Arminius was a Reformed pastor?

[moral necessity]

"Arminius (1560-1609) was a Reformed pastor in Amsterdam and later professor of theology at the University of Leyden. His disagreement with some of the central tenets of Calvinism led to a great controversy in the Netherlands which continued long after his death. His ideas became the foundation of a system of thought now known as Arminianism, which continues today in conservative Wesleyan and Methodist churches, and in many other protestant groups..." - Grudem's Systematic Theology; Appendix 4; p.1224.

I was not expecting to read this. Do you think this is how we ought to describe the man when others ask us about him? Do other Reformed writers describe Mr. Arminius as Reformed too, or is this the exception?

Another question: If Luther isn't considered Reformed, how is Arminius?

Thanks and Blessings!

 

[Philip]

He is reformed in that his denominal affiliation was reformed. He was reformed as opposed to Lutheran, Roman Catholic, or Anglican.

 

[NB3K]

Yes Arminius was from the Reformed Church. This is why the Synod of Dort took place. All of the Reformed Churches in Europe gathered together and held a trial and found Arminius guilty of the Pelagian heresy.

He could be compared to Martin Luther and the papacy. Luther was a RC, but is the father of the Reformation in the same way as Arminius was in the Reformed Church and is considered as the father of Arminianism.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Arguably, Arminius was not a Pelagian at all.
Trent advocates the semi-Pelagianism position.
C Finney was Pelagian in the way that Arminius was not!
I would class B Graham (who is now a universalist) as a Finneyite.
J Wesley was an Arminian, but you would never guess so from reading his views on total Depravity.
One has to read Arminius first hand (see here) - all of it!
R T Kendall, who delights in controversy, has - notwithstanding - shown parallels between Arminianism and Calvinism (click here)
Soundbites won't do - intellectual laziness and blank assertions are unhelpful.

 

[Andres]

Arguably, Arminius was not a Pelagian at all.
Trent advocates the semi-Pelagianism position.
C Finney was Pelagian in the way that Arminius was not!
I would class B Graham (who is now a universalist) as a Finneyite.
J Wesley was an Arminian, but you would never guess so from reading his views on total Depravity.
One has to read Arminius first hand (see here) - all of it!
R T Kendall, who delights in controversy, has - notwithstanding - shown parallels between Arminianism and Calvinism (click here)
Soundbites won't do - intellectual laziness and blank assertions are unhelpful.

Is this a poem?

 

[Philip]

Is this a poem?

It could be: the next trend will be to write systematic theology in blank verse

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

I would class B Graham (who is now a universalist) as a Finneyite.

bit of a thread drift here, and I ask this out of ignorance and no favor of my own towards Graham, but where do you get that BG is a universalist?

 

[TimV]

Thanks, Andres.

 

[CharlieJ]

Is this a poem?

It could be: the next trend will be to write systematic theology in blank verse

I would applaud such a development.

Back to the OP, I think that it's helpful to view Arminius as Reformed, or at least as specifically anti-Reformed. Classical Arminianism is a specifically Reformed variant. It could not have arisen in a Lutheran, EO, or Catholic Church. It maintains a conceptual similarity to Reformed doctrine, even where it differs. You can put Arminianism and Calvinism into a chart and compare them easily. It's hard to do that with, say, Calvinism and EO, because the whole structure and categories are so different.

 

[athanatos]

Arminius was heck of a lot more Reformed than Arminians these days.

 

[JoannaV]

I would class B Graham (who is now a universalist) as a Finneyite.

bit of a thread drift here, and I ask this out of ignorance and no favor of my own towards Graham, but where do you get that BG is a universalist?

From what I can get from google, it would appear he is not necessarily a universalist, but that he does think that the body of Christ includes many Muslims etcetc who subconsciously have Christ in their hearts though they may never know his name (eg Billy Graham Universalist - YouTube) And it was comments like that which have led some people to brand him a universalist. He may well believe that God will save all except those who consciously reject Him. (So the label may well be correct, depending on your definition. By Graham's definition it is incorrect.)

 

[NB3K]

Arguably, Arminius was not a Pelagian at all.

Yes you are correct, but Arminius was a synergist and he believed that God's grace was not efficacious unless man co-operate with it. This is where their doctrine of "Prevenient grace" comes to play a great deal in the work of salvation, but man is still required to co-operate rather than Grace being the power of God that causes the purpose of God to succeed. Arminius places in the mind that the will of God can be thwarted because if man does not co-operate with the Grace of God than man can thwart God's will. It should actually be called the road back to rome. And Rome is a breeding groud for all kinds of error.

 

[bug]

Arminius was reformed simply because no one had yet ruled on the orthodoxy of his beliefs. It is anachronistic to apply the post dort understanding of reformed theology to men prior to dort to asses if they were in the reformed camp or not. So whilst Arminius departed from the reformed teachings, and redefined much of the reformed jargon, he should still be considered in the reformed camp of his time. That is not to say that post dort we can consider Arminians to be reformed, as the canons of dort expressly denounce the Arminian position.

 

[moral necessity]

Thanks for the responses so far. Upon reading that paragraph in Grudem's work, it sounded like he was still being considered as Reformed, even after Dort. I suppose I could see arguments either way as to the validity of this.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Also remember that Darby, Scofield, Irving all started out as Presbyterian which mean that they should have accepted the WCF which would make them "reformed", but later on they left or were kicked due to their unorthodoxy, does it mean they were reformed before they left their Presbyterian denomination? The difference is that Arminius' theology was only fully expounded and officially refuted after his death.

 

[Philip]

Also remember that Darby, Scofield, Irving all started out as Presbyterian

Not to mention Finney.

 

[Jack K]

It's typical these days for folks to define "Reformed" as "Calvinist in soteriology," or at least to think of that aspect first. By that definition, Arminius would not be Reformed.

But that definition was not even an issue yet in the Reformed church before Arminius. A more well-rounded definition of "Reformed," even today, would be something like "in the tradition arising out of the Swiss Reformation." That seems to be how Grudem uses the word, to his credit.

 

[Poimen]

Yes Arminius was Reformed as in he was a minister in the Reformed churches. However his theology was not Reformed as in it contradicted the express teaching of the Belgic confession on election and depravity. So are many ministers today in Reformed churches that have virtually abandoned their Reformed heritage: Reformed in name but not in doctrine and/or practice.

Since being Reformed is clearly defined according to the confessions (not one's individual scruples or tastes) we should (ultimately) speak of Arminius as being other than Reformed, though hailing from that theological tradition. Of course if you adopt this definition of Reformed you exclude many today who like to use and/or apply that term for themselves and risk annoying them and/or provoking a debate about whether one party has exclusive rights to that term or not. It seems apparent to me, however, that if there is no clear definition of 'Reformed' almost anything can be included under that banner (just as so much nonsense today is baptized with the names christian or christianity).