Who Said This

John Calvin?

Theodore Beza?

Spurgeon?

Lyman Beecher?

Jonathan Edwards?

 

Phillip Schaff

The Christendom

 

It is a quote from the 5 articles of remonstrance reflecting Arminianism. This (the 5 articles, not this particular quote) is what prompted the response by Calvinists to create the 5 points of TULIP.

 

Article III of the Five Articles of Remonstrance, drafted by the Remonstrants, followers of Jacob Arminius.

Thanks Google!

 

LOL - I used Google, too, but only because I recognized it as being either a quote of Arminius or from the Remonstrants. I couldn't remember which.

It's quotes like these that are the reason why I do not call free-willers Arminians. They aren't Arminians. They're semi-pelagians, or just plain free-willers. What they post here does not even come close to reflecting what Arminius taught.

 

Who cares??? If it is 'Biblical', embrace it and proclaim it; if not, "to hell with the quote" sending it back from whence it came!

Ed

 

After reading the thread, my original response stands!

Ed

 

LOL - sorry. I've read some Arminius (in fact I've read more of what Arminius wrote than Calvin - I've hardly read anything at all by Calvin), so I know that he believed in total depravity (more or less) and defended it against his critics. I used to quote Arminius on this board all the time to show how different his views were from those who espouse free-will and claim that man is only wounded (or sick) as a result of the fall. Arminius clearly refuted that and stood by the fact that man is not wounded but dead.

I've read Bondage of the Will 3 or 4 times. Excellent work. And in it, Luther takes sarcasm taken to its highest art form.

 

What is shocking is the extent to which Arminius and his followers wanted very much to be mainstream but were rejected outright due to the culture of intolerance that they faced at the time.

I have studied Balthasar Hubmaier extensively. There is hardly a finer theologian out there. Yet he was burned at the stake as an anabaptist.

Luther was not a protestant he truly wanted to remain within the church and bring reform to the church. His intent was not to leave the church but to save the church.

Zwingli had no such aspirations. Yet, he did not want to go as far as his pupils the anabaptist Swiss Brethren and Hubmaier wanted to take him.

Calvin and Zwingli attempted to merge their respective efforts but were unable to reach consensus on the Lord's Supper.

All of the Reformers were highly similar in their view of the sovereignty of God.

Most of that which influenced Arminius was stepped not in theology as much as it was the influence of Erasmus. Erasmus was a humanist. But the one thing Erasmus brought to the Reformation was a humanist notion of back to the sources. This of course was intended to spawn people toward the arts, but Luther and Zwingli took their respective camps followed by Calvin back to the Bible in the original languages for a critique of the Roman Catholic church. Needless to say they found it wanting.

 

Read A. W. Pink's Sovereignty of God. He refutes exactly the same arguments. Apparently free-willers have been using the same arguments since the dispute began.

 

Oh, by no means was Zwingli friendly to the anabaptists, he gave approval to Michael Satler's execution, the first anabaptist martyr. However, he began studying Hebrew and Greek with a group of men that later became the Swiss Brethren, very orthodox believers. Keep in mind not all anabaptists were radicals or militants. Hubmaier also sought to study with Zwingli but was not a part of the original group. He was a doctor of theology who converted his catholic congregation to baptist doctrine prior to his execution. The Swiss Brethren pressed the council to accept their views and when the council did not approve Zwingli sided with the council in order to maintain order. He was more interested in civil order than reform. Moreover he thought that the moves were sufficient for the time. The Swiss Brethren wanted a total separation of the church from the state. Through receiving believer's baptism they were consider traitors of the state and for denying their children entrance into the state they were seen as long term causing an upheaval on a grander scale. They were executed more for civil reasons than theological differences.

 

Of course the first visible Baptist in England was a raving Arminian, ie Symthe. However, in a sense the principles of baptist polity and the notion of the priesthood of the believer are very much originated in orthodox anabaptism. The Swiss Brethren were infantile in their doctrine because they were untrained theologians. Hubmaier was the only one with a formal theological education. Menno was trained as an civil engineer. While Calvin's formal training was not theology he had benefit of a legal training and obviously had enormous intellect. Hubmaier would have left a much deeper impact on the Baptist's of today had he remained to write more. In his brief conversion he wrote enormous volumes. If you are reading Luther you must read Hubmaier. He is not as far down the spectrum as Luther and no where near Erasmus but he is more moderate than Luther. Luther to my knowledge never answered Hubmaier but it would have been interesting to see him do so because Hubmaier raised many valid concerns. However, Luther despised the anabaptists and had no use for them.

There is certainly not a direct link but yes I would say the term spiritual offspring very much falls in line with the influence that can be attributed to especially Hubmaier. Keep in mind that his writings were banned in England but his writings are known to have circulated through England during the 16th and 17th centuries. We are still reading Hubmaier some 500 years later, so yes there is an influence.

 

So if they are semi-pelagians, then the pelagians are what? Calvinists?

 

Well ... since they say that John Smyth and his church started in Menno's church, I would have to believe that there was some connection spiritually as well.

 

Huh? This looks like a joke but I don't get it.