“Thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
Matt 16:23
“Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?”
Isa. 2:22
“And the serpent said unto the woman… ye shall be as gods.”
Gen. 3:4-5
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 5
. Collections 2
Books 4+
Quotes 2
Arminian Writings 1
History 3
Historical Theology 9
Whether Arminians may be Saved, Allowed as Church Members or Disciplined 1
Latin 2
.
Articles
1600’s
Davenant, John – Question 49, ‘Sufficient Assistance is Not Given to Every One for Salvation’ in The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), pp. 501-508 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2
Rutherford, Samuel – ‘The Doctrine of Universal Atonement Proven False & Unscriptural’ from his Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself, no date, 88 paragraphs
.
1800’s
Cunningham, William
‘The Arminian Controversy’ from his Historical Theology, vol. 2, ch. 25, pp. 383-525
‘Calvinism & Arminianism’, p. 418 ff. 52 pp. from his Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation
Hodge, Charles
‘Arminianism & Grace’ (1881) 31 pp.
‘Finney’s Lectures on Theology’ from the Princeton Review (April, 1847) and subsequently printed in Hodge’s collection of articles, Essays & Reviews (1857), pp. 245-84
Charles Finney was a strongly semi-pelagian, man-oriented revivalist whose Lectures on Theology have had a strong and detrimental influence on the American church.
.
Collections of Articles Against the System of Arminianism
Order of Collections
Riissen
Turretin
.
1600’s
Rijssen, Leonard – A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary trans. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009)
Ch. 1, Theology
Controversy – ‘Is natural theology sufficient to lead anyone to salvation, and can anyone be saved without the knowledge of Christ and the Gospel? We deny against the Pelagians, Arminians, and Socinians.’ pp. 4-5
Ch. 2, Holy Scripture
Controversy – ‘Is the special illumination of the Holy Spirit and the renewal of the heart necessary for someone to understand the Scripture rightly, have faith in it, and perform obedience? We affirm against the Socinians and the Arminians.’ pp. 16-17
Ch. 3, God
Controversy – ‘Is God a spirit without body and body parts? We affirm against Vorstius.’ p. 32
Controversy 1 – ‘Is all that is in God God Himself so that there are not many beings (entia) in Him? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 32-33
Controversy – ‘Is there a succession of before and after in the eternal existence of God? We deny against the Socinians and Arminians.’ p. 34
Controversy 1 – ‘Is God present by His essence in every place in the world? We affirm against the Socinians, Anabaptists, and Arminians.’ p. 35
Controversy 2 – ‘Did God before the decree see through a certain middle knowledge what creatures would do independently from Him positing a certain condition? We deny against the Jesuits and the Arminians.’ p. 38
Controversy 1 – ‘Is the real (realis) will of God sometimes antecedent, by which He desires something in Himself, not in relation to circumstances, before foreknowledge, and at other times consequent, by which, after having foreseen the act of the creature, He decides the contrary? We deny against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 39-40
Controversy 2 – ‘Are there capricious desires or inefficacious desires (optationes) in God, which are called wishes (velleitates)? We deny against the same.’ p. 40
Controversy 3 – ‘Is God’s will always absolute, firm, and efficacious and never conditioned, weak, or inefficacious? We affirm against the same.’ p. 41
Controversy 4 – ‘Are, then, any passions of soul truly found in God? We deny against the same.’ p. 41
Ch. 4, Trinity
Controversy 1 – ‘Are there many (plures) divine essences? We deny against Vorstius & Episcopus.’ p. 46
Ch. 5, God’s Decree
Controversy 1 – ‘Is the decree of God an accident in God? We deny against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 52-53
Controversy 2 – ‘Are all the decrees of God eternal, and are none made in time? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ p. 53
Controversy 2 – ‘Do any of the decrees of God depend upon a condition to be performed by the creature? We deny against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 54-55
Controversy 3 – ‘Are the decrees of God rightly distinguished into determinative or efficacious and non-determinative or non-efficacious decrees? We deny against the Arminians.’ p. 55
Controversy 1 – ‘Has God also absolutely determined future contingent events by His decree? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ p. 56
Controversy 2 – ‘Has God ordained for each individual person a fixed and certain end of their life by His decree? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 56-57
Ch. 6, Predestination
Controversy 1 over attribute 1 – ‘Is there a predestination of individual men or an election of particular men and reprobation of others? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ p. 59
Controversy 2 over attribute 1 – ‘Is predestination, then, only a general decree (“I will save those who believe and condemn unbelievers”) without any determination of individuals? We deny against the same.’ pp. 59-60
Controversy over attribute 2 – ‘Are election and reprobation eternal decrees of God? We affirm against the same.’ p. 60
Controversy 1 over attribute 3 – ‘Is Christ the meritorious cause of our election? We deny against the Arminians, Papists, and Lutherans.’ pp. 60-61
Controversy 2 over attribute 3 – ‘Is sin the meritorious or moving cause of reprobation insofar as it is a decree of God? We deny against the Arminians and others.’ pp. 62–63
Controversy 3 over attribute 3 – ‘Does God elect someone on the basis of foreseen faith and perseverance in godliness and reprobate someone else on account of foreseen unbelief and perseverance in it? We deny against the same.’ p. 62
Controversy 4 over attribute 3 – ‘Is, then, the first decree of God toward possible men the demonstration of mercy in some and justice in others? We affirm against the same.’ pp. 62-63
Controversy over attribute 4 – ‘Did God also decree to give the grace of conversion and faith to certain men and to not give it to others? We affirm against the Arminians and Socinians.’ pp. 63-64
Controversy over attribute 5 – ‘Is election immutable so that an elect person cannot become reprobate and vice versa? We affirm against the Arminians.’ Pp. 64-65
Ch. 7, Creation
Controversy – ‘Did man before the fall have the same virtues that exist today in the regenerate who believe in Christ? We affirm against the Arminians.’ pp. 75-76
Ch. 8, God’s Providence
Controversy – ‘Does the providence of God also rule the smallest things? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 77-78
Controversy 1 – ‘Does God effect and determine those things that occur by chance and accident? We affirm against the Socinians, Arminians, and Papists.’ pp. 78-79
Controversy 2 – ‘Did God also determine those things which creatures do freely? We affirm against the same.’ p. 79
Controversy – ‘Does God by His providence so rule and ordain evil that when He permits it, it certainly comes to pass? We affirm against the Socinians, Arminians, and Papists.’ pp. 80-81
Ch. 9, The Law, the Fall, and Sin
Controversy 1 – ‘Did man by sinning lose the image of God and original righteousness? We affirm against the Socinians and some Arminians.’ pp. 85-86
Controversy 2 – ‘Did man by his action (actu) effectively lose that righteousness? We affirm against the Arminians.’ pp. 86-87
Controversy – ‘Was man after he sinned obligated not only to punishment because of the first sin but also to perform new obedience to the law and again to punishment, if he sinned? We affirm against the Arminians.’ pp. 87-88
Controversy – ‘Is there original sin? Or, is every man except Christ born a sinner? We affirm against the Socinians, Anabaptists, and Arminians.’ p. 88
Controversy – ‘Did all men sin in Adam in such a way that this sin should be reckoned as the sin of all? We affirm against the Socinians, Anabaptists, Arminians, and certain Frenchmen.’ pp. 89-90
Controversy – ‘Is human nature after the fall not only deprived of original righteousness but also truly corrupt and inclined to evil? We affirm against the Pelagians, Socinians, and Arminians.’ pp. 90-91
Controversy 2 – ‘Is that inherent original sin truly and properly sin that merits death? We affirm against the same.’ p. 91
Controversy – ‘Does man have a free will? That is, do any abilities survive in man after the fall by which he can keep the law of God, do spiritual good, and work salvation? We deny against the Socinians, Papists, and Arminians.’ pp. 91-92
Controversy – ‘Are Gentiles or unregenerate men unable to please God or act rightly? We affirm against the same.’ pp. 92–93
Controversy 2 – ‘Can unregenerate man dispose himself toward conversion? We deny against the same.’ Pp. 93
Controversy – ‘Are heresies and errors of the mind in matters of religion sin? We affirm against the Arminians.’ pp. 95-96
Controversy – ‘Are the afflictions of believers properly called punishments? We deny against the Papists and Arminians.’ p. 98
Controversy – ‘Does God sometimes punish sin with sin? In other words, does God, in just judgment on account of previous sin, sometimes make men fall into other sins to punish them and others? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 98-99
Ch. 10, The Covenant of Grace
Controversy 1 – ‘After the fall, did God enter into the covenant of grace with each and every individual human being? We deny against the Socinians, Papists, and Arminians.’ pp. 102-3
Controversy 2 – ‘If we assume the establishment of such a universal covenant, does God give sufficient grace to each and every individual by which they may be saved? We deny against the same.’ pp. 103-4
Controversy 3 – ‘Can no one be saved without the knowledge of Christ the Mediator? We affirm against the same.’ pp. 104-5
Controversy – ‘Does the revelation of the Gospel depend on the good use of natural gifts; or if man does what he can by nature, will God grant him further grace and the revelation of the Gospel? We deny against the Pelagians, Jesuits, and the Arminians.’ pp. 105-6
Controversy – ‘In the covenant of grace does God truly promise those things that the law requires in us such as true conversion, faith, and perseverance? We affirm against the same.’ pp. 106-7
Controversy 1 – ‘Is, then, the covenant of grace conditional, that is, is it dependent on any condition to be fulfilled by the covenanted? We deny against the same.’ pp. 107-8
Controversy 2 – ‘Is this, then, the whole covenant of God with fallen men: that those who believe and persevere in faith will be saved? We deny against the same.’ pp. 108-9
Controversy 3 – ‘Were the fathers of the Old Testament participants of the same covenant, and did they have the same spiritual promises? We deny against the Socinians, Anabaptists, and Arminians.’ pp. 109-10
Ch. 11, Christ
Controversy 3 – ‘Was Christ on account of the personal union so holy that He was not able to sin? We affirm against the scholastics and Arminians.’ pp. 121-22
Ch. 12, Christ’s Offices
Controversy 2 – ‘Did Christ as a prophet correct the moral law and increase it by adding self-denial, taking up the cross, imitation of Christ, and other things? We deny against the Socinians, Arminians, and Papists.’ pp. 128-29
Controversy 5 on the Priesthood – ‘Did Christ also merit for us the Spirit of regeneration? We affirm against the Arminians.’ pp. 132-33
Controversy 2 – ‘Did Christ by His obedience satisfy for all the sins of each and every individual human being? We deny against the Papists and Arminians.’ pp. 133-34
Controversy 310 – ‘Will that which Christ has merited by His death also be applied to all for whom He has merited it? We affirm against the Arminians.’ pp. 134-35
Ch. 13, Conversion & Faith
Controversy 1 – ‘Are all men called sufficiently to salvation externally, or do all men have the external means sufficient to salvation? We deny against the Socinians and the Arminians.’ pp. 145-46
Controversy 2 – ‘Do all men have sufficient internal grace? We deny against the same.’ pp. 146-47
Controversy 4 – ‘Are only the elect called internally? We affirm against the same.’ pp. 147-48
Controversy 1 – ‘Does the will have to be regenerated? We affirm against the Socinians and the Arminians.’ pp. 148-49
Controversy 2 – ‘Can the Word of God be heard savingly before conversion? We deny against the same.’ p. 149
Controversy 1 – Is the whole action of God in the conversion of man nothing but moral action, namely, His illumination and persuasion by the Word? We deny. Or does God infuse new life by a spiritual and physical action? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 149-50
Controversy 2 – ‘Is the work of converting grace irresistible? In other words, does God work conversion in man in such a way and by such a power that someone cannot and does not want to hinder it? We affirm against the Arminians.’ pp. 150-51
Controversy 3 – ‘Is man in the first act of regeneration merely passive? We affirm against the Socinians and the Arminians.’ pp. 151-52
Controversy 4 – ‘Is the grace of God efficacious only because God offers it at such times and places and in those circumstances in which He knows whether it will be received by persuasion (which they call congruent calling)? We deny against the Papists and Arminians.’ pp. 152-53
Controversy 5 – ‘Does the grace of God determine the will itself to its actions? We affirm against the Papists and Arminians.’ pp. 152-53
Controversy 6 – ‘Is faith is a permanent disposition (habitus), not only an act? We affirm against the Arminians.’ p. 157
Controversy 6 (II) – ‘Are there infused dispositions (habitus), and is faith such a disposition? We affirm against the same.’ pp. 157-58
Controversy 7 – ‘Is faith prescribed in the Decalogue? We affirm against the same.’ p. 158
Ch. 14, On Justification
Controversy 3 – ‘Are the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and are we justified on account of their imputation to us? We affirm against the Socinians, Papists, and Arminians.’ pp. 163-64
Controversy 4 – ‘Is only Christ’s passive obedience or death imputed to us or also His active obedience and keeping of the whole law? We affirm against the same.’ pp. 164-65
Controversy 6 – ‘Is faith itself either alone or with love accepted by God as our righteousness? We deny against the Arminians.’ pp. 166-67
Controversy 7 – ‘Were Old Testament believers truly justified, and did they have complete remission of sins? We affirm against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 167-68
Controversy 8 – ‘Was God able to demand payment from the fathers of the Old Testament for their sins and punish them on account of their sins? We deny against the same.’ pp. 168-69
Controversy 9 – ‘Is it possible, then, for truly regenerated sons of God to fall away totally and finally from faith, from the grace of God, and from remission of sins? We deny against the Papists, Socinians, Arminians, and Lutherans.’ pp. 168-69
Ch. 15, The Decalogue & Good Works
Controversy 4 on the 1st Commandment – ‘Should Christ as Mediator be worshipped? In other words, is the mediatorial office of Christ the foundation of the worship of Christ? We deny against the Socinians and Arminians.’ pp. 176-77
Controversy 4 on the 10th Commandment – ‘Can a justified and regenerated man fulfill the law perfectly? We deny against the Papists, Socinians, and Arminians.’ pp. 195-96
Ch. 16, The Church
Controversy 1 – ‘Is the calling of Ministers now necessary? That is, can no one be Pastor of a Church and administer the sacraments unless he has been called to this by the Church? We affirm against the Socinians, Anabaptists, and Arminians.’ pp. 212-13
Controversy 2 – ‘Besides election and calling of the people to perform an ecclesiastical office, is it necessary also to have commission, ordination, and institution? We affirm against the same.’ pp. 213-14
Controversy 7 – ‘Is it a divine institution that in the Church there would be Elders who rule but do not teach? We affirm against the Arminians and Papists.’ pp. 216-17
Controversy 2 – ‘Are these major assemblies of divine right? We affirm against the Socinians, Arminians, and Episcopalians.’ pp. 219-20
Ch. 17, The Sacraments
Controversy 3 – ‘Can the sacraments, especially baptism, be administered by anyone, including women? We deny against the Papists, Socinians, Arminians, and Anabaptists.’ pp. 224-25
Ch. 18, Last Things
Controversy 3 on the place of souls – ‘When someone dies, is their soul brought to their eternal place, the faithful into heaven and the unbelievers into Gehenna? Or do they remain in another place or sleep until the Day of Judgment? We deny the latter and affirm the former against the Socinians and the Arminians.’ pp. 244-45
.
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992)
vol. 1
1st Topic
4. ‘Is natural theology sufficient for salvation; or is there a common religion by which all promiscuously may be saved? We deny against the Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 9-16
3rd Topic
7. ‘Is God most simple and free from all composition? We affirm against Socinus and Vorstius.’ 191
9. ‘Is God immense and omnipresent as to essence? We affirm against Socinus and Vorstius.’ 196
13. ‘Is there a middle knowledge in God between the natural and the free? We deny against the Jesuits, Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 212-18
24. ‘Is the mystery of the Trinity a fundamental article of faith? We affirm against the Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 261-65
4th Topic
3, ‘Are there conditional decrees? We deny against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Jesuits.’ 316
5. ‘Is the fixed and immoveable end of the life of each man with all its circumstances so determined by the decree of God, that he cannot die in another moment of time or by another kind of death than that in which he does die? We affirm against the Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 322
10. ‘Is Christ the cause and foundation of election? We deny against the Arminians and Lutherans.’ 350
12. ‘Is the election of certain men to salvation constant and immutable? We affirm against the Remonstrants.’ 365
13. ‘Can the believer be certain of his own election with a certainty not only conjectural and moral, but infallible and of faith? We affirm against the papists and Remonstrants.’ 373
15. ‘Is infidelity, or unbelief of the gospel, presupposed as a cause of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.’ 390
16. ‘Is the will of God to save persevering believers and condemn the unbelieving, the whole decree of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.’ 392
6th Topic
4. ‘Is providence occupied only in the conservation and sustentation of things; or also in their government (through which God Himself acts and efficaciously concurs with them by a concourse not general and indifferent, but particular, specific and immediate)? We deny the former and affirm the latter, against the Jesuits, Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 501
8. ‘Whether it follows and can be elicited by legitimate consequence from our doctrine that we make God the author of sin. We deny against the Romanists, Socinians, Remonstrants and Lutherans.’ 528
10th Topic
2. ‘Whether every necessity is repugnant to freedom of will. We deny against the papists and Remonstrants.’ 661
3. ‘Whether the formal reason of free will consists in indifference or in rational spontaneity. The former we deny; the latter we affirm against papists, Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 665
4. ‘Whether the free will in a state of sin is so a servant of and enslaved by sin that it can do nothing but sin; or whether it still has the power to incline itself to good, not only civil and externally moral, but internal and spiritual, answering accurately to the will of God prescribed in the law. The former we affirm; the latter we deny, against the papists, Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 668
vol. 2
11th Topic
3. ‘Is the moral law so perfect a rule of life and morals that nothing can be added to it or ought to be corrected in it for the true worship of God? Or did Christ fulfill it not only as imperfect, but also correct it as contrary to his doctrines? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Socinians, Anabaptists, Remonstrants and papists.’ 18
12th Topic
5. ‘Was the covenant of grace one and the same as to substance under each dispensation? We affirm against the Socinians, Anabaptists and Remonstrants.’ 192
15th Topic
15. ‘Does temporary faith differ only in degree and duration or also in kind from justifying faith? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Remonstrants.’ 587
16. ‘Whether the true believer can ever totally or finally fall from faith. We deny against the Romanists, Socinians, Remonstrants and others who favor the apostasy of the saints.’ 593
17. ‘Whether the believer can and ought to be certain of his faith and justification by a divine and not merely conjectural certainty. We affirm against the Romanists and Remonstrants.’ 616
16th Topic
7. ‘Does faith justify us properly and of itself or only relatively and instrumentally? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Romanists.’ 669
.
Books
1600’s
Du Moulin, Peter – The Anatomy of Arminianism… (1619; London, 1635) 420 pp.
Moulin (1568-1658) was a reformed Huguenot minister in France who also resided in England for some years. For background on Moulin and this work, see Donald Sinnema, ch. 4, ‘The French Reformed Churches, Arminianism and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619)’ in ed. Klauber, The Theology of the French Reformed Churches… (RHB, 2014).
Featley, Daniel
A Parallel: of New-Old Pelgiarminian Error (1626)
Featley was a Westminster divine. These two works are significantly the same.
Pelagius Redivivus. Or Pelagius Raked Out of the Ashes by Arminius & his Scholars (London, 1626)
Pemble, William – Vindiciæ gratiæ. = A Plea for Grace, More especially the Grace of Faitr, or, certain lectures as touching the nature and properties of grace and faith: wherein, amongst other matters of great use, the maine sinews of Arminius doctrine are cut asunder (London: 1627) 162 pp. ToC Index
Rutherford, Samuel – Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter trans. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1639-42; 1668 / 2019) 135 pp.
The closest thing Rutherford wrote to systematic theology was his Examination of Arminianism. As Arminians erred on nearly every point of theology, refuting their rising, popular system gave Rutherford the opportunity to survey the gamut of theology. Rutherford addresses topics here nowhere addressed in his books written in English.
For the first time, a substantial portion of this work has been translated into English. Learn theology from the greatest Scottish theologian in Church history.
Taylor, Francis – God’s Glory in Man’s Happiness, with the Freeness of his Grace in Electing Us, Together with Many Arminian Objections Answered Buy (London, 1654) 227 pp.
Taylor was a Westminste divine.
.
1800’s
Scott, Thomas – The Articles of the Synod of Dort, Translated from the Latin, with Notes… (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856) with an Introductory Essay by Samuel Miller
Daniel Tilenus (1563-1633), once a German-born, reformed, French professor of theology, became an Arminian (c. 1613) and was deposed from his professorship in Sedan in the winter of 1619-20, due to the outworkings of the Synod of Dort (1618-19). In 1623 he wrote a tract critical of the Synod of Dort and included in it a highly distorted, five point summary of the doctrines of Dort which made the Synod’s canons out to be hyper-calvinistic. This was translated into English, whereas the canons of Dort were not.
“By the early nineteenth century it was sometimes simply assumed in English circles that the Tilenus abbreviation truly represented the teachings of the canons.” (Theology of the French Reformed Churches, p. 133)
In 1811, Scott (1747–1821), an evangelical Anglican minister, sought to defend Calvinism in a book entitled, Remarks on the Refutation of Calvinism by George Tomline. Tomline had provided the summary by Tilenus; Scott assumed it was an accurate representation of the canons of the Synod of Dort, though he argued that it did not represent true Calvinism.
Once Scott realized his mistake, he desired to make a reparation for his contributing to a gross misrepresentation. In the 2nd edition of the work in 1817, Scott included his translation into English of the genuine canons of the Synod of Dort, with a comparison and censure of the abbreviation by Tilenus. In 1818 Scott published the translation of the canons separately in The Articles of the Synod of Dort.
For more background to the work, see The Theology of the French Reformed Churches... (RHB, 2014), especially pp. 133-4.
The historical introduction to the Synod of Dort by Samuel Miller, the second professor at Old Princeton Seminary, is excellent.
Girardeau, John – Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism Buy (1890) 584 pp.
Evangelical Arminianism is the popular teaching of the church at large today. It is often hard to pin down in order to analyze carefully. Here Girardeau carefully articulates it and contrasts it to the Biblical truths of Election, Reprobation and Justification, which fully exposes the inadequacies of Evangelical Arminianism. An easy to read book, but in-depth with much meat.
.
.
Quotes
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
“Hyper-Calvinism is all house and no door: Arminianism is all door and no house.”
“Calvinism and Pelagianism are the only consistent systems. Arminianism is utterly inconsistent and irrational.”
.
Arminian Writings
1600’s
Arminius, Jacob – The Works of James Arminius, vol. 1, 2, 3 tr. James Nichols & W.R. Bagnall (d. 1609; London: 1825-1828)
.
On the History of Arminianism
Books
1800’s
Curtiss, Geoffrey L. – Arminianism in History: or the Revolt from Predestination (Cincinnati: Cranston & Curts, 1894) 240 pp. ToC
.
1900’s
Harrison, Archibald .W. – Arminianism (London: Duckworth, 1937) 240 pp. ToC
Bangs, Carl – Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1985) 385 pp. ToC
See Richard Muller, ‘Review of Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Francis Asbury, 1985)’ Pay to Read 2 pp.
.
Historical Theology
On Arminius
Articles
Muller, Richard
‘God, Predestination & the Integrity of the Created Order: a Note on Patterns in Arminius’ Theology’ in Later Calvinism International Perspectives (1994), pp. 431-46 Buy
‘Grace, Election & Contingent Choice: Arminius’s Gambit & the Reformed Response’ in ed. Thomas Schreiner & Bruce Ware, The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, vol. 2, Historical & Theological Perspectives on Calvinism Buy (1995), pp. 251-278
‘The Christological Problem in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius’ in Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis / Dutch Review of Church History, vol. 68, no. 2 (1988), pp. 145-63
‘Arminius & the Scholastic Tradition’ in Calvin Theological Journal 24 (1989): 263-77
‘Consecrated Through Suffering: The Office of Christ in the Theology of Jacob Arminius’ 2013? 34 pp.
‘The Priority of the Intellect in the Soteriology of Jacob Arminius’ Pay to Read in The Westminster Theological Journal, 55 (1993), pp. 55-72
‘Arminius And The Reformed Tradition’ Pay to Read in Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008), pp. 19-48
.
Book
2000’s
Muller, Richard – God, Creation & Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources & Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Baker, 1991) 309 pp. ToC
.
On Arminianism
Article
Muller, Richard – ‘The Federal Motif in Seventeenth Century Arminian Theology’ in Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 62 (1982), pp.102-22
.
Whether Arminians may be Saved, Whether they should be Allowed to be Church Members & Whether they ought to be Disciplined?
Whether Arminians may be Saved & Whether they Should be Allowed to be Church Members?
Webpage
Of Fundamental, Secondary & Tertiary Matters of Christianity, & of Communion & Discipline Therein
.
Whether Arminians ought to come under the Discipline of the Church?
Quote
The French Reformed Churches 1623
The National Synod of Charenton, ch. 18, in John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata… (London, 1692), p. 109
“10. The Province of the Isle of France demanded what course should be taken with professed Arminians, and such as spread abroad in discourse their dogmas and tenets. This Synod decrees that all dogmatizers be prosecuted with Church-censures; And as for such as are known Arminians, but do not disperse their opinions, our pastors and consistories shall deal with them for three months time in order to reclaim them unto sound doctrine: But in case they continue obstinate after that time, they shall be debarred communion with us at the Lord’s Table.”
.
Latin
Articles
Voet, Gisbert
Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1 Abbr.
section 1, tract 3
First Table, Exhibiting the False Judgments or Opinions of Papists, Remonstrants, Socinians & Anabaptists…
1. Of the Children of Covenanted Parents being Damned if they are not indeed Baptized
2. Of the Inclination of Man to Evil Before the Fall
3. Of Mortality, Not being the Punishment of Sin
6. Of the Annihilation of the Body & the Mortality of the Soul
The Third Table, Exhibiting the True Judgments of the Papists, Lutherans & Remonstrants
1. On Original Sin & the Enslaved Will
2. On the Efficacy & Necessity of Grace in Conversion
3. On Putting Away Works from Justification & of the Right to Eternal Life
4. Of the Certainty of Salvation
5. Of Imperfection in this Life
6. Of Providence
7. Of Predestination & Reprobation
8. Of the State of Infants
9. Of the Foreknowledge of God & the Necessity of Consequence
10. Of the Efficacy of the Providence of God in Evil
section 2, tract 4
Of the Remonstrants in Belgium
Appendix: On the Doctrine of Conrad Vorsti
49. ‘A Disputation: Some Miscellaneous Positions’ in Select Theological Disputations (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1667), pp. 745-63
Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663)
vol. 3, pt. 2, bk. 1, Of the People of the Church, Tract 1
4. On a Hypothetical Question, First: Do the Remonstrants [Arminians] of Good Order have Power to Remove Themselves and Their Own from the Inspection, Oversight and Ecclesiastical Judgment? and to Strive for Every Kind of Exemption from the Magistrate, to Use them for their Profit? 55
vol. 4, pt. 3, bk. 3, Of the Government of the Church with Respect to a State of Turbulence, Tract 3, Of Union and Joining With [Syncretismo] Separated Churches, Section 2, Of the Joining With [Syncretismo] or Union of the Separatist Churches
6. The Judgment of Grotius on Joining Together, and of the Invitation in Poland to a Colloquium on Joining Together 627
Appendix to the Tract on Toleration and Joining Together, Containing a Deliberation on the Mode and Conditions in which one ought to Receive [or Recover, Recipiendi] Members of the Communion of the Remonstrants, etc. 737
.
Book
Rutherford, Samuel – The Examination of Arminianism (1639-43; Utrecht, 1668) 850 pp. Extended ToC
.
.
Bibliography
Muler, Richard & Keith Stanglin – ‘Bibliographia Arminiana: A Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography Of The Works Of Arminius’ Pay to Read in Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe (2009), pp. 263-90
.
.
.
Related Pages