Posted on 01/13/2005 7:06:18 AM PST by xzins
Ping to resource link
Quite an impressive online resource! Thank you!!!
I agree, AG. It should provide useful information for those interested in Arminius' own works and words. Like John Calvin, I suspect Arminius has suffered under friend and foe alike who have not adequately represented him.
Pray for the success of the Iraqi Elections.
Read later.
It'll take a long, long time. :>)
There's a lot there.
Seems like a peculiar thing to do for one who was supposedly on the side of the Reformers and in opposition to the Papacy.
You are on the wrong side of this one, x. There's a back story here that explains so much.
Ah. Perhaps I should've said, "Peruse later". Thanks for the ping.
6. Lastly. Of all the difficulties and controversies which have arisen in these our Churches since the time of the Reformation, there is none that has not had its origin in this doctrine, or that has not, at least, been mixed with it. What I have here said will be found true, if we bring to our recollection the controversies which existed at Leyden in the affair of Koolhaes, at Gouda in that of Herman Herberts, at Horn with respect to Cornelius Wiggerston, and at Mendenblich in the affair of Tako Sybrants. This consideration was not among the last of those motives which induced me to give my most diligent attention to this head of doctrine, and endeavour to prevent our Churches from suffering any detriment from it; because, from it, the Papists have derived much of their increase. While all pious teachers ought most heartily to desire the destruction of Popery, as they would that of the kingdom of Antichrist, they ought with the greatest zeal, to engage in the attempt, and as far as it is within their power, to make the most efficient preparations for its overthrow.
After reading Arminius' own words, I suppose there's some tin-foil nuts out there who want to make a catholic conspiracy case? LOL!
I suspect it was in Latin because that was still the scholastic language of the day.
He was paid by the Jesuits. The Reformation was cataclysmic. Do you imagine Rome, the strongest force on earth at the time, would sit by and not try to subvert the changes taking place?
Do you imagine Alinksy was the first to think up how to disrupt and destroy one's opponents?
The Reformation came down to this -- either God saves the elect from before the foundation of the world, according to His own good pleasure and nothing within fallen man himself (Augustinian/Pauline/monergistic) OR God saves in concert with man (synergistic) thus allowing man, men and churches some/all control in God's ordination of the elect. Period.
Choose ye this day.
I suspect it was in Latin because that was still the scholastic language of the day.
Your "suspicions" are suspect and mighty conveeenient. It was a peculiar thing for a "Protestant" to do at the time.
...tin-foil nuts...
Have a good day, x.
pure unadulterated conspiracy theory, drE.
The guy compares "the popery" with the antichrist. He's in a Calvinist pulpit and teaching in a Calvinist University in Leyden right near the historic time when Orange had been assassinated and The Spanish King had murdered thousands of Protestants in the name of Rome.
Your conspiracy theorists have lost their marbles.
Thank you!!!
There are those who change the wine but keep the bottle.
One simply has to look at the past 500 years to see the success of the latter's efforts.
And yet the new wine in a new bottle will triumph. We have that promise.
"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." -- Luke 5:37-39.
It's not.
We have a tendency, IMHO, to superimpose our own worldviews on people "way back when". In this case, it appears he wanted to supplant one theology with another rather than to present the two in parallel.
I am curious why that would be so. All that comes to mind is that every believer knows there is one Truth, God, and deduces from that that there can only be one true theology.
My instant reaction in the Spirit is that there is indeed only one Truth, but He is a person not an abstraction. Certainly the Scriptures are from Him, but the mortal mind is not transparent.
The era had so much to do with it, AG.
This is the era of Phillip the II of Spain and William of Orange....Phillip was the Catholic King of Spain who claimed the Netherlands and William of Orange stood in opposition as the leader of the free Dutch protestants. The revolt took place in the late 1560's, I believe.
Arminius' years are: 1559-1609. One cannot view the theology without recognizing the political of that era. Phillip's regent in the area, a Duke of Alva, had 10000 Spanish soldiers at his behest and between 1567-1573 he executed about 2000 and caused 40000 or more to leave the country.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Ahhh, thank you so much for putting it in context! Hugs!
That is the history of the era, Dr.E.
It was driven by a number of things, but the religious issues were in the forefront, imho.
The point is, however, that it would have been impossible for Arminius to have a protestant chair at a protestant university in Leyden while being a supporter of Rome. They hated Rome in that area, and it appears that Arminius also did.
My pleasure.
The old wine.
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.