Arminian Timeline


Date
Remonstrant
Anglican/Methodist
Baptist

1600’s
James
Arminius (1560-1609) Theologian and leader of the opposition of Calvinism
in Amsterdam and Leiden

Jan Uytenbogaert remonstrant led the meeting that produced
the 5
Points of the Remonstrants - 1610

Simon Episcopius
(1583-1643) - Arminius' greatest student and leader of the Remonstrants at Dort - Opra Theologica.

Hugo Grotius (1583
–1645) Imprisoned as a result of Dort.
First to articulate the Governmental Theory of the Atonement in A Defense of the Catholic Faith
Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ. Commentaries.

Johannes
Arnoldi Corvinus
(1582-1650) – Response
to Peter Molina

Gerardus Vossius (1577-1649) - History
of the Pelagian Controversy

1618
OPINIONS OF THE REMONSTRANTS

The
Arminian Confession 1621

Philip van Limborch
(1633-1712) (A
Complete System, or Body of Divinity)
Peter Baro (1534-1599)

Daniel Tilenus (1563–1633) Bridge
between the Remonstrants and Early English Arminianism.
Convinced of Arminianism by Corvinus and passed that influence to Womock

Laurence Womock (1612–1686) – Author
of the Calvinist Cabinet Unlocked and The
Result of False Principles: or, Error Convicted by its Own Evidence
John Goodwin (1593-1665) Author of Redemption
Redeemed, An
Exposition Romans 9 and a Christian Theology

Lancelot Andrews (1555-1626) - Sermons


John
Smyth (1570-1612) & Thomas Helwys (1550-1616)– Cofounders
of Baptist Church
The
First Baptist Confession 1611

Standard Confession
(1660)

Thomas
Grantham (1634-1692) General Baptist (Works)

Henry
Denne – General Baptist (d 1661)

1700’s


Edward Bird On The Horrible Decree of
Unconditional Election (1726)

Daniel Whitby
(1638-1726) - His classic work Discourses on the 5 Points
drew famous responses from Calvinists John Gill (The Cause of God and Truth)
and Jonathan Edwards (Inquiry into the Will).

John
Wesley (1703-1791)
Founder of Methodism

Charles
Wesley (1707 –1788)

John Fletcher (1729-1782)Works: Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3,

Volume 4
Thomas Coke
(1747-1814)

Joseph Benson (1748-1821)
Dan
Taylor – General Baptist (1738-1816) (Works)



Benjamin
Randall – General Baptist (1749-1808) (Works)

1800’s


Adam Clarke (1762-1832)-
Commentaries

Joseph Sutcliffe
(1762-1856) -Commentaries

Richard Watson
(1781-1833) - His
Theological Institutes is perhaps
the best Methodist Systematic Theology

James Nichols Calvinism and Arminianism Compared (1824)
Thomas William Jenkyn – Extent of the Atonement (1835)
S.G. Burney Atonement (1888)

Willbur Fisk (1792 – 1839) - Calvinistic Controversy

Samuel Wakefied (1799-1895) -Christian Theology

Amos Binney (1802-1878) System
of Divinity

Daniel Whedon (1808-1885) The Freedom of the Will. Commentaries.

Thomas N. Ralston, Elements of Divinity
(1851)

Miner Raymond
(1811-1897)- Systemtaic Theology, Volume
1, Volume
2 and Volume
3


Philip Pugh - Arminianism v.
hyper-Calvinism: 3 letters to S. Cozens (1860)

Thomas O. Summers
(1812-1882)- Commentary
Matthew,
Mark,
Luke

John Miley (1813-1895)

Randolph S. Foster
(1820-1903) Objections to
CALVINISM as it is

William Burt Pope
(1822-1903) Volume
1 and Volume
2 of his Systematic Theology
Daniel Steele (1824-1914) Commentaries on Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Joshua - 2 Samuel, and John's Epistles
Benjamin Field
(1827-1869)-
The
Student's Handbook of Christian Theology

Albert Nash, Perseverance and Apostasy (1871)

Francis Hodgson - The
Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted (1855)

Frédéric Louis Godet
(1812 -1900) Not a Methodist. Commentaries on John
Volume 1, John Volume 2, and Romans

John
McClintock (1814-1870) - Cylopaedia
of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature

Joseph Beet
(1840-1924) Commentary on Romans


Ransom
Dunn – General Baptist - A
Discourse on the Freedom of the Will (1850)

A. D.
Williams – General Baptist (1825 - 1894)

David
Marks – General Baptist (1805-1845)

Jabez Burns - General Baptist
(1805-1876) (Works)



E. Y.
Mullins (1860-1928) wrote Baptist Beliefs and W. T. Conner (1877-1952) – wrote
Christian Doctrine and The Gospel of Redemption. Mullins and Conner did not call themselves Arminians, but they were instrumental in the decline of
Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention.

Comments

SammyBoy said…
Can you continue the timeline? What prominent names today are good representatives of the Arminian viewpoint?
September 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi SammyBoy,

I am not sure I know enough to do that. I do know some key Arminian names today. But the problem is I don't know enough about the 1900's and generally the picture gets broader and broader and it's hard to keep track. Some more recent Arminian Theologians that I have enjoyed are:

William Lane Craig, I. Howard Marshall, Scott McKnight, William Klein, Grant Osborne, Robert Shank, Ben Witherington III, Roger Olson, Jerry Walls, Joe Dongell, Brian Abasciano, F. Leroy Forlines, Robert E. Picirilli, Jack Cottrell, Roger Forster, Paul Marston, Keith Stanglin and Matthew Pinson.

My personal favorites are Craig and Picirilli.

God be with you,
Dan
September 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM
The Seeking Disciple said…
Excellent timeline. Where did you get this or did you create it? It's excellent.
September 24, 2010 at 2:38 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Roy,

Glad you like it. I built it.

God be with you,
Dan
September 24, 2010 at 4:20 PM
A.M. Mallett said…
Good piece of work ... got it bookmarked
September 24, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Kevin Jackson said…
Just ran across this (behind on my surfing), very nicely done.
September 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Trav & Kevin!

God be with you,
Dan
September 30, 2010 at 5:43 PM
DonaldH said…
This is very helpful. And thanks for listing the recent Arminian theologians as well. I like Roger Olson and William Lane Craig. And Picirilli.
October 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Donald. I tend to think Picirilli is underrated these days, but I really enjoyed Grace, Faith and Freewill.

God be with you,
Dan
October 9, 2010 at 11:13 AM
A.M. Mallett said…
Dan,
I have come to appreciate two notable theologians as having considerable influence in shaping my current theological view, Picirilli and Forlines. Grace Faith Freewill and Forlines Quest For Truth have been instrumental me me in the past few years. Forlines in particular has captured my interest with his baptist and classical Arminian insight.
October 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Trav. I liked Quest for Truth as well. If I recall correctly Forlines doesn't call himself an Arminian, even though his views were in lock step with Arminian theology. Yet another example of a Baptist avoiding the name Arminian.

God be with you,
Dan
October 10, 2010 at 8:00 AM
A.M. Mallett said…
In the preface to The Quest, Forlines indicates that the work takes a distinctly Arminian presentation, what he calls "classical Arminianism". He makes the distinction between his view i.e. classical Arminiansim from that of the Wesleyan Arminianism. In that sense I think we can include Forlines as one who readily embraces his Arminianism. He may have changed since although I am not familiar with that.
October 10, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Godismyjudge said…
My mistake. Sorry about that.

God be with you,
Dan
October 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Anonymous said…
I found in a google books Philip Pugh's birth and death dates that you might want to add to your timeline. (1817-1871)

Nice work,
Steve
February 15, 2011 at 11:07 PM
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