Arminian denominations & Arminius' Lutheran & Anabaptist influences: "Who are the Arminians?" Part 1

Рет қаралды 559

Gospel Encounter

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 19

@Dizerner Ай бұрын

Interesting stuff.

@AisforArminianism Ай бұрын

Talking about Arminius's influences is a hard thing to do, because he often lacked citations (A frustrating thing during this time period). It is a lot easier to state that his views were "consistent with so-and-so" than to say that he was directly influenced by someone. It gets even harder when you consider that the Netherlands he grew up in held to a plurality of religious views. In all, I commend your video here. It has a lot of good things in it. I would however say that I thought he was commissioned to refute the errors of the Anabaptist in the year 1599 (around Aug. 31- September 7th). Also, Gunter notes that "We do not know whether Melanchthon's influence on the university was noticed by him [Arminius]." It's probably the case that he was more influenced by Snellius (with Ramism/ logic) than anything else during this time period. I'd be interested in learning more about what Gunter meant by "All that Bertius tells us about this period is that Arminius was there with Snecanus for a brief period." (pg. 18) - since Bertius doesn't mention Snecanus in the funeral oration that Gunter cites (from what I could tell). Perhaps he meant Snellius? What I recall is that Jelle Hotze latinized his name to Gellius Snecanus and wrote the book “Introduction to the Ninth Chapter of Romans"- and Arminius was pleased to find that Snecanus' arguments were similar to his own. That was in 1596 if my notes are correct. In all, I'm content in thinking that Marburg, in 1575, had little influence on Arminius due to his short time there and the Oudewater Massacre. In turn, Arminius began preaching on Romans first with Johannes Jacobus Grynaeusa in Basel- someone who in 1575, as a professor of theology in Basel, became an opponent of Antist, who leaned towards Luther. But yeah, Arminius's library was vast and did contain Lutheran sources. I'm glad you brought up Hemmingius. A lot more could be done comparing Arminius's work and Hemmingius's. I was, however, saddened that you didn't mention Catholic influences- either from the scholastic era or Molina. Anyways. Great job with this video.

@thearminians Ай бұрын

I appreciate your comments. Re: the commission, Bangs says the request was made in 1599, but the Synod accepted the suggestion in June 5-9, 1600 (page 167), so I went with the later date. Re: Lutheran influences. It's not just that he had Lutheran works in his library, but rather, scholars have concluded on prevenient grace and predestination (ie: the points at issue in defining Arminianism), it was the Lutherans who had the *most* influence on his view, and it is Hemmingsen that he actually quotes. Re: potential Catholic influences, I think it is unlikely they were significant for him, and I disagree with those scholars who think he followed Molina. And in any event, I was trying to focus on the influences that tie-in to the Q "Who are the Arminians?" today, and why it makes sense that Lutherans and Anabaptists have Arminians in their ranks.

@AisforArminianism Ай бұрын

@@thearminians I can get behind 1600 :) . I agree Hemmingsen is definitely a figure to look at more by scholars. The only thing I was sincerely pushing back against was a Lutheran Influence gained during his time at Marburg in 1575. Nothing more. I only mentioned Basel to emphasize other universities that definitively impacted his life, rather than speculatively impacted his life. I understand that your video was more about emphasizing those Arminius quoted, so I'm sorry if it sounded like I was making mountains out of molehills here. As for Catholics, let's not forget Augustine or the patristics :P . Even Stanglin and McCall notes Augustine held to Previenent Grace, even if its mode/application was different. But in all seriousness, Arminius was a Reformed Scholastic. You don't get Arminius's doctrine of God, or his ordo salutis (logical moments in the life of God), or his view of theology, and more without touching base with Aquinas, Scotus, and others. The more I read about Scholastic theology/ philosophy, the more I am convinced of this. I am curious though why you disagree about Molina? ----sidenote: it's so refreshing to talk with someone who knows the finer details of Arminius's life. I'm no expert (far from it), but I try. Keep up the good work!!!

@thearminians Ай бұрын

@@AisforArminianism I agree about the patristics and Augustine. I even had an early draft where I was going to discuss this, but it just didn't help answer the Q the series is after. I also considered commenting on Molina, but again, there's no Molinist denomination today, and it doesn't really address the Q of who we are so much as what some believe. And I thought it'd risk offending Molinists, so could become divisive instead of educational. My own take: when I read Arminius, I just don't see any reliance on Molina. I can read Melancthon and see where Arminius got it, but when I read modern Molinists, I don't see Arminius reflected; he has a different framework. I think Pinson, Olson, et al are right in saying Muller, et al are reading too much Molina into Arminius. Even MacGregor has pointed out that Arminius only mentions middle knowledge twice and never uses the term to mean what Molina did. And then McCall has commented that even he thinks while Arminius held to middle knowledge, Arminius wasn't committed to Molina's formulations and deployments. We also have Arminius' own testimony that he didn't recommend students read Jesuits. And his obvious anti-Roman bias (from his name, to his comments about the Pope) suggests to me he was no fan of those still in Rome.

@AisforArminianism Ай бұрын

@thearminians we could definitely go back and forth all day about Molina. 😀 that's what makes Arminius fun. I think once you use middle knowledge, albeit in a different way, the label of molinism should apply. Especially, when I do think Arminius was trying to use it to solve some issues in his own theology, both in regards to God's Providence and God's Knowledge. Man... if only he wrote his systematic... *sigh* ... I guess the disputations will do.

@Dizerner 23 күн бұрын

@@AisforArminianism I see very sharp distinctions between simple foreknowledge and Molinism. I do not believe there is a "mere Molinism" as one certain zealous adherent wants to proclaim. :)