Jacobus Arminius

During his lifetime Jacobus Arminius was considered one of the most intelligent Calvinistic scholars (which is ironic as his “opponent”, Gomarus, was considered mediocre). Both Beza and Grynaeus praised his intellect (Beza noting that God gifted him with “an apt intellect both as respects the apprehension and the discrimination of things”. Arminius was, until his death, a professor at Leiden.

Although I am not an Arminian (don’t hold a faith that is of Calvinistic origin), I have read a few of Arminius’ works.

I was just curious as to how many Calvinists have read Arminius and if you have what you thought of his theology (excluding the obvious disagreement concerning predestination).

 

Because he was a Calvinist. He was also a Calvinist professor in a Calvinistic university.

The man was considered a Calvinist when he died. At the first examination it had been determined that his views were not enough to consider him unorthodox (that it could exist within Calvinism). And it was under that decision that he died.

Also, Arminianism is of Calvinistic trajectory. It holds Calvinistic presuppositions and it's soteriology handles issues of the Atonement where the camps part within a Calvinistic understanding. It was a disagreement from within Calvinism. The issue is the Five Articles addressed by the Five Points. This, however, happened after Arminius died.

What we typically consider at "Calvinism" are the points that addressed the Five Articles. But I'm speaking of the works of Arminius. If he was held in such high regard by men like Beza, is there anything that may be gained for a Calvinist to read his works?

 

He was a student under Beza and then a pastor (a Calvinist one). He was called back to be a professor. When he died he still held the position. The only counsel he was subjected to determined his theories were within the bounds of Calvinistic theology. It is pretty much impossible to view the man as anything but a Calvinist.

Of course, how we use the term is different. As baptists there are certain ideas we have that are unorthodox in terms of Calvinistic theology.

We can't place Arminius under a system that was developed after his death.

 

The scope of the Atonement was just becoming an issue.

We cannot know how he would have stood had he been subject to th be 5 points.

His issue was primary predestination and the "problem" of evil.

But during his lifetime he was considered to be within Calvinistic thought.

You have to remember there were differences among Capvinists then just as there are now. Even the 5 points accomidated a broader view of the scope of the Atonement than some prefered.