Sermon Tone Analysis

Overall tone of the sermon

This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.13UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.09UNLIKELY
Fear
0.15UNLIKELY
Joy
0.56LIKELY
Sadness
0.21UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.71LIKELY
Confident
0.29UNLIKELY
Tentative
0UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.96LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.6LIKELY
Extraversion
0.11UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.51LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.52LIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
This article was first published in Evangelical Quarterly 64:3 (1992): 213-227.
--
Some proclaim Arminius as a hero.
Others denounce him as a heretic.
It may, however, be ore accurate to describe him as an enigma.
Commenting on the enigmatic character of Arminius, Carl Bangs writes, "Some Calvinists, finding that his writings do not produce the heresies they expected, have charged him with teaching secret heresy, unpublished.
Many Arminians, finding him too Calvinistic, have written him off as a transitional thinker, a ‘forerunner’" (Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Grand Rapids, 1985), 18).
Arminius is a largely misunderstood theologian.
He is frequently assessed according to superficial hearsay.
Much has been written on Calvin.
A great deal less work has been done on Arminius.
This article may go a little way towards redressing the balance.
A serious attempt to understand Arminius will carefully avoid two less than helpful approaches
- rushing towards an overhasty ‘Calvinist’ critique of Arminius
- setting Arminius on a pedestal where he is beyond criticism.
It is hoped, then, that this short study of Arminius will encourage a more constructive approach to the Calvinist-Arminian debate.
This article is chiefly concerned with a discussion of the doctrines commonly known as ‘the ive points of Calvinism’.
We begin, however, with three introductory points regarding Arminius.
(1).
We should not exaggerate the differences between Calvin (1509-64) and Arminius (1560-1609).
(2).
We should pay close attention to Arminius’ concern with reconciliation between himself and his Calvinist critics.
(3).
We should note carefully Arminius’ avowed commitment to Scripture.
First, the differences between Calvin and Arminius should not be exaggerated.
It would come as a great surprise to many to hear Arminius recommending Calvin’s Commentaries in the following terms: "after the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate... more than any other...
I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read... in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable... his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers...
I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all" (Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae, no.
101.
This excerpt from a letter to Egbertsz., May 3, 1607 is cited by Bangs, 287).
Second, we should pay close attention to Arminius’ concern with reconciliation.
In his lecture, ‘On Reconciling Religious Dissensions Among Christians’ (February 8, 1606), he says that there are four things we must keep in mind:
"first, it is very difficult to discover truth and avoid error; second, people who err are more ikely to be ignorant than malicious; third, those who err may be among the elect; and fourth, it is possible that we ourselves are in error" (The Works of James Arminius, D.D., (American edition of 1956), I, 183.
Cited by Bangs, 276).
Third, we should note carefully Arminius’ avowed commitment to Scripture.
Arminius maintains that his only ambition is "to inquire with all earnestness in the Holy Scriptures for divine truth... for the purpose of my winning some souls for Christ" 4 Works, II, 475-478.
Cited by Bangs, 296).
Concerning the controversial subject of predestination, he writes, "One caution ought to be strictly observed, that nothing be taught concerning it (predestination) beyond what the Scriptures say" (Works, I, 569.
Cited by Bangs, 263).
Shortly before his death, Arminius wrote, "I have guarded with the greatest solicitude and care against advancing or teaching anything which, after a diligent search into the Scriptures, I had not found exactly to agree with those sacred records" (The Works of James Arminius, D.D. (London edition of 1825, 1828, and 1875), I, 46-47.
Cited by Bangs, 330).
Before entering upon our discussion of ‘the five points of Calvinism’ (Canons of Dort, approved at the Synod of Dort, 1618-19), we note two basic observations concerning the difference between Arminius and Arminianism.
First, Fred Klooster, in his article, ‘The Doctrinal Deliverances of Dort’, points out that Arminius "did not work out or develop the system of doctrine that has come to be called by his name" (P.
Y. de Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619, Grand Rapids, 1968, p. 54).
Second, Alan Sell, in his book, The Great Debate.
Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation, maintains that "in important respects, Arminius was not an Arminian" (Worthing, West Sussex, 1982, 97).The ‘five points of Calvinism’ are frequently referred to by the acronym ‘TULIP’, with each of the five letters of the word ‘tulip’ standing for one of the five points of Calvinism: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints.
In discussing these matters, we must take care that the system does not take precedence over the gospel.
When the system prevails over the gospel, the question which preoccupies us is this: Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?
When the gospel is at the forefront of our attention, the question which really concerns us is this: Is the gospel really coming through to me in my reading of Scripture?
As we explore this subject, the grace of God in salvation, we must seek earnestly and prayerfully that the gospel will really come through to us.
* TOTAL DEPRAVITY
The issue which concerns us here is the relationship between ‘free will’ and grace.
Arminius stated that his objective was to present ‘a theology of grace which does not leave man “a stock or a stone”’ (Works, III, 529-530.
Cited by Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 195).
There is in fact, a twofold objective here.
First, Arminius wants to present a theology of grace, a theology which is really and truly a theology of grace, and not a man-centred theology of works.
Second, he wants to understand grace in a way that will not devalue the real significance of human experience.
Arminius struggles to avoid determinism.
He emphasizes that the real contrast is not between determinism and free will.
Rather, it is the contrast between grace and sin.
In presenting his theology of grace, Arminius affirms that "grace (is) essential for the beginning, continuation, and consummation of faith" (Bangs, 343).
He stresses that the possibility of faith is "a possibility of grace" (Bangs, 343).
Faith is not a good work by which man earns salvation.
Our act of believing does not give us any grounds for boasting before God.
Arminius stresses that there is no ‘free will’ in the life of sin (Bangs, 191).
Sinful man is in bondage.
He can only be liberated by an act of grace.
In a lecture entitled, "On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers" (July 23, 1605), Arminius ‘spares nothing in describing the loss of free will in the state of sin’ (Bangs, 269).
In this state the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened, but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost... it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by divine grace (Works, I, 526-529.
Cited by Bangs, 269).
In this account of the relationship between grace and sin, Arminius ‘leave(s) no room at all for an initiation of repentance and faith by free will’ (Bangs, 269).
It is hardly surprising that Carl Bangs comments, "Few of those who called themselves Arminians in later centuries could have accepted a position so strongly Calvinistic" (269).
This is not, however, all that Arminius says about ‘free will’.
He distinguishes between freedom from necessity and freedom from sin.
Man may be ‘addicted to evil’, (The Works of James Arminius, D.D. (London edition of 1825, 1823 and 1875), III, 470-471.
Cited by Bangs, 215) but he is not the prisoner of a deterministic necessity.
In emphasizing the sinfulness of man and the necessity of divine grace, Arminius insists that "The entire process of believing from 'initial fear' to ‘illumination, regeneration, renovation, and confirmation’ is of grace" (341).
Stressing that man is not the victim of deterministic necessity, Arminius maintains that "Grace rescues free will, but not without the choice of the will thus rescued" (Bangs, 216).
He contends that Evangelical belief is the free choice to receive offered grace, which offered grace makes the free choice possible.
In all this man does nothing apart from grace: he earns nothing; he contributes nothing; but he chooses freely.
By emphasizing that the real contrast is the contrast between grace and sin, and not the contrast between determinism and free will, Arminius is able to make two very important points:
First, all the glory for salvation must be given not to ourselves but to God;
Second, it would be quite wrong to imagine that we ourselves have no say in whether or not we believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.
* UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
It should not be supposed that Arminius denies the doctrines of election and predestination.
Concerning the doctrine of election, he writes, "I do not present as a matter of doubt the fact that God has elected some to salvation, and not elected or passed by others, for I think that this is certain from the plain words of Scripture.
(Works, III, 94.
Cited by Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 201).
He insists that ‘no one is saved except through an act of predestination’ (Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae, no. 26.
Cited by Bangs, 204.
The manuscript of this letter to Uitenbogaert is in "the Remonstrant collection housed in the University of Amsterdam, R. K., III E, 17", Bangs, 203, n. 36).
He offers the following definition of predestination:
"Predestination... is the decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ by which he resolved within himself from all eternity to justify, adopt, and endow with eternal life, to the praise of his own glorious grace, believers on whom he had decreed to bestow faith (Works, I, 565.
Cited by Bangs, 262).
He emphasizes that this decree is an eternal decree "because God does nothing in time which he has not decreed to do from all eternity" (Works, I, 566.
Cited by Bangs, 262).
According to Arminius, this predestination - "believers shall be saved, unbelievers shall be damned" - is absolute (The Works of James Arminius, D.D. (London edition of 1825, 1828, and 1875), III, 451.
Cited by Bangs, 219.).
Arminius insists that he is not "inserting the element of conditionality into the arena of grace" (This phrase is borrowed from M. Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance, (Edinburgh, 1985), 9).
He is not teaching that salvation is "purchased by man" through his act of faith (Bell, 9).
Arminius stresses that "repentance is not a meritorious work" and that "(t)he same is true of faith" (Bangs, 351).
He writes, "We give the name of ‘believers’ not to those who would be such by their own merits or strength, but to those who by the gratuitous and peculiar kindness of God would believe in Christ" ("Public Disputation, 15", in Works, I, 567.
Cited by Bangs, 351).
In emphasizing that faith is not a meritorious work, he points out that "no one except a sinner can know or acknowledge Christ for his Savior, for he is the Savior of sinners" ("Private Disputation, 44", in Works, I, 110-111.
Cited by Bangs, 342).
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9