Jacob Arminius and the Doctrine of Original Sin

It is a long article and I read a good portion of it. A few things:

"The term Arminianism is a slippery one. Many people who are in
basic agreement with Arminius’s views about predestination, humani-
ty’s condition, and God’s role in salvation reject the label Arminian. On
the other hand, at times Calvinists have had the tendency to apply the
term to anything short of what John Calvin (1509–1564) himself
taught."

I describe myself as a Calvinist not because of John Calvin, but because the term has become ubiquitous with the doctrines of grace. The term Arminian is equally ubiquitous when it comes to Arminius' view on election, the atonement, and eternal security, that is why I use the term. I do know what Arminius actually taught and agree with the author that some people attribute things to Arminius that he never stated.

 

I prefer to use the terms biblical vs. non-biblical

 

Arminius and Calvin were in fact very close on doctrine. The gap broadened with their followers.

 

Close on some things but their disagreements were in key areas. Also (as I have tried to point out), I use the term "Calvinist" to describe my view on the doctrines of grace. In truth, there is much about Calvin's theology that I disagree with. But you are correct about the followers of Arminius and Calvin; they broadened each man's respective theology.

 

In the circles I keep I will not say dismissed in the sense of not reviewing them. They are more rejected than dismissed; rejected because of their theological conclusions.

 

My objections to classical Arminianism (Arminius' teachings and those of the Remonstrants) are his positions on election (conditional), the atonement, grace (resistible), and the possibility of falling from grace.

 

Arminius contributed much to 16th-century theological scholarship. It is not surprising that he received commendations even from those who disagreed with some of his conclusions. However, the Reformation was not a zero-sum game that began some 40 years before Arminius' birth. The Puritans would advance much of the foundational work laid by the early Reformers. Arminius' teachings would later be embraced by the Wesleys. Today we have the benefit of nearly 400 years of scholarship to consider. Things are much clearer today then they were during Calvin and Arminius' time.

 

Are they much clearer or much more muddied?

 

Much clearer if you have a settled position. There is no lack of scholarship from the Reformed side on the doctrines of grace.

 

There is much scholarship indeed. With scholarship also comes interpretations of men weaving its way into how we do theology. I would contend the early church Fathers had the most clear and accurate understanding of Scripture.

 

And I would argue quite the opposite. The ECF's were often a hot mess of theological inconsistency. It did not take long for the Apostolic age to pass before the early Patristic Age was rife with error. To its credit, the age got some things right; most notably its refutation of Arianism. However, I would not look at the Patristic Age as a model we should be following.

You are right are about the problem of human wisdom working its way into theological scholarship. But just because some men deviate from the scriptures does not mean that all men do. The value of many counselors is that we are able to test our conclusions against theologians who went before us. Have we come up with some novel idea that no one in church history believed? If so, we may be standing on an unstable foundation. The wise man uses scholarship as a common frame of reference. We should never elevate a work of man to be the same level as scripture, but to the extent that scholarly works are faithful to scripture they can be of great value.

 

I am currently picking the minds of some Arminian scholars elsewhere on this subject of some (...seems mostly other Calvinist, or 5 pointers, or whatever these Determinists want to call themselves, ...IOWs, yet to find an informed Arminian put it in such a way) putting forth the suggestion that "Arminius was a Calvinist".

As per my 2 cents being out of the league with these guys:

"I am no history scholar but as I read some time ago, at a young age (early 20’s) Arminius began to question Calvinism (its view of grace and predestination) while studying under Calvin’s successor, Beza. In fact, he came into conflict about this and moved on.

He left the Geneva academy and continued his studies growing more in opposition to Calvinism in large part through his study of the Book of Romans. Thereafter, I read that after a plague had killed off the staff at Leiden Arminius was asked to come back to the institution and teach. Upon his return, Arminius quickly came into conflict with the remaining staff member, Gomarus over Arminius’ objections to Calvinist doctrines.

Shortly after Arminius’ death, Gomarus made his move to return to the doctrines of predestination eventually leading to the Synod of Dort, an assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church set out to discredit Arminius while the Arminians present at the assembly were expelled.

Therefore, considering Arminius’ rejection of and opposition to Calvinist’s doctrine from early on which continued throughout his ministry it seems rather farfetched to classify him as a Calvinist on the grounds that he taught at “Leiden”, a Calvinist institution."

 

Indeed. Mostly the doctrine of predestination.

What was the essential action?

Arminius - A result of His foreknowledge - He knew who would accept Christ and He made them elect.
Calvin - He unconditionally decreed the elect.

IMO both are wrong. We were chosen "after the counsel of His own will" which is not revealed apart from our helpless and hopeless estate.

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Please don't (so you probably will) accuse me of not understanding either position.
Our beloved late Dr Cassidy and I had quite the Christian donnybrook over this and upon this conclusion above (The two positions) we agreed to disagree.

So there!

Bye, I'm off to the clinic and then the Veteran's Administration.