ChristisGod
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)
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.
Read Arminian and Baptist Online by J. Matthew Pinson | Books
Picirilli states, “Those who read him carefully know well that he did not make saving faith a work, that he affirmed that God’s grace is to be credited entirely with anyone’s salvation from beginning to end. He was no Pelagian, as he took pains to make clear” [15]. To illustrate this point, let’s consider Arminius himself: “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: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such are excited by grace” [16]. In reference to claims of semi-Pelagianism, Pinson observes,
Most Reformed critics have portrayed Arminius as a semi-Pelagian and a defector from Reformed theology. Most Arminians, both Wesleyans and Remonstrants, have cast him in Wesleyan or Remonstrant terms, failing to take seriously his theology itself and the context in which it was spawned. Both these perspectives have seriously misunderstood Arminius, using him for polemical purposes rather than simply trying to understand and benefit from his theology [17].
Another large misconception concerning Arminius’ theology is his view of the atonement. Some have wrongly attributed a governmental view of atonement to Arminius. As stated earlier, Arminius posited a penal-substitutionary view of the atonement. Instead, it was Arminius’ follower Hugo Grotius who espoused the governmental view of atonement. And since this view has gained “Arminian” adherents through the years (including Charles Finney, James H. Fairchild, John Miley, and H. Orton Miley), it has led many to believe that Arminius subscribed to this view [18]. However, Arminius himself in no way held this view.
Furthermore, within self-identified Arminianism are two competing schools: Classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism [19]. As the name suggests, Wesleyan Arminianism is merely an adaptation of Arminius’ teachings by John Wesley. Hence, as careful students of history and theology, we mustn’t impose Wesley’s interpretation of Arminius upon the reformer himself. On the other hand, Classical Arminianism seeks to embody the actual teachings of Arminius himself—hence the term Classical or even Reformed [20].
Conclusion
Calvinism and Arminianism: the debate will likely continue. And throughout this month the Helwys Society Forum will consider other themes of Arminius’ theology including the Fall/human condition, prevenient grace, and sanctification.
Nevertheless, it is my hope that these truths have shed light on how two men, decided on Scripture’s sufficiency, partnered in the Protestant Reformation. While they did not agree with each other on all points of theology, they each sought to extol Scripture’s truths as the sufficient Word of God.Arminius and Calvin: Partners in Reform - Helwys Society Forum
hope this helps !!!
-- James Arminius (1560-1609)
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.
Read Arminian and Baptist Online by J. Matthew Pinson | Books
Picirilli states, “Those who read him carefully know well that he did not make saving faith a work, that he affirmed that God’s grace is to be credited entirely with anyone’s salvation from beginning to end. He was no Pelagian, as he took pains to make clear” [15]. To illustrate this point, let’s consider Arminius himself: “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: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such are excited by grace” [16]. In reference to claims of semi-Pelagianism, Pinson observes,
Most Reformed critics have portrayed Arminius as a semi-Pelagian and a defector from Reformed theology. Most Arminians, both Wesleyans and Remonstrants, have cast him in Wesleyan or Remonstrant terms, failing to take seriously his theology itself and the context in which it was spawned. Both these perspectives have seriously misunderstood Arminius, using him for polemical purposes rather than simply trying to understand and benefit from his theology [17].
Another large misconception concerning Arminius’ theology is his view of the atonement. Some have wrongly attributed a governmental view of atonement to Arminius. As stated earlier, Arminius posited a penal-substitutionary view of the atonement. Instead, it was Arminius’ follower Hugo Grotius who espoused the governmental view of atonement. And since this view has gained “Arminian” adherents through the years (including Charles Finney, James H. Fairchild, John Miley, and H. Orton Miley), it has led many to believe that Arminius subscribed to this view [18]. However, Arminius himself in no way held this view.
Furthermore, within self-identified Arminianism are two competing schools: Classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism [19]. As the name suggests, Wesleyan Arminianism is merely an adaptation of Arminius’ teachings by John Wesley. Hence, as careful students of history and theology, we mustn’t impose Wesley’s interpretation of Arminius upon the reformer himself. On the other hand, Classical Arminianism seeks to embody the actual teachings of Arminius himself—hence the term Classical or even Reformed [20].
Conclusion
Calvinism and Arminianism: the debate will likely continue. And throughout this month the Helwys Society Forum will consider other themes of Arminius’ theology including the Fall/human condition, prevenient grace, and sanctification.
Nevertheless, it is my hope that these truths have shed light on how two men, decided on Scripture’s sufficiency, partnered in the Protestant Reformation. While they did not agree with each other on all points of theology, they each sought to extol Scripture’s truths as the sufficient Word of God.Arminius and Calvin: Partners in Reform - Helwys Society Forum
hope this helps !!!
