[HarleyD]

"Arminius was a Calvinist who never left and was never kicked out. He wrote glowingly of Calvin and recommended Calvin's Commentaries above all other writings save the bible."

Yes, and he rejected just about everything Calvin wrote. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Quix]

Correction,

a sheep in sheep's clothing.

And, I doubt His Shepherd would be impressed or pleased with your characterization . . .

Habitual though that sort of characterization seems to be for your ilk.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Geesh. What happened? Why is Frumanchu banned/suspended. His #307 wasn't offensive.

ftd comments that he doubts some Calvinists are saved and Frumanchu gets erased?

What's the story?

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, and he rejected just about everything Calvin wrote. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

No, he (Arminius) rejected only Unconditional election.

Arminius was as much in the Reformed tradition as Luther and Zwingli, who diagreed on the issue of Communion.

[P-Marlowe]

Yes, and he rejected just about everything Calvin wrote. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Harley, Harley, Harley. You should know better than that. Heck even Calvin ended up disagreeing with his own institutes on the finer points of soteriology, but soteriology is only one point of Calvin's teachings. Arminius only disagreed with Calvin inasmuch as Calvin was a supralapsarian. I think that position by Calvin took up only the last chapter of the institutes and I don't think Calvin reiterated it as strongly in his commentaries.

To say that Arminius, who I'm sure read a lot more Calvin than you, disagreed with just about everything Calvin wrote is just not true. And Calvin was just a man like Arminius. Even old Calvin disagreed with young Calvin on some points. It was not Calvin that was the problem, but the rigid interpretation of Calvin's teachings on the mysteries of soteriology as enunciated in some of the confessions that was Arminius' problem.

And Rightly so. These should not be matters in which a man's fealty to the bible should be tested.