Other than that, he was a Calvinist professor at a Calvinist University.
I have long described myself as a calvinist in the tradition of Arminius.
Which is obviously why you posted two thread pertaining to Arminius' soteriology.
Other than that, he was a Calvinist professor at a Calvinist University.
Sorry, but this is no more credible than when you tried this same thing about a year ago over the course of a couple threads.
Just to revisit:
5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.He quite freely admits he IS in disagreement with what is being taught in the University of Leyden and in the Dutch Reformed churches.I have hitherto been stating those opinions concerning the article of Predestination which are inculcated in our Churches and in the University of Leyden, and of which I disapprove. I have at the same time produced my own reasons, why I form such an unfavourable judgment concerning them; and I will now declare my own opinions on this subject, which are of such a description as, according to my views, appear most conformable to the word of God.
I have long described myself as a calvinist in the tradition of Arminius.
And I've long pointed out how truly absurd this is given that Arminius was not a Calvinist.
It seems American political liberals are not the only ones who feel the need to rewrite history in order to manufacture historical support for fundamentally flawed ideology.
Interestingly, the Arminians will endlessly try to claim for themselves the mantle of John Calvin...
...Whereas no Calvinist anywhere, ever, has any interest whatsoever in claiming for himself the mantle of Jacob Arminius.
The memory of John Calvin is relentlessly reviled, defamed, distorted, and burned in effigy by his Protestant theological opponents... and yet, at the same time, they all still wish to claim him for themselves.
Interesting. Verrrry Interesting.
Which means about as much as being a Catholic in the tradition of Luther.