Not interpreting...rewriting them. To change the words as he proposed completely changed the clear meaning of the Confession's statement on predestination. Whether or not the Confession was true to Scripture on this point is in this context irrelevant since what is being argued is not whether the Confession is Scriptural on this matter, but rather whether or not Arminius was in agreement with the confession. He clearly was not.
And note also that it was the GOVERNMENT that kept him in his pulpit and his professorship until the day of his death...NOT the confessional Calvinists.
I'm finished rehashing this discussion for how. I trust that if Quix is truly interested and feels it a study worthy of the time, then it will be obvious that Arminius was NOT a confessional Calvinist.
i APPRECIATE the input.
I hate tedious studies of ancient hitory . . . especially of a . . .
conflicted theological sort. Summaries by helpful others are much my preference.
I prefer to take my theology straight from Scripture.
Ancient history--even theological history can be interesting to a point.
Biblical era history can help with word meanings etc.
Protestant history can be helpful in terms of informing about the phenomena related to all organizations and groups becoming fossilized, dead, sterile, lifeless, etc. in 25 years or less.
I do not think the debate back then was wheather one was a Calvinist, but wheather one was adhering the principles of the Reformation.