You mean this guy?
post lux tenebras
Posted on 11/14/2006 6:06:24 AM PST by xzins
Dort Pitted Calvinists against Arminians.
by the Staff or associates of Christian History Institute.
James (Jacob) Arminius was uneasy with some of the teachings that had come to be identified with Calvinism. Did God really choose some men to be damned before he created them? Was Christ's death only intended for those who would finally be saved? Does God exercise his sovereignty so fully that man has no choice in his own salvation? Does regeneration come first and then repentance? As the professor of theology at Leyden, James had promised to teach only those things which conformed to the confessions of faith of the state church of the Netherlands. These were Calvinist. In his public teaching, Arminius kept his word, but he laid out Scripture readings in such a way as to cast doubt on Calvin's theology (which was heavily indebted to Augustine of Hippo).
Gomarus, leading opponent of Arminianism. In private, James offered a different interpretation of Scripture to interested students. While not varying from a single doctrine of the early church creeds and accepting much that Calvin taught, he modified his theology to say that man (through ordinary grace) can respond to the gospel and has real choice in his ultimate destiny. Strict Calvinists, such as Dr. Franciscus Gomarus, objected strongly. However, a number of pastors of state churches adopted Arminian views. Arminius himself downplayed differences for the sake of peace and because of his promises, although he tried to get the Heidelberg Catechism and another Dutch confession amended.
After his death, his followers issued a document called a Remonstrance. In it they set out five points in which they differed from Calvin. Inevitably the issue got mixed up with politics too complex to go into in this short article. The Remonstrants (as Arminians were called) were on the side of those who wanted decentralized government or "states rights." The Calvinists were on the same side as Maurice, who was attempting to reduce "states rights" and create a stronger central government.
The central government called a synod (council of churchmen) to weigh the issues. On this day, November 13, 1618, the Synod of Dort convened. It was controlled by Calvinists who invited other Calvinists from neighboring countries. The assembly existed for one purpose only: to condemn the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants considered this unfair.
And the proceedings were biased. The Calvinists met alone until the sixth of December. Meanwhile, Remonstrants around the country were thrown out of their pulpits. Those Remonstrants who were summoned to the assembly found their movements restricted. They were not allowed to have their strongest speakers represent them. Many other injustices occurred.
Needless to say, with matters so stacked against the Remonstrants, their cause was condemned. One of their supporters, the statesman, John Oldenbarneveld, was invited to a meeting with Maurice and arrested. Falsely charged with treason, he was beheaded. Another supporter, Hugo Grotius (who became the father of international law), was sentenced to life in prison but managed to escape.
Arminian ideas are found among Wesleyans, Methodists, Nazarenes, Free Will Baptists and in similar traditions, while variations of Calvinism can be detected in the theologies of Reformed, Presbyterian, Calvinist Methodist and some Baptist groups.
Resources
"Arminianism," and "Dort, Synod of," in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church," edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. (Oxford, 1997).
Bangs, Carl. Arminius. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971).
Hunt, Dave. What Love Is This? Calvinism's misrepresentation of God. (Sister, Oregon: Loyal, 2002).
Vandergugten, S. "The Arminian Controversy and the Synod of Doredt."
(http://spindleworks.com/library/vandergugten/arminian_c.htm).
Watson, Richard. "Synod of Dort." www.geocities.com/calvinismheresy/synoddort.html).
I should have spent a few months away from FR after the elections...
Here in the land of truth, we call it a "lie by ommission." But, Arminius wasn't silent. He took an oath to be appointed to his position(s). He simply out and out lied and then taught contrary doctrine behind the backs of those he had just betrayed. Like I said, aparently, he believed that the ends justified his means.
Nor is it a lie to speak some things only when you are in safety.
So, if your life is in peril, then it is OK to lie. Show me one Apostle that resorted to the tricks of the Devil to save his own skin. If I remember, you are descended from the Anglicans by faith. Perhaps you might ought to look at the courage of Cramner who found his courage in the end and died as a true Christian should instead of cowering to keep that which no man may keep.
Blessed is he who give up his life to gain that which he can't lose. At least that is what my Bible seems to suggest. Perhaps it means other things to you, like go ahead and lie.
Post Toasties Lox n Bagels
I realize that all of these things are just games to you and your buddies. Eventually, you will grow up. BTW, the things you mock are the cherised cries of the Reformation. (And you and your club want us to think that you are Reformers.)
post tenebras lux,
After the dark....breakfast. (And sometimes 2nd breakfast.:>)
Yep, we're pretty light-hearted about these things that don't matter to one's salvation. As Romans 10 says, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
That's what counts.
I wouldn't consider for a moment that there's any wisdom at all in dying for my pre-trib rapture leanings. It's not essential for salvation.
The wise one was Arminius. In some things, we see through a glass darkly. Therefore, your rendering of history is a little bit of a chronological contortion. We've gone through this before, but Arminius was ALWAYS a child of the Reformation.
The misguided ones were those who'd take a man's life over such things.
Pst Tsties Lx n Bgls
You don't think that lying doesn't matter to one's salvation. And we Calvinists get accused of Antimonionism. Oh, well. Got doesn't really mean it; it doesn't really matter; he winks at sin; all that matters is that one say they love him and feel all warm and gushy inside about it; obedience really doesn't matter.
"Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say."
"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
Arminius was ALWAYS a child of the Reformation.
Yeah, and Jim Jones was an upstanding Arminian.
post tenebras lux,
If calvinists are so insistent on the truth, then why intentionally misrepresent my words.
Some to save their lives on unimportant things, and others to score points on a stupid post on an insignificant website.
I'll take Arminius' version any day. In fact, it's veritably Abrahamic.
Touche'!
You'll notice LC's technique is to falsely call Arminius a liar and then insist that if you defend Arminius, then you are defending lying.
Post Toasties Lox and Bagels.
The article admits what it a fact of history. Arminius swore an oath about what he believed to be truth. This is typical, BTW, of anyone seeking ordination in Calvinist churches or in that day to be qualified to teach, just as it was a part of my own examination to be an elder with my own denomination. They want to make sure we don't teach heresy. Then, Arminius taught different doctrines behind the backs of those who thought they could trust him. He knew this was wrong. He knew this was a lie. This is why he did it in back rooms at night and not during the day in his classes. Perhaps, according to Arminians, as xzins has strongly suggested, even if it is a lie, it is OK.
post tenebras lux,
Kinda like falsely implying the Reformed theologians and delegates at Dordt were responsible for the death of men like Oldenbarnevelt and then insisting that if we defend the Calvinists we are defending the execution of this man?
The Council of Dort was called by Prince Maurice, and it was Maurice who had Grotius imprisoned for life and Oldenbarneveld executed.
Do you happen to have a list of the delegates to the Council of Dordt? Was Prince Maurice of Orange, a participant?
and then insisting that if we defend the Calvinists we are defending the execution of this man?
Do you believe he was unjustly executed?
BTW the Council of Dordt was not called to discuss or debate Arminianism, but to condemn it.
See post #3 & #7 (Beginning at "Religious Conflict...")
If he had not been a supporter of Arminius he would not have been killed.
Nearly everything about it was unjust.
You mean this guy?
The power plays and hatefulness of Dordt should mean that no fair person would take anything they said out of that context of power, hate, exile, and execution.
It makes me certain that their positions on scripture are unworthy of inclusion in serious Christian history.
I agree. So why are the political actions of a political figure being used as an excuse to dismiss the theological issues involved at Dordt?
Do you happen to have a list of the delegates to the Council of Dordt? Was Prince Maurice of Orange, a participant?
Not to my knowledge, which leads me back to the previous question.
BTW the Council of Dordt was not called to discuss or debate Arminianism, but to condemn it.
And? The First Council of Nicea wasn't held to discuss or debate Arianism, but to condemn it. Your point is moot.
His execution had everything to do with a parallel political battle going on at the time. It had nothing to do with the actual theology being discussed at Dordt.
What a convenient excuse to throw out the facts of history, xzins. I hear the same type of argument made by liberal Democrats all the time to dismiss the Reagan presidency.
An interesting change of tactics to be sure. Up until recently the whole affair was cast in doubt by the Remonstrants not being true to Arminius' views and teachings. Now suddenly the whole affair should cast in doubt because of the political surroundings at the time.
I suppose next we'll be asked to dismiss the Synod of Dordt because there was no vote taken to determine the Reformed delegates, or some other inane argument.
It makes me certain that their positions on scripture are unworthy of inclusion in serious Christian history.
See tagline.
Fair people have been including the Synod's position on Scripture in serious Christian history for hundreds of years.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Nor is it a nickname for the Ohio River.
Oldenbarnevelt was arrested and executed (unjustly IMO) for his political actions concerning states rights. He was NOT killed for his theological views.
This whole line of argumentation is absurd. History stands firm. Arminius was no Calvinist, nor were his faithful followers, the Remonstrants, and the delegates from the Reformed churches throughout Europe who met at the Synod of Dordt rightly confirmed this formally.
You'll find the white-out just doesn't stick to the pages of history very well. Scratch just a little and the revised words fall right off the paper.
What else do you expect liberals to do? They can't beat us with Scriptures. We slaughter them every single time. All they have is what liberals everywhere have. Rewrite history; falsely destroy character.
The funny thing here is that this hit piece actually concedes that Arminius was a liar. More than kinda funny when you thing about it.
post tenebras lux,
You are incorrect. The radical determinist interpretation of scripture simply doesn't prevail ever.
+
The history of Dordt says it is unworthy of inclusion in Christian history.
psttstslxnbgls
LOL! You can't get away with rewriting it, so now you're trying to pretend it didn't even happen?!?
How many other pages of church history shall we tear out of the book simply because of the political climate of the times?
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.