He who must not be named
Not this guy
.
.
.
.
.
.
Why do so many evangelicals who hold that Christ died for all, God doesn't unconditionally predetermine peoples eternal destinies and that God's grace is resistible not call themselves Arminians? I have come across many people who's reaction to Calvinism is to shudder and ask if that's true what's the point of it all, yet they don't want to be called Arminians. Baptists Church's contain one of the largest group of Arminians around today, but hardly any of them claim the name.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
This guy
.
.
.
.
.
Why do so many evangelicals who hold that Christ died for all, God doesn't unconditionally predetermine peoples eternal destinies and that God's grace is resistible not call themselves Arminians? I have come across many people who's reaction to Calvinism is to shudder and ask if that's true what's the point of it all, yet they don't want to be called Arminians. Baptists Church's contain one of the largest group of Arminians around today, but hardly any of them claim the name.
Comments
I am trying to change that. Arminianism is big enough to include both views in its system.
Wish me luck.
Billy
I think your right that the misconception. May God bless your efforts.
God be with you,
Dan
Thanks for stopping by. I have found a few things (but only a few) that I disagree with Arminius on. But all in all, I consider myself a fan.
Just a bit of background on myself... When I was in High School, a Calvinist friend challenged me on some issues and for a while I became a reluctant Calvinist. I was never comfortable, but I didn't have a better way of explaining certain passages. One night I read Hebrews 10:26-29. I said to my self, no way, Calvinist can't be right. But I didn't have any Arminian resources to turn to. I finished up reading just the bible.
In college, the library had a copy of Arminius' works. At the time there was no Piririlli or Olsen. Wesley seems superficial to me, and I was unaware of Shank, Goodwin or Wiley. So I just had the Bible and Arminius. Reading through his stuff was very hard. His lingo is packed with complex concepts. I would say that I probably got about 1/2 of what I read, till I went back and read Aquinas' Suma Theologica. That, for me, was the key for unlocking Arminius. When I re-read Arminius I was convince that he really had a firm grip on the issues related to predestination.
I have read a number of other authors (both Calvinist and Arminian) since then. I am convinced that, on the topic of predestination, no one else spent as much effort or understood the issues as clearly as Arminius, or explain scripture as well.
God be with you,
Dan
Thank you for setting me straight on the Calvin/Beza/Arminius issue on the SEA page. Whew! I needed that correction. You are right: at times it is difficult to navigate through the reading of Arminius' Works, and I was having a bit of trouble following the regeneration comments and his purpose for quoting those two.
Have you ever heard of the book "God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius" by (Calvinist) Richard A. Muller? It is incredible! It is very expensive (Amazon.com, like $130 or so).
Muller came to the same conclusion as you: Arminius has to be understood in light of Aquinas (and Augustine and Peter Ramus). I have been reading through it when I can (the library's copy at Southeastern).
More than anything, I'm amazed how this Calvinist can be so unbiased toward Arminius. It is truly a treasure. Even at the outrageous price, I intend to buy a copy when I get the cash.
See ya bro.
Billy
Yep. I read it. It's quite complex, but fairly good. That book pointed me back to Aquinas. So today, if there's a topic Arminius addresses, or a term he uses that I don't understand (particularly if it's a philosophical concept), it helps to read what Aquinas said on the subject.
God be with you,
Dan
(Things haven't changed much in 250 years)
Thanks for stopping by. Yep, things haven't changed much.
God be with you,
Dan