Arminianism (no it is not typing mistake)

[gamavor]

Arminianism

 

 

 

Arminianism, a doctrine in Christianity, formulated in the 17th century, which declares that human free will can exist without limiting God's power or contradicting the Bible. Named for the Dutch Calvinist Jacobus Arminius, the doctrine gradually became a liberal alternative to the more rigid belief in predestination held by High Calvinists in Holland and elsewhere (see Calvinism; Predestination).

 

Arminius, who studied in Geneva under the French Protestant theologian Theodore Beza, returned to his native Holland and was a professor of theology (1603-9) at the Leiden University. He believed predestination was biblical and true—that God had intended some persons for heaven and others for hell, as indicated by Jesus' reference to "sheep and goats." But he focused on God's love more than on God's power in speaking of election, the process by which God chose those intended for heaven.

 

After Arminius died, a group of ministers who sympathized with his views developed a systematic and rational theology based on his teachings. In their declaration, a remonstrance issued in 1610, the Arminians argued that election was conditioned by faith, that grace could be rejected, that the work of Christ was intended for all persons, and that it was possible for believers to fall from grace.

 

At the Synod of Dort or Dordrecht (1618-19), the High Calvinists prevailed over the Arminian Party and condemned the Remonstrants. The Synod of Dort declared that Christ's work was meant only for those elect to salvation, that people believing could not fall from grace, and that God's election depended on no conditions. Remonstrants were not tolerated at all in Holland until 1630, and then not fully until 1795. They have, however, continued an Arminian tradition in the Netherlands into the late 20th century.

 

The British theologian John Wesley studied and affirmed the work of Arminius in his Methodist movement during the 18th century in England. American Methodists for the most part have leaned toward the theology of the Remonstrants. In popular expression Arminianism has come to mean that no predestination exists and people are free to follow or reject the gospel.

 

 

P.S. Those who are intreseted to learn more can go to encarta.com. Check out also who brought "rainy days" to the Romans under Arminius.

[MJ]

Also check this:

 

Arminianism

 

The popular designation of the doctrines held by a party formed in the early days of the seventeenth century among the Calvinists of the Netherlands. The tendency of the human reason to revolt against Calvin's decretum horrible of predestination absolute and salvation and damnation meted out without regard to merit or demerit had aroused opposition in thinking minds from the first promulgation of the dogma; but whilst the fanatical wars of religion engrossed the attention of the masses, thinking minds were few and uninfluential. Calvin's reckless tenets had banished charity and mercy from the breasts of his followers and had everywhere aroused a fierce spirit of strife and bloodshed. It throve on paradoxes. This unnatural spirit could not survive a period of calm deliberation; a leader was sure to rise from the Calvinistic ranks who should point out the baneful corollaries of the Genevan creed, and be listened to. Such a leader was Jacobus Arminius (Jakob Hermanzoon), professor at the University of Leyden. He was born at Oudewater, South Holland, in 1560. While still an infant he lost his father, a cutler by trade, but through the generosity of strangers he was enabled to perfect his education at various universities at home and in foreign parts. In his twenty-second year the brilliant youth, whose talents were universally acknowledged, was sent to Geneva at the expense of the merchants' guild of Amsterdam, in order to imbibe genuine Calvinism at the feet of Beza. In 1586 he made a prolonged trip to Italy, which served to widen his mental horizon. Rumours beginning to spread that he had fallen under the influence of the Jesuits, Suarez and Bellarmin, he was recalled to Amsterdam, was pronounced orthodox, and appointed preacher of the reformed congregation. This office he filled with ever increasing renown for fifteen years. He had all the qualifications of a great pulpit orator -- a sonorous voice, a magnificent presence, and a thorough knowledge of Scripture, which he expounded in a clear and pleasing manner, dwelling with predilection on its ethical features and avoiding the polemical asperities characteristic of his age and sect. Yet his later years were fated to be embittered by polemical strife. The revolt against predestination absolute was taking shape. A professor at Leyden had already pronounced Calvin's God "a tyrant and an executioner". The learned layman Koornhert, in spite of ecclesiastical censures, continued to inveigh successfully against the dominant religion of Holland; and he had converted two ministers of Delft who had been chosen to argue him into submission, from the supralapsarian the infralapsarian position (See CALVINISM). The task of confounding the "heretic" was now entrusted to the disciple of Beza. Arminius addressed himself to the work; but he soon began to feel that Calvinism was repugnant to all the instincts of his soul. More and more clearly, as time went on, his writings and sermons taught the doctrines since associated with his name and after his death embodied by his disciples in the famous five propositions of the "Remonstrants". For the sake of reference we give the substance of the "Remonstrantie" as condensed by Professor Blok in his "History of the People of the Netherlands" (III, ch. xiv).

 

"They (the Remonstrants) declared themselves opposed to the following doctrines: (1) Predestination in its defined form; as if God by an eternal and irrevocable decision had destined men, some to eternal bliss, others to eternal damnation, without any other law than His own pleasure. On the contrary, they thought that God by the same resolution wished to make all believers in Christ who persisted in their belief to the end blessed in Christ, and for His sake would only condemn the unconverted and unbelieving. (2) The doctrine of election according to which the chosen were counted as necessarily and unavoidably blessed and the outcasts necessarily and unavoidably lost. They urged the milder doctrine that Christ had died for all men, and that believers were only chosen in so far as they enjoyed he forgiveness of sins. (3) The doctrine that Christ died for the elect alone to make them blessed and no one else, ordained as mediator; on the contrary, they urged the possibility of salvation for others not elect. (4) The doctrine that the grace of God affects the elect only, while the reprobates cannot participate in this through their conversion, but only through their own strength. On the other hand, they, the 'Remonstrants', a name they received later from this, their 'Remonstrance', hold that man 'has no saving belief in himself, nor out of the force of his free-will', if he lives in sin, but that it is necessary that 'he be born again from God in Christ by means of His Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding and affection, or will and all strength', since without grace man cannot resist sin, although he cannot be counted as irresistible to grace. (5) The doctrine that he who had once attained true saving grace can never lose it and be wholly debased. They held, on the contrary, that whoever had received Christ's quickening spirit had thereby a strong weapon against Satan, sin, the world, and his own flesh, although they would not decide at the time without further investigation -- later they adopted this too -- whether he could not lose this power 'forsaking the beginning of his being, Christ.'"

 

The ultra-Calvinists responded by drafting a "Contra-Remonstrantie" in the following seven articles: (1) God had, after Adam's fall, reserved a certain number of human beings from destruction, and, in His eternal and unchangeable counsel, destined them to salvation through Christ, leaving the others alone in accordance with His righteous judgement. (2) The elect are not only the good Christians who are adult, but also the "children of the covenant as long as they do not prove the contrary by their action". (3) In this election God does not consider belief or conversion, but acts simply according to His pleasure. (4) God sent His Son, Christ, for the salvation of the elect, and of them alone. (5) The Holy Ghost in the Scriptures and in preaching speaks to them alone, to instruct and to convert them. (6) The elect can never lose the true belief, but they obtain power of resistance through the Holy Ghost active in them. (7) This would not lead them to follow the dictates of the flesh carelessly, but, on the contrary, they would go God's way, considering that thereby alone could they be saved.

 

The defection of the popular and gifted divine was a severe blow to the rigid Calvinists and started a quarrel which eventually threatened the existence of the United Netherlands. His reputation was greatly enhanced by his heroic fidelity to pastoral duty during the plague of 1602, and the following year, through the influence of admirers like Grotius, he was, notwithstanding fierce opposition, appointed professor of theology at the University of Leyden. His life as professor was an unintermittent quarrel with his stern Calvinistic colleague, Francis Gomarus, which divided the university and the country into two hostile camps. Arminius did not live to see the ultimate results of the controversy, as he died of consumption in his forty-ninth Year, October, 1609. Although the principles of Arminius were solemnly condemned in the great Calvinist Synod held at Dordrecht, or Dort, in 1618-19, and the "Remonstrant heresy" was rigorously suppressed during the lifetime of Maurice of Orange, nevertheless the Leyden professor had given to ultra-Calvinism a blow from which it never recovered. The controversy was soon transplanted to England where it roused the same dissensions as in Holland. In the following century it divided the early Methodists into two parties, the followers of John Wesley adhering to the Arminian view, those of George Whitefield professing the strict Calvinistic tenets.

 

Brant, Historia Vitae Arminii (Amsterdam, 1724); revised and enlarged by Mosheim (Brunswick, 1725); Nichols, Life of Arminius (London, 1843); Arminii opera theologica (incomplete-Frankfurt, 1635) tr. Nichols (London, 1825-28, Buffalo, 1853); Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands; Cambridge Modern History, III, xix; Rogge in Realencyclop die für protestantische Theologie und Kirche; Grube in Kirchenlex.; Brandt, Historia reformationis Belgicae (La Haye, 1726); Graf, Beitrag zur Gesch. der Syn. von Dortrecht (Basle, 1825).

 

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Transcribed by Robert H. Sarkissian

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I

Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company

Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight

Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01740c.htm

[Anshnork]

This was SUCH a fascinating article to read and I thank you SO much for posting it. Is it not true that most churches today accept Arminian doctrine? It seems to me that churches would not spend so much time "spreading the word of Christ" if it was already chosen who would achieve salvation and who would be eternally damned. And why would repentance and complete faith be so important if the elect can never lose their saving grace? But then again, if it was true that mankind had free will, would that not take away from the the power of the ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING GOD.

[MJ]

CHAPTER I

Introductory remarks.

Assertion of Dutch Independence — Tolerant Spirit of the early Reformers —The Armenian schism —The Belgic Confession, the Hiedelberg Catechism and the Canons of the Synod of Dort adopted as the Standard of Faith — Persecution of the Remonstrants — Difference between the Dutch Reformers and the English Puritans.

The combat between Freedom and Absolutism which had been waged for eighty years between the provinces of Holland and the mighty empire of Charles V was brought to a close on the 9th of April, 1609. The idea of throwing off the Spanish yoke was not entertained by the States when they took up arms against the oppressions and the extortions of Alva. In a petition to Philip II they said : " We contend for nothing less than freedom of conscience, our wives and children, our lives and fortunes. We do not desire to be discharged from our allegiance to Your Majesty, but only that our consciences may be preserved free before the Lord our God, that we may be permitted to hear His holy Word, and walk in His commandments, so that we may be able to give an account of our souls to the Supreme judge at the last day." (Magazine of the Reformed Church Vol.1 p.354)

Indeed such a painful want of self-reliance, so complete an absence of faith in their own capacity for self-government is there exhibited throughout the negotiations that immediately preceded and followed the Twelve years' Truce, that " it was, as it were, in their own despite and unwittingly that the United Provinces became a republic at all." (Motley Vol iv, p. 502 3.) But the work of national independance was at last completed, or rather circumstances which none had foreseen had forced them along until the nation stood up in the conscious manhood of a people who had wrung from the hereditary tyrant of their race every concession they had claimed. The mighty power which had overshadowed the half of Europe at last condescended to treat the revolted provinces on terms of equality, and in the ratification then concluded, His Most Christian Majesty became himself the suppliant, and asked the States General to deal kindly with their Catholic subjects. ''That request was not answered with the axe and faggot; with the avenging sword of mercenary legions. On the contrary it was, destined to be granted. The world had gained something in forty-three years. It had at least begun to learn that the hangman is not the most appropriate teacher of religion.'' (Motley p. 502) But though destined to be granted, and that at no distant date, it had yet to be preluded by scenes of religious strife in which Presbyterian bigotry turned the weapons of persecution equally against Papist and Armenian :—and this in the face of a solemn decree of the States assembled in 1672 at Dordrecht under the presidency of William the Silent, to the effect that " not only all religions ought to be tolerated but that all restraint in matters of religion was as detestable as the inquisition itself' (Broadhead p. 100) But William who was the first statesman of Europe to advocate the principle of religious liberty had fallen under the hand of the assassin; and neither Prince Maurice, the son and successor of William in the Military leadership, nor Olden Barneveldt who had risen to considerable power was imbued with the same tolerant spirit. Hardly had the country emerged from its political struggle than it became involved in religious strife. Prince Maurice favored the Calvanistic party while Olden Barneveldt was suspected of "the Armenian leprosy," and thus the spirit of persecution which had lain dormant during the more recent years of the struggle for national independence was once more roused into activity. The Commonwealth which William had pictured to himself as rising upon a solid foundation of political liberty and religious freedom had not yet been realized ; and instead of Protestant and Papist, Gomarite and Armenian living together in harmony, they presented the spectacle of a people who had just emancipated themselves from the thralldom of the Spanish Inquisition invoking the aid of the hangman's gibbet, and the headsman's axe, to restore the impossible concord of religious uniformity. The land which under the benign sway of William had sheltered Romanist and Calvinist alike, which had extended the Aegis of its protection equally to Huguenot and Covenanter; and to which belongs the imperishable honor of having been the first among modern nations to guarantee the rights of conscience in matters of religion, was becoming the arena of religious contention between two rival theological factions. Calvinist and Armenian persecuted in turn as each sect gained political ascendancy.

It may not be out of place here to give a brief outline of (he religious feud which distracted the Low Countries between the years 1609 and 1618. For nearly forty years before, while the Reformed Church was allowed to exist on sufferance, there was no written confession of faith nor ultimate ecclesiastical authority to appeal to on disputed questions of ritual and doctrine. The Dutch Reformed Church had grown into a national institution, much in the same way that Motley describes the Republic had grown—it took its color from Calvin but never acknowledged Calvin as its master. " But even then there was a standard of doctrine no less real and well-known than if it had been written; and after the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism appeared, they were adopted as standards by the earliest Synods, and had been held as such almost forty years before Arminius taught his peculiar views." (Demarest p. 47 et seq.)

At the death of Junius in the year 1602 Jacobus Armenius, who was a pastor at Amsterdam, was called upon to fill the vacant chair of theology in the University of Leyden. The consistory opposed his nomination, but at a conference held with Gomarus, one of the professors, and in presence of the deputies and the curators of the university, he professed his adherence to the received standards and promised he would teach nothing opposed to the doctrines of the Church. In a year or two, however, he began to put forth the same views for which he had been admonished. He was invited to a friendly conference at which to discuss the points in dispute. He declined the invitation but promised conformity with the received doctrines as explained and laid down by Gomarus. But the controversy had gone too far to be stayed. It spread from the students of the university to the ministers, and from them to the people. The Classis of Dordrecht brought the matter before the Synod of South Holland, but their deputies were put off by the curators of the university who were the friends of Arminus. The States General were next appealed to, and though they gave authority for calling a national Synod, with this permission was coupled the condition that the synod so called should revise the Confession of Faith and the Catechism. Whether the protection which the States General extended to the schism sprang from a spirit of toleration or had its origin in the personal antagonism of Olden Barneveldt to prince Maurice it is needless to enquire, but the consequence was to provoke the interference of the States in purely ecclesiastical questions, and nonconforming ministers suspended by the Classis were ordered to be restored.

Armenius died in 1609 but there were not wanting followers to take up his views. These adopted a remonstrance and were afterwards known as Remonstrants. To this remonstrance the opposite party replied in a paper from which they were called Contra-remonstrants. Separations and disturbances now began to take place in various parts of the country. Coercive force was employed in almost every town, and riots broke out in many places. This led to the passing of what is known as the " Severe Edict" by the States.

Prince Maurice who had taken no ostensible part in the controversy, at least down till 1617, was now called upon by Olden Barneveldt to interpose. "Maurice thereupon referred to his oath by which lie had sworn to protect the Reformed religion, and declared that he would protect it; that a national Synod ought to be called ; and that the Contra-remonstrants should be allowed to worship separately without losing the privileges of the national Church, lie himself worshipped with the separatists at the Hague and urged the Stales to grant the petition for the calling of a Synod without delay." (Demarest p. 53)

This Synod met at length at Dordrecht on the 13th of November, 1618, and its sessions extended over six months.

Thirty five ministers and twenty elders from the churches of the United Provinces, five professors of theology from the Schools of Leyden, Franecker, Groningen, Harderwyck and Middleburg attended. There were also twenty seven delegates present from the foreign Protestant Churches of Great Britain, the Palatinate, Hesse, Switzerland, Geneva, Bremen, East Friesland, and Nassau. Eighteen political commissioners deputed by the States General were also present to watch the proceedings. The learning and integrity of the members of this Synod cannot be questioned. Among them we find the names of Polyander, Luberti, Waleus, Faukelius, Damman, Hommius, Trigland, Voetius, Scultetus. At the head of the Enghah deputation was George Carkon, Bishop of Llandaff. Connected with him were Joseph Hall Dean of Worcester, Samuel Ward Archdeacon of Taunton, John Davenant professor of theology at Cambridge. Walter Balcancall represented the Church of Scotland.

Johannes Bogerman, pastor of the Church of Leeuwarden, was chosen president. The proceedings were conducted in Latin. The members were sworn to refer all questions of doctrine to the word of God for decision. Episcopius, the leader of the remonstrant party, attempted to give the Synod a polemical character, but wearied out by the evasion and pertinacity of the recalcitrant Remonstrants,the Synod at last expelled them and proceeded to examine their doctrines as contained in their writings. The verdict was that they were neither according to the Scriptures nor the Confession of Faith.

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Confession of Faith were reviewed and confirmed, and it was resolved that henceforth all candidates for the ministry and all Schoolmasters should subscribe them. Measures were also taken fora new translation of the Scriptures directly from the original tongues, and the work was entrusted to a number of learned divines, who in the course of eighteen years produced the present excellent version.

"The rules of Church government which had been adopted by previous Synods were also reviewed and reduced to a more complete system. Judgment was passed on the cited ministers, and they were pronounced innovators and disturbers of the Church and nation ; obstinate and rebellious ; leaders of faction; teachers of false doctrine and workers of schism ; and deprived of their offices, both ecclesiastical and academic, till such time as they had satisfied the churches with evident signs of repentance.'' (Davies vol. 2 p. 509.)

The States confirmed the judgment and thus ended this Synod memorable in the annals of Protestant Christianity, as the great Council at which was settled and defined the doctrines of the Dutch Reformed Church. The history and acts of this Synod have a universal interest for all who claim to belong to the Reformed Faith, because not only were the doctrinal standards of the church settled by it, but from that day to this the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort have been the accepted standards of doctrine of the Reformed Church wherever it was planted, whether in North America, at the Cape, in the Dutch possessions of the Malayan Archipelago, or even in Ceylon.

The union of Church and State having been thus formally established, the civil power was invited to put down the Remonstrants. Their assemblies were forbidden, their ministers banished, and rewards offered for the apprehension of their preachers, while they were refused such rights as were granted to other sects, and even to infidels. The Republic which had become the refuge for the oppressed of all nations, where Jews and Gentiles, Catholics and Calvanists and Anabaptists prayed after their own manner to the same God, refused that privilege to the seceding Remonstrants, and it was not until Frederick Henry became Stadtholder in 1625 that the banished preachers were recalled, and the civil and political lights of which they had been deprived restored to them.

But the national instinct was opposed to the sentiment of persecution. The Dutch Burghers who had fought the battle of religious freedom, recoiled with a natural shudder from the prospect of themselves becoming imitators of the Spanish Inquisition. The honesty, simplicity, love of thrift, and practical sagacity of the Dutch character, found little to interest it in the religious feud bequeathed by the imperious Gomarus and the amiable Arminius. The nation was rising to a sense of its own political importance, and had already begun to realize the advantages of commercial enterprise. "A nation of peddlers," they had successfully fought the greatest empire of Christendom, and during that severe and protracted struggle they had learnt that it was the florins and guilders of their trade that furnished them with the sinews of war. The mechanical, mercantile, commercial, and manufacturing pursuits had more practical attractions for them than abstruse theological disquisitions, and so long as they were allowed to follow their respective callings, the bulk of the nation cared not for the disputations of learned Doctors. In this there is a vast difference between the fanaticism of the Puritans of England and the religious zeal of the Reformers of Holland.

The former looked upon every thing else—political liberty not excepted—as subordinate and secondary to religious ascendancy, and they burnt and hanged Papists with the most ineffable complacency. The Dutch Reformers on the other hand cared very little how people who differed from them in religious views worshipped God, and it was only when political revolution came disguised under the cloak of religion that the spirit of persecution was evoked. At any rate it cannot be denied that the Dutch Reformed Church was not essentially a persecuting Church. "There had been monasteries, convents, ecclesiastical establishments of all kinds in the country, before the great war between Holland and the Inquisition. These had as a matter of course been confiscated as the strife went on. The buildings, farms, and funds, once the property of the Church, had not however been seized upon, as in other Protestant lands, by rapacious monarchs and distributed among great nobles according to royal caprice. Monarchs might give the revenue of a suppressed convent to a cook as reward for a successful pudding, the surface ot Britain and the continent might be covered with abbeys and monasteries now converted into lordly palaces—passing thus from the dead hand of the Church into the idle and unproductive palm of the noble , but the ancient ecclesiastical establishments of the free Netherlands were changed into eleemosynary institutions, admirably organized and administered with wisdom and economy, where orphans of the poor, widows of those slain in the battles for freedom by land and sea, and the aged and the infirm, who had deserved well of the republic in the days of their strength, were educated or cherished at the expense of the public, thus endowed from the spoils of the Church."(Motley Vol. iv p. 517) The spirit of toleration into which the political and religious views of William the Silent had molded the nation, was beginning to permeate the masses, and though it took nearly another century before perfect religious equality was recognized as a cardinal element in every free constitution, it is no little satisfaction to know that the great truth first conceived by William the Father of his country, although in his time condemned throughout Europe as the rankest political heresy, was in 1692, proclaimed in England, though then ineffectually, by his great-grandson, William III, who laid the foundation of the present free constitution of Great Britain ; and that now wherever the British flag waves, whether over the snows of Northern America or under the fervid sun of the Tropics, Protestant and Papist, Hindu and Mohamedan, are perfectly free to worship God in his own way.

http://www.iaf.nl/Users/janpoel/lapidarium...pidarium_1.html