Posted on 09/18/2006 3:25:10 PM PDT by Valin
You have time, God willing. 8~)
Sorry, OP, but there's no way that Arminius was not a calvinist.
1. It was calvinist Arminius who was chosen to debate on behalf of supralapsarian calvinists an infralapsarian "apostate."
At that time and before, what would you call Arminius?
2. Afterwards, in deciding over time that neither of those positions did justice to God's holiness, Arminius came to a different perspective than either supra or infra. He always maintained his views were consonant with the confessions preceding that time. He always fought to retain his positions in Leiden, and he was never convicted and removed.
What did Arminius consider himself at that time?
So, historically, it is easy to use the expression: Calvinist in the Tradition of Arminius.
Those who have difficulties with my use of CTA, have that difficulty for theological, and not historical, reasons.
It's difficult to tell why God leads us the way He does. I had wanted to go into the ministry and my father dying from cancer change all that. So now I'm in computers and spend my time wreaking havoc on Free Republic. However, looking back at everything, this really was best. Had I written any books I would be like Augustine, having to recall them all. God has had a purpose for it all.
Gosh, that does not surprise me one bit, Harley.
God has had a purpose for it all.
Amen. And there's lots more jots and tittles left, so who knows where God will lead you next? But it's sure to be somewhere wonderful, if past is prologue. 8~)
*Arminius believed in resistible grace. Calvin believed in irresistible grace.
*Arminius believed in election by foreseen faith. Calvin believed in election by grace alone, based on nothing man can do or say.
*Arminius believed in man's sickness and partial crippled goodness. Calvin believed in man's total inability and total depravity.
*Arminius believed in unlimited atonement; that Christ died for all men everywhere, even the reprobate. Calvin believed in limited atonement; that Christ died for His sheep.
*Arminius believed a man could fall away from true faith. Calvin believed in a God-given Perseverance of His saints and the effective, conclusive working of the Holy Spirit within the redeemed.
When you can FINALLY get around to reconciling these BASIC differences, stated and defended by church councils for centuries, then your insistence that Arminius was a Calvinist might be taken seriously.
But since you refuse to answer those discrepancies, and obviously NEVER will be able to prove your goofy assertion, you should stop arguing from an incorrect premise or people will think you're trying to be intentionally duplicitous and even sinister with "ulterior motives" and "reading between the lines" being all you've offered to support your side of the debate.
AMEN!!!
1. It was calvinist Arminius who was chosen to debate on behalf of supralapsarian calvinists an infralapsarian "apostate."
Oh, I GOTTA see a link for that one. I know he was tasked with defending Beza's views, which were probably supralapsarian, but I know of no historical circumstance in which any Calvinist was charged with apostasy for holding an infralapsarian view.
At that time and before, what would you call Arminius?
In the closet.
2. Afterwards, in deciding over time that neither of those positions did justice to God's holiness, Arminius came to a different perspective than either supra or infra. He always maintained his views were consonant with the confessions preceding that time. He always fought to retain his positions in Leiden, and he was never convicted and removed.
Those last two statements go hand in hand. Had a national Synod been allowed when originally called for, the church would have made the same definitive ruling it did against Arminius' faithful followers: that his views were NOT in harmony with the confessions and thus were heresy.
Arminius had great political connections and a self-professed knack for witholding the full truth of his position when expedient.
What did Arminius consider himself at that time?
Who cares? Arius considered himself orthodox. So do most other heretics throughout history. That's why councils and synods end up being called to speak definitively and formally on what is already accepted as orthodoxy. That is precisely what happened at Dordt.
Of course, it still would be greatly helpful if you would answer these questions:
1. What specifically constitutes "Calvinism?" (Is Calvinism a set of doctrinal views, and if so which must one hold at a minimum to be considered one? An ecclesiastical position? A professorship?)
2. What if any specific views did the Remonstrants put forth which were at odds with those of Arminius?
3. What if any specific views did the delegates from the Reformed churches across the whole of Europe put forth at Dordt which were at odds with those of Calvin?
No, that's not right.
When a UCMJ Trial determines that a Recruit must be Dishonorably Discharged, that Recruit IS NOT a Soldier anymore. He is not a Marine anymore. He is not a Flyboy or a Sailor anymore. He is not even a gods-forsaken Mud Duck.
When a Recruit is Dishonorably Discharged, he is nothing. He is gone, as far as the Military is concerned.
He is nothing, never will be anything, and never was anything to begin with.
And that is what a Heresy Conviction by an Ecumenical Council means.
It means that Arminianism, no matter where it came from, has been examined, judged, weighed in the balance and found to be a Heresy which is Hateful towards God.
At that point, it doesn't matter that Jacob Arminius trained in Geneva. What matters is that an Ecumenical Council was convened, and the Jesuit-inspired doctrines and Jesuit-supported followers of Jacob Arminius were Judged, and were DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED from the Faith of Protestantism.
What that means, is that Arminians CAN'T call themselves "Calvinists" any more.
They have been TRIED.
They have been JUDGED.
They have been DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED by Conviction of Heresy.
They can't Claim to be "Calvinists" any more!
1. It was calvinist Arminius who was chosen to debate on behalf of supralapsarian calvinists an infralapsarian "apostate." At that time and before, what would you call Arminius?
Arminius may have attempted to uphold Calvinist Orthodoxy in his youth (let us pray as much, that his soul may have been saved). Regardless, he broke Faith with Protestantism (and there are many evidences of Arminius' contacts with the Jesuits, besides his repudiation of Orthodox Protestant Doctrine), and were it not for his untimely death he would surely have been judged with his Followers.
At any rate, Arminianism has been formally condemned as Satanic Heresy by the Ecumenical Councils of the Reformed Church.
Afterwards, in deciding over time that neither of those positions did justice to God's holiness, Arminius came to a different perspective than either supra or infra. He always maintained his views were consonant with the confessions preceding that time. He always fought to retain his positions in Leiden, and he was never convicted and removed. What did Arminius consider himself at that time?
Beyond the fact that Arminius surely WOULD have been Condemned for his Heresy, had he lived.... it doesn't really matter.
Arminius himself affirmed the seniority of the Ecumenical Council over the Local Pastor; therefore, any Pastor, from John Wesley on, who fails to teach the Dordt-Defined Reformed Doctrines of Absolute Predestination -- is guilty of deliberate Rebellion against the Church of Jesus Christ, and of willfully leading astray God's lambs.
So, historically, it is easy to use the expression: "Calvinist in the Tradition of Arminius".
Yes, indeed. Precisely as it is easy to use the expression: "a True Patriot in the Tradition of Benedict Arnold".
ANYONE can throw words around.
However, words mean things. And nobody's really fooled by the notion that Arminians are Calvinists. Arminians just wish they were.
Arminians are "Calvinists", in the same sense that Dishonorable Discharges are "Soldiers"... they are Failures and Rejects who have been drummed outta the Corps, and they're NOT the real thing.
Cornpone stuff out of one of the most propaganda fraught eras of England. It simply isn't valid history. What is true, though, is that Arminius' own family was killed by Catholic forces of Spain, and that he detested them, considering the pope to be the anti-christ. Now, we can play games all we want with that, but in the end it'll be the Jesuits appearing to be Karl Rove-like with their very own mind-meld machine, making the unsuspecting say and do things they don't even realize.
Arminius was never discharged. Ever. So your parallel doesn't work.
Therefore,it is safe for me to call myself a "Calivinist in the Tradition of Arminius."
Much to the chagrin of many, but fine and within the rules of cricket.
I think you need to reread the sentence.
closet ridiculous
The council happened after his death. Those of his students who attended were not permitted to speak in their own defense.
Kangaroo courts get kangaroo results.
I did. Please link to the source which referred to infralapsarians as "apostates."
closet ridiculous
Of course you would call it ridiculous. You asked what he would be called. You have my answer.
The council happened after his death. Those of his students who attended were not permitted to speak in their own defense. Kangaroo courts get kangaroo results.
Oh, now the nature of the proceedings is the great crime here. LOL!
Their doctrine spoke for itself. Either the doctrine was Scriptural or it was not. Either it was in harmony with the confessions or it was not. Either it was Calvinist or it was not. They Synod answered unequivocally. I doubt even Arminius' own half-truth defense would have made any difference. No amount of legerdemain could have made Arminius' views compatible with Calvinism.
Three questions to answer, xzins. Still waiting. They should not be difficult for you to answer since they address issues with statements you repeat post after post.
Yes, it does.
What matters is NOT whether or not Arminius himself was discharged, but whether or not Arminius' Followers and Arminius' Doctrine was ever Dis-Honorably Discharged from the Protestant Faith...
And the Fact of the Matter is, According to the Ecumenical Council of the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ at Dordrecht, the Teaching of Arminianism has been forever Banned as Satanic Heresy, and any Pastor who preaches Arminianism in any form has already called Excommunication upon himself due to his Rebellion against the Ecumenical Councils of the Protestant Church.
The particular case of the heretical Individual is thus of minor concern at this point.
Ergo, regardless of particular cases... According to the Ecumenical Council of the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ at Dordrecht, the Teaching of Arminianism has been forever Banned as Satanic Heresy, and any Pastor who preaches Arminianism in any form has already called Excommunication upon himself due to his Rebellion against the Ecumenical Councils of the Protestant Church.
Therefore,it is safe for me to call myself a "Calivinist in the Tradition of Arminius."
Yes. In precisely the same sense that one may call themselves "A True Patriot in the Tradition of Benedict Arnold"... you're certainly welcome to believe anything you want.
But nobody else will.
Arminians calling themselves "Calvinists" are violating the Logical Law of Non-Contradiction on basis of simple definition. It's clearly not True, and nobody's buying it.
All it really proves is that Arminians have "Calvinist Envy"... they'll endlessly proclaim that Calvinism is Theologically Incorrect, and yet they still want to be "Calvinists"!
Funny, that.
Right.
FDR won election and re-election four times running as a middle-of-the-road everyman.
Do any of us imagine that would happen again?
Never in a thousand years because Americans have been educated as to what socialists actually do and believe, regardless of the name they put to their group affiliation.
All it really proves is that Arminians have "Calvinist Envy"... they'll endlessly proclaim that Calvinism is Theologically Incorrect, and yet they still want to be "Calvinists"!
Just like my friends who proudly call themselves "liberals" while insisting they are still "moral conservatives." But the party they vote for and support is morally bankrupt, and they are misguided fools for calling themselves "conservative" anything. They are not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.