Another Impact of Arminius on Calvinism

My recent post about Arminius' impact on Calvinism drew criticisms from Turretinfan and Steve Hays. (link) TF suggests one could read my article and come to the conclusion that Arminius was a infralapsarian. I am not sure how that could be, given I said Dort condemned Arminianism.

Steve wonders if I think Arminius originated some ideas that impacted Calvinism, but I had said "Arminius didn't teach anything new". Origination of the ideas isn't the only way to impact an outcome. Piscator fought tooth and nail to keep the 'well meant' offer out of the confession, at one point saying he would count the rest of the synodists as Remonstrants if he didn't get his way on the issue, but in the end he as overruled. (Womock. Calvinist Cabinet Unlocked. 94) It's important that the issue turned out this way rather than that, and Arminius got attention on the issue by point out the drawbacks of denying a well meant offer.

TF said "When the Westminster Assembly (still later) adopted their confession and catechisms they were actually more careful (I'd say) to avoid making the Supra/Infra distinction a confessional matter."

Dort debated the issue of infra/supra. Gomarus championed the supra side, along with at least Piscator, Festus Hominmius, Henricus Aroldi, Baltazar Lydius and Gisbertus Voetius (Acts of National Synod of Dort. Part 1. 233) . The synod choose their wording on this issue carefully.

But TF's comment about the 'openness' of the WCF reminders me of another point. TF notes well the WCF is open to supra, but WCF is also open to unlimited atonement. It was written such that both 5 point Calvinists and 4 pointers would be satisfied. TF himself has noted Arminius' influence on Amyraldianism. So that's another way in which Arminius impacted Calvinism. (I didn't note this in my first post, because Arminius' influence here was certainly far more remote.)

Comments

drwayman said…
Two home runs in a row! Keep em comin'.
October 22, 2009 at 12:50 AM
bossmanham said…
Agreed. Great information.
October 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more