Do any Arminians here disagree with Arminius ?

civic

Well-known member
“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 (incomparabilem esse) 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 (spiritum aliquem prophetiae eximium). His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination ( cum delectu), like the writings of all men."

-- James Arminius (1560-1609)
 

civic

Well-known member
J. Matthew Pinson says: “ Those who bring their own presuppositions into the study of Arminius and read later Arminian themes into his thought fail to realize perhaps the most important thing about his theology: that it is distinctively Reformed. It is a development of Reformed theology rather than a departure from it “ In the same tomne, William Pauck writes , “ The Arminians [and thus Arminius] belong as definitely to the Calvinistic tradition as the defenders of the decisions of the Synod of Dort”.


Arminius letter to Hippolytus a Collibus, in 1608: “I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with us the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent. “In his Declaration of Sentiments that same year, Arminius challenged anyone to prove that he had ever said anything “in conflict with either the Word of God or the Confession of the Dutch Churches.


”Arminius lived and died with complete loyalty to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession of Faith.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/121123828/Pinson-on-Arminius

hope this helps !!!
 

TibiasDad

Active member
J. Matthew Pinson says: “ Those who bring their own presuppositions into the study of Arminius and read later Arminian themes into his thought fail to realize perhaps the most important thing about his theology: that it is distinctively Reformed. It is a development of Reformed theology rather than a departure from it “ In the same tomne, William Pauck writes , “ The Arminians [and thus Arminius] belong as definitely to the Calvinistic tradition as the defenders of the decisions of the Synod of Dort”.


Arminius letter to Hippolytus a Collibus, in 1608: “I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with us the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent. “In his Declaration of Sentiments that same year, Arminius challenged anyone to prove that he had ever said anything “in conflict with either the Word of God or the Confession of the Dutch Churches.


”Arminius lived and died with complete loyalty to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession of Faith.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/121123828/Pinson-on-Arminius

hope this helps !!!

And yet he disagreed with Calvin regarding limited atonement and irresistibility! I can read things by those with whom I disagree, and yet appreciate their skills of study and think them worthy of study. I have always held that TULIP is a very beautiful, and logically tight system of thought, and argued with scripture ad its foundations. It is a much better system than the OSAS arguments of those who endorse unlimited atonement and resistibility. It should be studied, but it doesn't mean that it is correct.


Doug
 

TomFL

Well-known member
J. Matthew Pinson says: “ Those who bring their own presuppositions into the study of Arminius and read later Arminian themes into his thought fail to realize perhaps the most important thing about his theology: that it is distinctively Reformed. It is a development of Reformed theology rather than a departure from it “ In the same tomne, William Pauck writes , “ The Arminians [and thus Arminius] belong as definitely to the Calvinistic tradition as the defenders of the decisions of the Synod of Dort”.


Arminius letter to Hippolytus a Collibus, in 1608: “I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with us the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent. “In his Declaration of Sentiments that same year, Arminius challenged anyone to prove that he had ever said anything “in conflict with either the Word of God or the Confession of the Dutch Churches.


”Arminius lived and died with complete loyalty to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession of Faith.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/121123828/Pinson-on-Arminius

hope this helps !!!
I agree Arminius was a Calvinist. It was those who came afterwards who may be termed Arminians in thec sense it carries today.

Based on that I see little reason for Arminians to be bound by the teachings of Arminius
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I agree Arminius was a Calvinist. It was those who came afterwards who may be termed Arminians in thec sense it carries today.

Based on that I see little reason for Arminians to be bound by the teachings of Arminius

<Chuckle>

Yet people hold Calvinists to the teachings of Calvin.
Go figure.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Many who are labelled Arminians due to their going astray from sound doctrine and gospel truth are better labelled Finneyists, Pelagians, or even Sandemans than Arminian. Their teachings are reflections of their errors which have been handed down to them through time whether they are aware of it or not.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I agree Arminius was a Calvinist. It was those who came afterwards who may be termed Arminians in thec sense it carries today.

Based on that I see little reason for Arminians to be bound by the teachings of Arminius
An interesting thought. Are you saying that Arminianism is like New-Calvinism; or that it was the original new Calvinism? That's an interesting line of thinking; if that's what you're saying, I'd like to know why. Not that I agree with your notion but I think I get where you're coming from...
 

TomFL

Well-known member
An interesting thought. Are you saying that Arminianism is like New-Calvinism; or that it was the original new Calvinism? That's an interesting line of thinking; if that's what you're saying, I'd like to know why. Not that I agree with your notion but I think I get where you're coming from...
No The position of modern day Arminians is not the position of Arminius

Check Civics post on this Partially produced below

Arminius letter to Hippolytus a Collibus, in 1608: “I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with us the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent. “In his Declaration of Sentiments that same year, Arminius challenged anyone to prove that he had ever said anything “in conflict with either the Word of God or the Confession of the Dutch Churches.


”Arminius lived and died with complete loyalty to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession of Faith.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/121123828/Pinson-on-Arminius
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
And yet he disagreed with Calvin regarding limited atonement and irresistibility! I can read things by those with whom I disagree, and yet appreciate their skills of study and think them worthy of study. I have always held that TULIP is a very beautiful, and logically tight system of thought, and argued with scripture ad its foundations. It is a much better system than the OSAS arguments of those who endorse unlimited atonement and resistibility. It should be studied, but it doesn't mean that it is correct.


Doug
I would like to know your opinion of what TomL said about Arminius being a Calvinist? Please don't just say Arminius wasn't a Calvinist, we know that. But if a New-Calvinist is a Calvinist, could Arminius fit the Category of a New-Calvinist? ;)
 

TomFL

Well-known member
I would like to know your opinion of what TomL said about Arminius being a Calvinist? Please don't just say Arminius wasn't a Calvinist, we know that. But if a New-Calvinist is a Calvinist, could Arminius fit the Category of a New-Calvinist? ;)
Actually we don't know that. Ask Civic

It was his claim

I agree
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
No The position of modern day Arminians is not the position of Arminius

Check Civics post on this Partially produced below

Arminius letter to Hippolytus a Collibus, in 1608: “I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with us the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent. “In his Declaration of Sentiments that same year, Arminius challenged anyone to prove that he had ever said anything “in conflict with either the Word of God or the Confession of the Dutch Churches.


”Arminius lived and died with complete loyalty to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession of Faith.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/121123828/Pinson-on-Arminius
I think there are little to NO Arminians left. You said Arminius was a Calvinist though...

Why? Because he held to the Confession?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
“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 (incomparabilem esse) 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 (spiritum aliquem prophetiae eximium). His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination ( cum delectu), like the writings of all men."

-- James Arminius (1560-1609)
I hope I don't derail your Thread. What do you want to gain from it?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
You're merely attempting to set a ridiculous precedent that if he agrees with this teachings he's a follower of Calvin, or, he has to show what he disagrees with in order to prove he's not.
If you follow the discussion

It concerned whether Arminian disagree with Arminius

Yes they do

You canot hold Arminiasn to Arminiusa because they disagree

Theo then brought in Calvinism and asked about holding Calvinists to Calvin

based on the Arminian-arminius dynamic

Well if one is going to argue based on that dynamic is proper to ask how they disagree
 
Top