Dutch Revolt and Arminianism

[@classicjukebox]

This is exactly what I was looking for...thanks to the person who did the massive work to make these series available.

[@RyanReevesM]

Thanks. Hard to think when I stared making them for my students people would love them on KZbin, too, but these comments make it worth the effort and late nights! :)

[@classicjukebox]

Ryan Reeves I greatly appreciate this work. What would be cool is if you could organize them by numbers in sequence that they should be listened to chronologically cover church history and/or topics in order. This way people can hear every message, not miss anything, and have organization in the mind as they learn. You could just put "001" "002" etc at the start of the title of each message. Just a thought...

[@RyanReevesM]

I almost did that but found it gave the sense that people should click off each video to go in order. And if they didn't want to go in order they would leave. So I left it more like episodes and sometimes people dig deeper. The internets be weird, though, on people! :))

[@classicjukebox]

Ryan Reeves Ok. I am thrilled anyway. Can I share the audio portion with people?

[@RyanReevesM]

Sure thing. Always nice to mention the channel but I can't control what people do (and won't try) and I believe education is free anyway. So have at it. :)

[@henryv4222]

they never even touched on any of this at my public schools. Thanks for this easy way to get to know the whys + wherefores of Protestantism

[@allweird]

First of all, this is an awesome channel. Keep up the excellent work! Regarding Ryan Reeve's comment on Arminius regarding Total Depravity, that was a mistake. Arminius wrote, "“But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good, but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.” (The Works of Arminius) .R C Sproul agrees about Arminius' views on TD and says, "Augustine’s, Martin Luther’s or John Calvin’s views on human depravity and inability are “scarcely stronger than that of Arminius.” R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2006), 126. Blessings!

[@RafaelReStival]

You're really a great scholar on this matter. I have been glancing at your work since the last year. I doubt there is a calvinist smarter than you in Brazil. Did you hear the two main courses on Church History of this channel? Do you know some work of church history that can tell us something like "the existence of the will in Theology before Arminius?"

[@evanu6579]

Rafael Resende Stival Calvinism is not built on sound exegetical interpretation. Please search the scriptures and see. It's not biblical. God bless

[@RafaelReStival]

I have this suspicion.

[@boazliostro790]

Nothing short of phenominal and thank you for sharing your wisdom .

[@jaygee2187]

I, too very much appreciate this series. And I believe you are correct, in that, the rejection of Calvinism is most often because taken to its logical ends the system makes it seem as though God is the author of sin. That was, and is my primary concern. Also, there is no evidence anywhere in scripture of limited atonement. Quite the opposite, actually. But rejecting Calvinism does not mean we leap into the arms of some form of Arminianism. Doctrine is wonderful; establishing sound doctrine is necessary to keep from succumbing to the deceit of the evil one. But doctrine is never to be risen to be on par or even supersede Gods' word. We grow in the Spirit by the renewing of our mind as we study Gods word. And some things we will not understand for Gods ways are so much higher than our ways.

[@DavidBarrera-io1kx]

Thank you. This should be on Netflix

[@Pradakingg]

Damn, you know way more things about my countries history than I do and I live here 23 years..

[@Stsebastian8900]

Is William of orange here the same as the king of England known as William of orange ?

[@built4speed101]

Go Team Ryan!!!

[@albertkwarteng3505]

Thanks Sir.. you are awesome

[@DanKnauss]

Maurice had Oldenbarnevelt (and others) "taken out" -- that's putting it mildly! The ink wasn't even dry on the Canons of Dort when Barnevelt was arrested, put through a kangaroo court, and beheaded.

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

True, but the real reason wasn't religious, Maurice was angered that van Oldenbarnevelt recklessly used the Dutch state-army in an attempt to capture Dunkirk in which it almost got defeated.

[@DanKnauss]

There is never much distinction between religion and politics, and that was absolutely the case back then. There was a power struggle between the two men, as they were on opposite sides of a theopolitically conflicted nation. In the literature of the day, Dutch republicanism, religious toleration (which Arminianism allowed), and a greater social role for women were associated with the (linguistically and ecclessially) pluralistic southern provinces. All of these traits were seen as threats and pejoratively described by those aligned with English and monarchic interests, hardshell Calvinism, and "traditional patriarchy." Barnevelt was associated with the former values, Maurice with the latter. Maurice and Barnevelt's other enemies were able to use the Synod of Dort to kill, exile, and seize the assets of their rivals because of this synergy of theological and political interests. The Synod was intended to have this effect from the start.

[@YarnaceuticalsPodcast]

Very informative, thank you.

[@jborg980]

Very informative- keep up the good work

[@theprofitableperson]

EXCELLENT LECTURE. Jacobus Arminius evidently was an honest and brave soul to proclaim the Scriptures without bias to dogma or political power. He paid with his Life. Those Calvinist named anyone else a heretic and killed many people unjustly. Eventually Calvinist leaders repented of such treachery and acknowledged Arminians as Orthodox Christians. In my opinion, Arminius and John Wesley rightly saw in Scripture that If God unconditionally forces people to be evil without hope then He WOULD in fact be responsible for all evil and sin. No amount of piety about God's glory will change that simple scriptural logic. Since God is pure love (God expressed love before he expressed creation ie sovereignty) then God sovereignly chose to give mankind, thru Christ, libertarian freedom of choice to accept his Grace thru faith or reject that grace. Therefore Man is justly judged for his rejection if he so chooses to reject Christ. I enjoy all Dr. Reeve's historical lectures profoundly. THANK YOU.

[@1969cmp]

JasonMarkOliver You shall know them by their fruit. Calvin drowned Anabaptist. And his absolute dictatorship cause him to be called the 'the pope of Geneva'.

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

Got a little research exercise for you. Research the behavior and words of Calvin the man in Geneva (not his dogma or philosophy) and compare that to John Wesley. You'll see the two are an ocean apart in ability to correctly interpret the Bible and their heartdriven behavior to obey the commands of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles. Black and white, night and day difference. But Wesley is a favorite target of Calvinists from my years of observation immersed in Purest Calvinism from child to adult.

[@fuzzycounsellor9147]

I found it interesting how by making one change to sound doctrine it affects so many other aspects, and causes conflict with so many other scriptures.

[@parthiancapitalist2733]

6:55 some things never change

[@anthonyrago554]

During these & other movements, did anyone reflect on the liturgies of Catholic or Orthodox origin to help define what the Protestants believe or disbelieve? Liturgy is essential to the apostolic churches as the transmission of faith. How is it among Protestant peoples?

[@primitivaroots]

Is it unfortunate that Gomarus couldn't prove Arminius to be catholic and pelagian - which he really wasn't?

[@Jere616]

Sounds like the difference between Reformed and Arminian is fundamentally philosophical - that is, each side attempting to understand the processes of salvation. The fact that it deeply involves all three of the Godhead, to the point of shedding of the incarnated Son's blood, shows it to be a divinely profound work. Too bad there's so much fighting over it.

[@gilgoredh]

Excellent lecture. Thank you so much for providing these. As I watch these lectures, I have come to understand more richly the historical formation of my own idiosyncratic faith as a US evangelical Christian -- puritan, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, pietistic, holiness, baptist, Arminian. It's quite eye opening, and simultaneously confusing! But in any case, I thought you might appreciate as a historian this quote of Arminius on the bondage of the will. “In this state, the free will of man is not only wounded, maimed, infirmed, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by divine grace… Exactly correspondent to this darkness of the mind and perverseness of the heart, is the utter weakness of all the powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause.” ~~~ (John D. Wagner, Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God (2011), p.3).

[@RyanReevesM]

+Stephen Woerner // Yep that's his thinking. I've read his works. The issue isn't whether he believes the will is in bondage. He shares that with Reformed theologians (he was one, after all). What the issue is for Arminius is where the grace is applied and when. This is an important feature, since later Arminianism is different at times, and often Arminius himself is read in the light of these later themes. His concern was to shift Reformed thinking in a certain direction, not obliterate it with a fully alternative view. Glad you liked the videos, man!

[@gilgoredh]

+Ryan Reeves // Thanks for the response, Ryan! They have seriously been helpful in understanding my background, and making sense of what seem to be disjointed positions and perspectives. About your response, gotcha, that does make sense. When I posted my comment, I had minute 36:28 of your lecture in mind. That said, I would not be surprised if a thorough survey of Arminius' writings revealed different and perhaps inconsistent articulations of his own perspective on the bondage of the will. In any event, I look forward to keep working through these! (I am listening to the lecture on the 2nd Great Awakening. Fantastic.)

[@RyanReevesM]

+Stephen Woerner // Awesome. Yeah it you're up to the 2nd Awakening you'll see glimpses of how later American Arminianism is bound up with holiness traditions, which makes them unique and different, though they may share some of the same doctrinal points. Arminius was not a pietist; his fight was in the definition of God's love.

[@kvjqxzz5905]

Calvinism, and 'no one expects the Spanish Inquisition', and The Architect from the matrix, who was always the most convincing character in the entire series

[@tommyodonovan3883]

I'm Frieslander on moms side.

[@lucasmullen348]

Greetings, sir, I would like to ask a question if I may... is there such as thing, as it occurs in politics, where parts of the population stand roughly not interested in religion such as an apolitic ? I mean stances were consistent and very well defined or there were cases where people didn't care much ? As an example, now it is used quite increasingly the concept that politics isn't important where people should "Do what they are supposed to do", which represent many of the ideas of people who don't care about politics. Thanks !

[@ronaldderooij1774]

As an atheïst myself, and raised in Dutch public schools (which are in practice atheist as we also have special public schools fo all kinds of religions and ideologies), I have never heard about these theological fights. Very interesting. I would advise to rethink the first part of the video about the run up to the Dutch revolt and the role of William of Orange and the States General. It in no way matches what I have learned. What I have learned is that the Habsburg monarchy wanted 1) to protect Catholicism, 2) Centralize government and 3) impose taxation on the (lower) nobility. They, however demanded to retain their old rights and opposed centralization and taxation by central (Habsburg) government. Secondly, Calvinists were a small minority (10% of population). Very vocal, but small. William of Orange was a Centrist. He wanted freedom of religion, very uncommon in that time. Neither he, nor anybody else in the Nethelands envisaged independence. In fact it was with great reluctance that the States General proclaimed independence on behalf of the people (another novelty in the world!) after several failed attempts to lay sovereignty at other rulers. Not even the Orange family got it (that is why the were called "placeholders" when they ruled). The eternal struggle between decentralized power and centralisation is both cause of the revolt and continued during and after the revolt up to this day in the Netherlands. We are used to it by now.

[@zenodotusofathens2122]

Ronald de Rooij you are Dutch and an atheist..... What a surprise! I am shocked!

[@zenodotusofathens2122]

*****​ I am not a Christian myself. But I find its history fascinating. I like to think about the theological arguments of the different groups. The great thing about the Reformation is that it gaves the Jews a break for a change.

[@bobbibealze6378]

Actually Holland is official Pagan. They are not registered in Rome. There may be churches. Does not say a thing. There also Mosques. Same as the king would convert to Islam. Does not change lands religion.

[@zenodotusofathens2122]

Bobbi Bealze The religion of Holland is marijuana, Gin, and sex

[@bobbibealze6378]

haha wrong again. Thier religion is Atlantic, Seidr, Scientific

[@1969cmp]

John 3:16 blows some aspects of Calvinism out of the water. Thanks for the presentation Ryan, whatever your personal position is as I have only just found your lectures and have watched several. Mostly from the Middles Ages and the schism of west and eastern churches. Myself? I am a pentesostal though I just prefer to call myself a Christian. One of my friends is a Calvinist but I can work around that.

[@rotop6]

Ayy fam, Preach it!

[@bhutimotha2576]

De Prins van Oranje ma

[@Stsebastian8900]

If anyone could be so kind to link me an English translation of johannes wtenbogaert writings i would be very thankful!

[@jondavidguest7890]

Thanks again from your methodist fan!

[@davemojarra2666]

Lots tussles in this series.

[@justingroves6858]

I wish there had been a nod to God's middle knowledge in his video.

[@RyanReevesM]

Certainly an interesting topic. The only issue here is it played no role in Calvinism, Arminianism, or Dordt at this time. It was a Jesuit perspective and so not a factor. Still, though, very important to modern theologians!

[@gardenerofgroovemiyagi3894]

perkins diagram reminds me of of the kabalist godhead diagram wick is bad. dont think i like this perkins

[@redwine65]

Im not sure how thats not plagianisum , or atleast semi

[@johanstrydom2919]

I am proudly calvinist.

[@George-ie1si]

Pride In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride:

[@johanstrydom2919]

+George Mooyman You fundamentally misunderstand Calvinism. look up church history videos about it.

[@George-ie1si]

+Johan Strydom Hi Johan I understand enough about church history to know that Calvin took his doctrine from Augustine whose teachings dominated the RCC in the Middle Ages. He taught that Christ had not died for all man kind, and only for an elect few that would be predestined to heaven, while the rest had no hope of Eternal life and doomed to Hell. The Bible clearly reached that salvation is by Grace (not selection) through faith and available to all. Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." I would not be proud to be a Calvinist or any other "ist". I follow the teaching of scripture not men. Proverbs 13: "Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom". May the Lord bless you. Br George

[@REDRAGON12345]

I'm sorry for you. From a proud Arminian

[@1969cmp]

Didn't Calvin drown Anabaptist 😉

[@CypherOzzie]

Arminianism vs Calvinism is a false dichotomy. Look at the word for yourself. They are both wrong

[@acolytes777]

it all boils down to monergism vs synergism however

[@CypherOzzie]

Simplistically - but scripture has more to it

[@CypherOzzie]

Also... Look at the Lutheran position as an alternative Lutheranism holds to the soteriological position of monergistic salvation and synergistic damnation, rejecting Calvin's monergistic damnation and Arminius' synergistic salvation; Lutheranism teaches that God predestines some to salvation but does not predestine others to damnation as God wills that all might be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6, Rom. 11:32, etc.).

[@CypherOzzie]

Consider Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil. and Job 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?” So how is Job ' blameless and upright' ? God calls him blameless and upright !