Eversor 3.

“In brief, in things to be distinguished, the Deity is incapable of being divided; and resembles one vast attempered mass of effulgence proceeding from three suns which mutually embrace each other. Wherefore when we have had regard to the Deity itself, or to the first cause, or to the monarchy, we have formed in our minds a conception of some one thing. Again, when I apply my mind to these things in which Deity consists, and which exist from the first cause itself, flowing from it with equal glory and without any relation to time, I discover three things as the objects of my adoration.” Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 3 De Theolog.

DISPUTATION IX

ON THE MEANINGS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

I. The legitimate and genuine sense of the holy Scriptures is, that which the Holy Ghost, the author of them, intended, and which is collected from the words themselves, whether they be received in their proper or in their figurative signification; that is, it is the grammatical sense, as it is called.

II. From this sense, alone, efficacious arguments may be sought for the proof of doctrines.

III. But, on account of the analogical similitude of corporeal, carnal, natural, and earthly things, and those belonging to the present life, to things spiritual, heavenly, future and eternal, it happens that a double meaning, each of them certain and intended by the author, lies under the very same words in the Scriptures, of which the one is called “the typical,” the other “the meaning prefigured in the type” or “the allegorical.” To this allegorical meaning, we also refer the analogical, as opposed in a similar manner to that which is typical.

IV. From these meanings, that which is called “the ethiological” and “the tropological” do not differ, since the former of them renders the cause of the grammatical sense, and the latter contains an accommodation of it to the circumstances of persons, place, time, etc..

V. The interpretation of Scripture has respect both to its words and to its sense or meaning.

VI. The interpretation of its words is either that of single words, or of many words combined; and both of these methods constitute either a translation of the words into another language, or an explanation [or paraphrase] through other words of the same language.

VII. Let translation be so restricted, that, if the original word has any ambiguity, the word into which it is translated may retain it: or, if that cannot be done, let it have something equivalent by being noted in the margin.

VIII. In the explanation [or paraphrase] which shall be made by other words, endeavours must be used that explanatory words be sought from the Scriptures themselves. For this purpose, attention to the synonym and phraseology will be exceedingly useful.

IX. In the interpretation of the meanings of the words, it must be sedulously attempted both to make the sense agree with the rule or “form of sound words,” and to accommodate it to the scope or intention of the author in that passage. To this end, in addition to a clear conception of the words, a comparison of other passages of Scripture, whether they be similar, is conducive, as is likewise a diligent search or institution into its context. In this labour, the occasion [of the words] and their end, the connection of those things which precede and which follow, and the circumstances, also, of persons, times and places, will be principally observed.

X. As “the Scriptures are not of private or peculiar explanation,” an interpreter of them will strive to “have his senses exercised” in them; that the interpretation of the Scriptures, which, in those sacred writings, comes under the denomination of “prophecy,” may proceed from the same Spirit as that which primarily inspired the prophecy of the Scriptures.

XI. But the authority of no one is so great, whether it be that of an individual or of a church, as to be able to obtrude his own interpretation on the people as the authentic one. From this affirmation however, by way of eminence, we except the prophets and the apostles. For such interpretation is always subjected to the judgment of him to whom it is proposed, to this extent — that he is bound to receive it, only so far as it is confirmed by strength of arguments.

XII. For this reason, neither the agreement of the fathers, which can, with difficulty, be demonstrated, nor the authority of the Roman pontiff, ought to be received as the rule of interpretation.

XIII. We do not wish to introduce unbounded license, by which it may be allowable to any person, whether a public interpreter of Scripture or a private individual, to reject, without cause, any interpretations whatsoever, whether made by one prophet, or by more; but we desire the liberty of prophesying [or public expounding] to be preserved entire and unimpaired in the church. This liberty, itself, however, we subject to the judgment of God, as possessing the power of life and death, and to that of the church, or of her prelates who are endowed with the power of binding and loosing.

During a Q&A session this week with Dr. John MacArthur, he stated that he often gets asked, “What books do you read to understand the culture better?”  He replied, “Romans 3.”

The fact is that what we need more of is preaching of the Word of God and less talk about how the Church can study the world and impact them.  The world will be the same world that Jesus entered into 2000 years ago and the same world that Paul preached about in Romans 3.  It is a sinful, fallen, God-hating, flesh exalting world.  That is our culture.  That will not change.  That doesn’t change if you go from India to Japan to Russia to England to the United States.  All people are the same.  All are fallen creatures (Romans 3:23).  All of us are children of Adam (Romans 5:12).  All of us need the gospel to be saved (Romans 1:16-17).

The Church then doesn’t need to become like the world and copy her music, her art, her styles, or her ways to impact her.  We need to preach Jesus and He will save those who come to Him in true faith (John 6:37).  The Church needs to help disciples of Jesus grow closer to Jesus through faithful teaching from the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-4:5) and in turn disciples of Jesus will go out and make disciples themselves (Matthew 28:19-20).  As Christians are going, they will impact their entire world through faithfulness to the Word of God as they have been taught by our leaders (Ephesians 4:11-16) who likewise are models of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus (Hebrews 13:17).

My advice then to impact your community with the gospel is to focus on teaching the people of God how to pray (Luke 11:1) and how to study the Bible.  The Apostles did this (Acts 6:4).  Our elders should as well.  The elders of the Church should be men of God who are faithful in sound doctrine and lives (Titus 1:5-9; cf. 1 Timothy 4:16).  Our elders should study their Bibles and preach the Bible and teach the disciples how to apply the Bible.  Expository preaching best does this.  Expository preaching helps the disciple learn how to study the Bible and apply the Bible to their lives as they hear the Bible being taught verse by verse.  The great men of God in history were faithful expositors.  Ironically, both John Calvin and James Arminius were faithful expositors.  Calvin often preached whole books of the Bible.  Calvin spent a year and a half just preaching John 6-8.  Arminius as well was an expositor of the Word of God.  Arminius’ first controversy came as he preached verse by verse through the book of Romans.  Arminius would preach one verse at a time through Romans 7 at the height of his controversy with other theologians of his day.  Like Calvin, Arminius believed that verse by verse teaching was the key to helping people grow into Christlikeness.  No wonder Arminius encouraged his students to read and study John Calvin and his commentaries.

The problem is that too many pastors in the modern Church want to preach feel good, shallow messages that lack biblical content and, I might add, they lack the power of God as they lack His Word.  Many are too lazy themselves to get into studying the Word of God to know how to faithfully teach the Word of God.  The duty of the elders is do this: feed Jesus’ sheep (John 21).  It is not to be CEO’s.  It is not to entertain people.  It is the duty of the elders to preach the Word of God to His people so that they may be built up in the faith (Acts 20:28-35).  The duty of the elders is to teach other disciples, through faithful obedience to God’s Word, how to become more like Jesus.  It has nothing to do with worldliness.

So my advice to elders: Study the Bible.  Preach the Bible.  Apply the Bible.  That is it.  That will bring the presence and power of God into our churches once again.

The following is James Arminius’ introduction to his dissertation on Romans 7.  In it he lays the flow for his writings on Romans 7 and his contention against the Calvinists of his day who asserted that Romans 7 must be a regenerated man.  

1. What is the subject of inquiry concerning the meaning of this chapter? 2. The manner in which this question is made a subject of dispute; formerly, a latitude of sentiment respecting it, was permitted. 3. Those who explain this passage as relating to a man under the law, are rashly charged with having some affinity With the Pelagian heresy. 4. Distribution of the subjects to be discussed in this Commentary.

1. The subject of inquiry concerning the meaning of the seventh chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and particularly of the latter part of it, which is treated upon from the beginning of the fourteenth or fifteenth verse to the end of the chapter, is this: “Does the apostle there treat of himself, such as he then was?” Or, which is almost the same question, “Under his own person, does he treat about a man living in the possession of the grace of Christ, or does he there personate a man placed under the law?” This question is also usually proposed in other words, thus: “Does the apostle there treat about a man who is still unregenerate, or about one who is already regenerated through the Spirit of Christ?” The latter question differs a little in its meaning from the former,

(1.) because the word “unregenerate” has a more extensive signification, embracing even those who are under the law, and at whose state the apostle has also briefly glanced in the ninth verse of this chapter, and

(2.) because the same word, with some persons, denotes not only the mere absence of regeneration, but likewise of all those things which are necessarily previous to regeneration; and these previous things are so far from being excluded by the words, “under the law,” that, on the contrary, a great part of them is necessarily comprehended in the ample compass of that state which these words describe. This ought not to be passed over without some animadversion; because this notion about the word “unregenerate” which many persons have previously formed, is no small cause why they think they must reject the opinion, which declares that this passage of Scripture relates to an unregenerate man, that is, to one not only devoid of regeneration, but likewise of all those things which usually precede regeneration; and why they suppose that they ought to approve of the one contrary to this, without any further attentive consideration of the words and of the things signified.

2. But this question has now become a subject of dispute, not as one of those about which the writers who treat on Catholic doctrine may be allowed to maintain different sentiments, but as if it was one of such importance and weight to the truth of faith, that, without great detriment to truth and manifest heresy, no determination can be made concerning it except in one way, which is the affirmation that the apostle is there treating about a man who lives under grace and is regenerate. This judgment about the question seems new to me, and is one which was never heard in the church before these our times. In those better days, liberty was granted to the divines of the church to maintain an opinion on the one part of this question or on the other, provided they did not produce an explanation of their meaning that was at variance with the articles and doctrines of faith. The thing itself will shew that it is possible to do so in this matter, and such was the persuasion which was entertained on the subject by those who granted this liberty of sentiment, because no man ever supposed that any opinion was to be tolerated in the church which could not admit of an explanation that was agreeable to the doctrines and articles of belief.

3. Those who explain this passage in reference to a man living under the law, are charged with holding a doctrine which has some affinity to the two-fold heresy of Pelagius, and are said to ascribe to man, without the grace of Christ, some true and saving good, and, taking away the contest between the flesh and the spirit which is carried on in the regenerate, are said to maintain a perfection of righteousness in the present life. But I ingenuously confess that I detest, from my heart, the consequences which are here deduced; in the mean time, I do not perceive how they can flow from such an opinion. If any one will deign to prove this, I will instantly abjure an opinion thus conducting to heresy; knowing that nothing can be true, from which a falsehood may, by good consequence, be concluded. But if this cannot be demonstrated, and if I can make it evident that neither these heresies, nor any other, are derived from this opinion when it is properly explained, then, under these circumstances, it seems that I may require, in my own right, that no molestation shall be offered to me, or to any one else, on account of this opinion. If I shall confirm this opinion by arguments which are not only probable, but likewise incapable of refutation, or which at least have a greater semblance of probability than those by which the contrary opinion is supported, then let me be allowed to request that, by at least an equal right, this sentiment may obtain a place with the other in the church. If, lastly, I shall prove that the other opinion as it is in these days explained by most divines, cannot, without the greatest difficulty, be reconciled to many of the plainest passages of Scripture, that it is in no small degree injurious to the grace of the indwelling Spirit, that it has a hurtful effect on good morals, and that it was never approved by any of the ancient fathers of the church, but, on the contrary, disapproved by some of them, and even to St. Augustine himself; then may I be permitted by a most deserved right to admonish the defenders of that other sentiment, that they reflect frequently and seriously, whether they be wishful to excite the wrath of God against themselves by an unjust condemnation of this better opinion and of those who are its defenders.

4. Having premised these things, let us now enter on the matter itself, which shall be treated by us after being distributed in the following parts:

I. I will show that, in this passage, the apostle does not speak about himself, nor about a man living under grace, but that he has transferred to himself the person of a man placed under the law.

II. I will make it evident that this opinion has never been condemned in the church as heretical, but that it has always had some defenders among the divines of the church.

III. I will show that no heresy, neither that of Pelagius, nor any other, can be derived from this opinion, but that it is most evidently opposed to Pelagianism, and that in a most distinguished manner and designedly, it refutes the grand falsehood of Pelagius. Confining myself within the bounds of necessary defense, I might, after having explained these three heads, conclude this treatise, unless it might seem to some one advisable and useful to confute by equal arguments the contrary opinion, especially as it is explained in these days. This I will attempt in other two chapters, subjoined to the preceding three, which will then be analogous and appear as parallels to the last two.

IV. Therefore, I will prove that the meaning which some of our modern divines attribute to the apostle in this was not approved by any of the ancient fathers of the church, not even by St. Augustine himself, but that it was repudiated and confuted by him and some others.

V. And, lastly, I will demonstrate, that this opinion, as explained in these days by many persons, is not only injurious to grace, but likewise adverse to good morals.

God grant that I may meditate and write nothing but what is agreeable to his sacred truth. If, however, any thing of a contrary kind should escape from me, which is a fault of easy occurrence to one who “knows but in part, and prophesies in part;” I wish that neither to be [considered as] spoken nor written. I make this previous protestation against any such thing; and will, in reality, declare those things which possess greater truth and certainty, when any one has taught them to me.