tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post4864634788720730189..comments2024-03-07T06:52:34.516+00:00Comments on Exiled Preacher: Jacob Arminius (1560-1609)Guy Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-50051902468417206562009-10-19T21:04:18.813+01:002009-10-19T21:04:18.813+01:00"Fire when ready, Gridley." Famous U.S.N..."Fire when ready, Gridley." Famous U.S.Navy saying by Admiral Farragut prior to commencement of conflict. Let the Church Militant be peacemakers, to wit, the disarming of Arminians, defenders of Arminians, including any Reformed who go soft on Wesley. When the Arminians lay down their arms, we'll have peace.<br /><br />Thanks.Reformationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06818168068978748081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-3440654044992324222009-10-19T18:31:48.423+01:002009-10-19T18:31:48.423+01:00Thanks for the response. Forgive me if I seemed of...Thanks for the response. Forgive me if I seemed off-putting or at all harsh. I appreciate your garnering interest in Arminius via this article, and think that for that particular context this is a very helpful introduction that nevertheless rightly warns of the danger of Arminius's and his followers' teaching. Thanks once again for the post and the engagement. Peace.Dave Belcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964414652031988664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-42618249225027327902009-10-19T17:31:56.805+01:002009-10-19T17:31:56.805+01:00Thanks Dave. The article was written for a popular...Thanks Dave. The article was written for a popular Evangelical newspaper rather than a scholarly journal so I had to omit a lot of detailed argumentation. 1500 words max only gave me enough space for a rough sketch of Aminius' theological development.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-91402431427466945822009-10-19T16:32:20.585+01:002009-10-19T16:32:20.585+01:00Hello. Thanks for the post. I think there are cert...Hello. Thanks for the post. I think there are certain points in this matter that require more caution. First of all, when we make the move from "Arminius" to "Arminianism" we must be very careful. Especially insofar as the latter term took hold as a description of what was taking place in England during this time (especially at Cambridge in the last decade of the sixteenth century), it is important to recognize that the "Arminianism" in England developed separately from the "Arminianism" that developed in the Netherlands and West Friesland. It is an improper attribution in the former case, even if it so incredibly resembles the latter (as it does). Care is needed in this particular area of history. There is more to be said here (especially of the close relationship of England and Holland in this time), but that would be outside the scope of this forum. It is also important, however, to pay close attention to continuities and especially discontinuities between Arminius's teachings and his followers (esp. Episcopius and van Limborch -- the latter having grand influence over certain "modern" strands of thought). <br /><br />It is also important that we pay greater care to Arminius's teaching insofar as he has been read for so long outside of the late medieval and scholastic context you are correctly pointing us to. Although, I wonder if the "older" reading of Arminius does not get smuggled back in a bit even in what you are attempting here. The Reformers did not merely "look back" to the scholastics, but were born from out of that context, and even when Luther and Calvin so heavily denounced "the scholastics," they yet drew on them heavily, and later followers much more explicitly (with many fewer denouncements). This is significant for Arminius's case because we cannot fully understand what he is doing, with predestination for instance, when he is ripped from that context -- which is the lifeblood of his work alongside deep exegesis of Scripture. Predestination is not merely "foreknowledge of faith" but the "application" of Christ's merits earned in cross and resurrection to believers -- now, yes, foreknowledge of who will believe is "taken into account" here, but predestination is not the foreknowledge itself, but its application to persons, and thus "Christ is the ground of predestination" for Arminius (Stanglin offers a helpful account of Arminius's understanding of the ordering of the fundamenta in relation to other Reformed theologians at Leiden)...this was a big point Arminius wished to drive home against Gomarus, and is a very significant conclusion of Arminius's deep "creation theology" (as Muller correctly argues) -- that is, predestination is always related to a particular created order (Aquinas looms large). The significant point to be addressed is how the "modified Thomism" of Suarez and Molina come into play here, where Arminius is departing from them, borrowing from them, etc.<br /><br />So, I really just think that more care has to be given to this "Reformer." I am not certain that the conclusions you come to are incorrect, though. I actually think that the "older" reading of Arminius can still have some merit once placed within his scholastic context and indebtedness. On the other hand, once a deep investigation of Arminius's scholasticism is accounted for, certain older views will necessarily be revised I think as well. <br /><br />Sorry for this beast of a comment. I've been breathing Arminius for some time now and can't help but speak up when I see someone else is giving him attention he deserves! Thanks again for the post. Peace.Dave Belcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964414652031988664noreply@blogger.com