Professor Jacobus Arminius

So in 1603, Arminius becomes professor at
Leiden. Now bear in mind, he’s got a letter of recommendation from Beza, he’s a pretty
tough nut in terms of orthodoxy, and now from Gomarus but almost immediately after taking
his position, rumors began to circulate. Is he teaching some students in private something
different from what he’s teaching in public? Then he wrote criticizing William Perkins
on predestination, only criticizing never quite making clear what he personally believed.
He has the students reading Roman Catholic authors. What’s going on here? What’s
going on here? And this led to growing tension, growing struggle, growing confusion. The Synod
begins an investigation and then Arminius dies – dies in 1609. Well, that’s the
end of the problem. Right? Arminianism went away with the death of Arminius. Well, no
of course. That’s never a solution to problems. It never goes away in that regard. He left
a legacy amongst his students.

9 thoughts on “Professor Jacobus Arminius

  • This would be an interesting lecture to listen to since I really know little about Jacob Arminius and all that he taught. In fact, last year I taught an apologetics course at my church that went for 13 weeks. In the first lesson, I ask all who attended to write down two questions or concerns about the Christian faith that they have difficulty answering whether it is inside the church or outside. One of the concerns from one person was simply "Arminianism vs Calvinism." By the last few classes, we review what has been taught and I let the class answer their own questions. I always teach that we should spot the presupposition in any question or concern. I put the initials "A" and "C" on the board for both terms and asked the class to give me the presupposition for both theological terms. I started with Arminianism and asked, "What is the presupposition; what do you know about this term?" It was quiet. I asked about Calvinism, and the answers came out quickly; "Elect, predestination, limited number, crazy, etc."

    I told the class, this is an in-house discussion because an unsaved person would not understand theological things based on 1 Corinthians 2:14. But I also told them that it would be difficult to answer this concern properly because the class themselves already had a biased presupposition; they already had a preconceived notion about "C" but had nothing about "A." And since all apologetic answers need to come from the Word of God, unless they could take both sides and find the Biblical support each side had for their view (without their bias clouding their judgment), the answer would become either philosophical or emotional (which can't drive our apologetics or you could violate Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8). This subject took up 30 minutes of the class and after looking at the scriptures (leaving out labels or terms for most of it), the idea of God's sovereignty and man's depravity didn't look so "crazy." We can learn much from studying about Arminius or Calvin, but regardless of either man's teachings (or their followers), if it doesn't line up with scripture (which we must search according to Acts 17:11), we must not adhere to it.


    can you wait? yes

  • Secondary to Holy Scripture of course, i have found the letters of Goerge Whitfield to be very helpful and insightful, enjoy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *