Replies

Actually, I was a bit more interested in demonstrating that Arminius never would have supported having a practicing homosexual be a representative of his church.

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.
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.

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 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.