Doble Amor de Dios- La Teología de JACOBO ARMINO(William den Boer)

8/6/2019 Doble Amor de Dios- La Teología de JACOBO ARMINO(William den Boer)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/doble-amor-de-dios-la-teologia-de-jacobo-arminowilliam-den-boer 1/27

William den Boer

God’s Twofold Love

The Theology of Jacob Arminius(1559–1609)

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht



William den Boer, God’s Twofold Love

ISBN Print: 978-3-525-56908-5 — ISBN E-Book: 978-3-647-56908-6

© 2010 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen



Reformed Historical Theology

Edited by

Herman J. Selderhuis

in co-operation with

Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Wim Janse,

Elsie McKee, Richard Muller

Volume 14







William den Boer

God’s Twofold Love

The Theology of Jacob Arminius

(1559–1609)

Translated by

Albert Gootjes







Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der

Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind

im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

ISBN der gedruckten Ausgabe 978-3-525-56908-5

ISBN der elektronischen Ausgabe 978-3-647-56908-6

© 2010, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Oakville, CT, U.S.A.

www.v-r.de

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.

Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der

vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG:

Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung

des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer

entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke.

Printed in Germany.

Druck- und Bindung: b Hubert & Co, Göttingen.

Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.






Contents

Abbreviations .......................................................................................... 9

Preface..................................................................................................... 11

1. Introduction....................................................................................... 13

1.1 Historical Introduction ........................................................... 13

1.1.1 Life and Work of Jacobus Arminius...................... 13 1.1.2 Other Works of Arminius ...................................... 23

1.2 State of Scholarship ............................................................... 34

1.3 Method ................................................................................... 40

1.4 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................... 46

Part 1: The Theology of Jacobus Arminius

2. God’s Justice in Arminius’s Theology I: Prolegomena.................... 49

2.1 The Concept of “Justice” ....................................................... 49

2.1.1 The Basic Principle: To Each His or Her Due....... 49

2.1.2 Remunerative and Vindictive Justice .................... 52

2.1.3 Justice and Its Relationship to Mercy.................... 54

2.1.4 Justice and Its Relationship to Freedom ................ 55

2.2 God’s Justice in the Structure of Arminius’s Theology......... 59

2.2.1 God’s Justice: A Structurally Determinative

Concept in the Doctrine of God............................. 592.2.2 Fundamental Concept for Religion........................ 63

2.2.3 The Core Concept of Arminius’s Theology .......... 70

2.3 The Knowability of God’s Justice ......................................... 71

2.3.1 Arminius’s View of Scripture................................ 72

2.3.2 Arminius’s Intellectualism..................................... 74

2.3.3 God’s Justice: A Frequent and Important Theme.. 75

2.3.4 The Certainty of Theology..................................... 76


3. God’s Justice in Arminius’s Theology II: God, Creation,

Sin and Gospel ( Evangelium) ........................................................... 81






6 Contents

3.1 Justice as Divine Attribute ..................................................... 81

3.1.1 Place and Function Within God’s Attributes......... 81

3.1.2 Implications for God’s Acts of Creation

and Providence....................................................... 863.2 God’s Justice and (the Fall Into) Sin...................................... 106

3.3 God’s Justice and the Gospel ( Evangelium):

Christ, Predestination and Covenant...................................... 113

3.3.1 Christ as the Foundation of the New Covenant

and of Predestination.............................................. 114

3.3.2 The Object of Predestination ................................. 122

3.3.3 Perseverance and the Means God Gives for It....... 134

3.3.4 Divine Foreknowledge and Middle Knowledgein Arminius’s Doctrine of Predestination .............. 143

3.3.5 The Four-Decree Structure of Predestination

in the Declaration of 1608..................................... 148


4. God’s Justice in Arminius’s Theology III:

The Primary Foundation of Religion ................................................ 154

4.1 Duplex Amor Dei ................................................................... 154

4.2 The Relationship Between Arminius’s

Two “Foundation” Statements ............................................... 167

4.3 Salvation................................................................................. 168

4.4 Assurance of Faith ................................................................. 168


5. Arminius and Reformed Theology ................................................... 178

5.1 Controversial Elements in Arminius’s Theology .................. 1785.1.1 Predestination: Absolute or Conditional? .............. 178

5.1.2 The Operation of Grace: Irresistible or Resistible? 179

5.1.3 Atonement: Particular or Universal? ..................... 185

5.1.4 The Human Will: Bound or Free? ......................... 187

5.1.5 Sanctification, Perseverance and Assurance:

Securitas or Certitudo? .......................................... 194

5.2 Arminius on Doctrines Characteristic of

Reformed Theology ............................................................... 197

5.2.1 Fall, Original Sin and Sin ...................................... 197

5.2.2 The Essence and Necessity of Grace ..................... 200

5.2.3 Faith ....................................................................... 202






Contents 7

5.2.4 Justification ............................................................ 203

5.2.5 Sanctification and Good Works............................. 207


Part 2: The Reception and Theologico-historical Context

of the Theology of Jacobus Arminius

6. Te Reception of Arminius’s Theology in the

Hague Conference (1611) ................................................................. 211

6.1 Introduction, Method and State of Scholarship ..................... 211

6.1.1 Introduction and Method ....................................... 211

6.1.2 State of Scholarship ............................................... 214

6.2 Iustitia Dei and Duplex Amor Dei in the Hague Conference. 217

6.2.1 Predestination......................................................... 217

6.2.2 The Place and Function of Christ and

the Atonement........................................................ 231

6.2.3 Assurance of Salvation and God’s Justice............. 238

6.2.4 Grace and the Operation of Grace ......................... 239

6.2.5 Perseverance .......................................................... 257

6.2.6 The Status quaestionis ........................................... 266

6.3 Summary and Conclusions..................................................... 279

7. Theological Context of Arminius’s Theology .................................. 280

7.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 280

7.2 Voluntarism, Intellectualism and the

Knowability of God’s Justice................................................. 281

7.2.1 Calvin’s Voluntarism............................................. 282

7.2.2 God’s Essence........................................................ 287

7.2.3 The Unknowability of God’s Justice ..................... 288

7.2.4 Summary and Conclusion...................................... 292

7.3 The Debate On the Cause of Sin: Is God auctor peccati?..... 294

7.3.1 The Middle Ages.................................................... 296

7.3.2 The Sixteenth Century ........................................... 299

7.3.3 Summary and Conclusion...................................... 321

8. Conclusions....................................................................................... 325

Bibliography............................................................................................ 329

Index of Subjects..................................................................................... 337

Index of Names ....................................................................................... 341











Abbreviations

As a rule, the abbreviations follow S.M. SCHWERTNER , Internationales

Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete,21993. The list

below includes only those abbreviations not found in Schwertner, or that

depart from it. See the bibliography for further details on the titles listed

below.

A31A Apologia 31 Articuli (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

AAC Appendix AC (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

AC Amica cum D. Francisco Iunio de praedestinatione per litteras

habita collatio (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

AN Articuli Nonnulli (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

AR9 Analysis cap. IX ad Roman. (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

CHRC Church History and Religious Culture

CO Calvin, Calvini Opera

DLGTT Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms DR7 De vero et genuino sensu cap. VII epistolae ad Romanos disser-

tatio (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

DRCH Dutch Review of Church History

EP Examen modestum libelli, quem D. Gulielmus Perkinsius ap-

prime doctus theologus edidit ante aliquot annos de praedestina-

tionis modo et ordine, itemque de amplitudine gratiae divinae

(in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

Ep.Ecc. Limborch/Hartsoecker, Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum

epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae ETG Arminius, Examen thesium D. Francisci Gomari de Praedestina-

tione (1645)

HaC Letter to Hippolytus a Collibus (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

HSC Schriftelicke Conferentie (1612)

OR Oratio (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

PrD Disputationes Privatae (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

PuD Disputationes Publicae (in: Arminius, Opera theologica)

ST Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

TNK Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis UP University Press

Z Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke











Preface

Even though it has always been widely debated, the theology of Jacob Ar-

minius (1559–1609) has not received the scholarly attention one would

expect. Those who belong to a Reformed church will not infrequently hear

the names of Arminius and his famous opponent Gomarus, and in this

community “Arminius,” “Arminians” and “Remonstrants” tend to stand for

anything and everything heretical. For them it is an issue of life and death,

where the struggle over the decisive function of the free will, by its very

nature hostile to the notion of free grace, at the cost of God’s sovereignty

finds sympathy even among their own. For that reason, people often (rightly

or wrongly) point to the appeal of the Evangelical movement for Reformed

believers today as an example of the draw Arminian thought continues to

exercise. Not only in the Netherlands, but throughout the entire world, a

large part of non-Roman Catholic and non-Lutheran Christianity identifies

itself as either “Arminian” or “Calvinist.”

Given this remarkable influence of the theology of Arminius, it is all themore surprising how little research has been carried out on it. It is only

since the 1980s that the academic world has seen some motion on this front.

The present study – a doctoral dissertation defended June 27, 2008, at the

Theological University Apeldoorn – intends to contribute to the understan-

ding of Arminius’s theology by focusing on the theological motive that lay

at its very foundation.

The first part of this study posits that the leading motif of Arminius’s

theology lay in a careful defense of the justice of God. The second part will

look at the reception of his theology in the discussions between Remon-strants and Counter-Remonstrants during the Hague Conference ( Haagsche

or Schriftelicke Conferentie) of 1611. Finally, Arminius’s theology will be

placed in the context of the sixteenth-century debate on the cause of sin and

God’s relationship to evil.

The issue surrounding Arminius and the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

has fascinated me for years. It gets at the very core of the Christian confes-

sion. Election, Christ’s atoning work, grace, the appropriation of salvation

and the human role in it, perseverance and assurance, calling and proclama-

tion – all were burning issues in the seventeenth century, and Christians willcontinue to reflect on them existentially.






12 Preface

I would like to express my gratitude to Herman Selderhuis, my disserta-

tion supervisor as well as editor of the series Reformed Historical Theology

from Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, for accepting this work for publication in

his series. Albert Gootjes is to be thanked for his efforts and competence in producing the present translation.

The apostle Paul concludes Romans 9–11, the chapters which have

throughout the ages been of central importance for reflection on God’s

work of election, with thanksgiving and praise. How appropriate it is to cite

these words once again at the beginning of this study and at the end of the

process that produced it, to express my thanks to God and to acknowledge

the limits of our human knowledge and understanding. It is my prayer that

this study will lead to the greater thanks and praise of my Lord and God.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable

his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the

Lord? Or who has ever been his councillor?” “Who has ever given to God, that God

should repay him?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him

be the glory forever! Amen. (Rom. 11:33–36 NIV)

Nunspeet, June 2010 William den Boer






1. Introduction

1.1 Historical Introduction

1.1.1 Life and Work of Jacobus Arminius

Jacobus Arminius,1 or Jacob Harmensz, was born in Oudewater in the pro-

vince of Utrecht in 1559. His father died around the same time. The priestTheodorus Aemillius (until 1574), and then Rudolphus Snellius, successive-

ly served as his guardians. Snellius took Arminius with him to Marburg

where he studied and later taught Ramistic logic, in order to make it pos-

sible for Arminius to study at the Paedagogium. During this stay in Mar-

burg, Oudewater was burned to the ground by Spanish troops, who also

murdered its inhabitants, including Jacobus’s mother, sister and older bro-

ther(s).

On October 23, 1576, Arminius matriculated at the university of Leiden,

which had been established on October 3, 1574. He was its twelfth student.Aside from the subjects that formed part of the artes liberales, Arminius

most likely also attended lectures in theology during this time.

The local shopkeepers’ guild ( Kramersgilde) of Amsterdam later made it

possible for Arminius to pursue studies out of the country at its expense,

with the condition that he serve the church of Amsterdam upon the comple-

tion of his studies.

On January 1, 1582, Arminius enrolled at the Genevan Academy under

Theodore Beza. He enrolled again on December 10, 1584, having come

————— 1 BANGS, Arminius (1971), remains an excellent study on Arminius’s life and work, and was

corrected and expanded on several points by Eef Dekker in his dissertation (DEKKER , Rijker dan

Midas). See also HOENDERDAAL, “Jacob Arminius”; HOENDERDAAL, “Life and Struggle”;

HOENDERDAAL, “Arminius, Jacobus/Arminianismus”; BAKHUIZEN VAN DEN BRINK , “Arminius te

Leiden”. Numerous summaries and evaluations of the biographical and theological studies on

Arminius that appeared before 1991 have already been given, and I in general follow what has

been remarked by MULLER , God, Creation, and Providence (1991), DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas

(1993), WITT, Creation, Redemption and Grace (1993), STANGLIN, Assurance (2007) and CLARKE,

Ground (2006), cf. STANGLIN, “Arminius and Arminianism: An Overview of Current Research”,

3–16. At the moment, there appears to be no need for a new biographical study of Arminius. For that reason, I will not give a comprehensive overview, but rather a short outline of Arminius’s life

and work with special focus on the points relevant to this study. For a comprehensive, annotated

bibliography of the works of Arminius, see STANGLIN/MULLER , “Bibliographia Arminiana”, 263–

290.






14 Introduction

back to Geneva some time before August 27 that year. In the intervening

time, most probably because he foresaw problems in Geneva for giving

private lessons in Ramistic logic,2 Arminius publicly defended theses on

eight occasions in Basel, beginning in September 1582. These disputationswere held under the presidence of Johann Jakob Grynaeus (1540–1617),

who was very taken in by Arminius’s intelligence.

Arminius interrupted this second stay in Geneva only one time with a

journey to Zürich. In the summer of 1586, Arminius went to Italy where he

spent some seven months at the university of Padua, studying with the

renowned Jacopo Zabarella (1532–1589). Before leaving for Amsterdam in

the fall of 1587, where he was ordained as pastor on August 27, 1588, Ar-

minius once again spent several months in Geneva.

Most probably around 1590, Arminius was asked by Martinus Lydius, professor at Franeker, to respond to two pastors from Delft, Reginaldus

Donteclock 3 and Arent Cornelisz,4 who had refuted the views of Dirck

Volckertsz Coornherts on predestination that departed from those of Beza.

This detail, along with several others,5 allows us to conclude that it was

around the year 1590 that Arminius began to doubt the correctness of Be-

za’s predestinarian viewpoint.6 However, neither Coornhert, nor Donteclock

and Cornelisz, seem to have been considered acceptable alternatives. And

so from 1590 onwards, Arminius was hard at work trying to come up with

what he thought to be a biblical view of predestination.From November 6, 1588, to September 30, 1601, Arminius preached on

Paul’s letter to the Romans. His Amsterdam colleague Petrus Plancius

(1552–1622)7 responded to his exegesis of Romans 7 (1591) by accusing

him of Pelagianism, an over-dependence on the church fathers, departure

from the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, perfectionism, and

errant views on predestination.8 Arminius responded with his De vero et

genuino sensu cap. VII epistolae ad Romanos dissertatio, first published in

1612, where he explained that the “I” of Romans 7 is not a regenerate per-

son, nor “purely” unregenerate, but one who through the work of the Holy

————— 2 DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 23.

3 BLGNP 2, 173–176.

4 BLGNP 4, 104–107.

5 See DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 28

6 Cf. Letter from Arminius to Grynaeus, March 23, 1591, in: BRANTIUS, Historia Vitae Ar-

minii, 23–27. In this letter Arminius explains to Grynaeus what disputes are arising on such topics

as (the object of) predestination, free choice and original sin. Arminius asks Grynaeus, for whom

he had great respect, for advice. The letter contains a confession from Arminius as well: “Credo inunico Christo salutem nostram positam, hujus nos mera gratia per Spiritus Sancti efficaciam fide

participes fieri ad remissionem peccatorum et vita renovationem.”

7 BLGNP 3, 291–295.

8 DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 31.






Historical Introduction 15

Spirit has come under the law, and is thus in the process of regeneration.9

An important section of this work will receive extensive treatment in 3.3.3.

In 1593 Plancius once again raises objections to Arminius’s exegesis,

this time on Romans 9. We know how Arminius understood this chapter from the extant consistory records of the deliberations that were sparked by

Plancius’s objections,10 and especially from the long letter – published post-

humously – he wrote to Gellius Snecanus11 in 1596 on the latter’s commen-

tary on Romans 9. The distinguishing feature of Arminius’s exegesis is that

he considers that the overall scope of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, justifica-

tion by faith, should also govern the exegesis of chapters 9 through 11.

Jacob is the type of those who seek to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ,

while Esau stands for those who reject the Gospel and try to be justified by

their own works of the law. God elects the first group, while the second isthe object of reprobation.12 For that reason, Dekker has described Armi-

nius’s view of predestination as a “predestination by property” (eigen-

schappen-predestinatie): God elects those who have the property of faith,

and condemns those who have the property of unbelief. In section 3.3.2 we

will not only flesh out Arminius’s view of predestination as found in his

letter to Snecanus, but also consider the accuracy of Dekker’s description.

On December 10, 1596, Arminius met Franciscus Junius (1545–1602),

professor at Leiden.13 This meeting was to lead to an extensive correspon-

dence between the two, focused particularly on the object of predestination.From this epistolary exchange that took place in different stages throughout

1597, it becomes clear that Arminius is above all concerned that sin com-

mitted from a free will must be presupposed in the object of predestination.

Arminius cannot conceive how God could otherwise not be held accounta-

ble for sin and the origin of evil. Copies of these letters, which were pub-

lished posthumously as Amica cum D. Francisco Iunio de praedestinatione

per litteras habita collatio (1613), appear to have circulated in manuscript

form, and as early as 1597 were seen by a number of individuals including

Plancius.14

It is remarkable that in this phase of Arminius’s life and work, his view

of predestination clearly already had the form it would continue to have,

even though his extant works contain barely any treatment on free choice,

and certainly no carefully nuanced exposition. The election of believers, the

reprobation of unbelievers, sin presupposed in the object of predestination –

————— 9 Cf. the account in SELDERHUIS, Handboek , 415.

10 BANGS, 149; DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 31–32.11 BLGNP 2, 213–215.

12 Cf. the account in SELDERHUIS, Handboek , 416.

13 BLGNP 2, 275–278.

14 BLGNP 3, 292; DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 33 n. 72.






16 Introduction

all are themes that pertain to God’s relationship to sin and evil. Arminius

calls those who argue that sin followed necessarily and infallibly from

God’s decree “blasphemers of God’s goodness and justice.” As will be

demonstrated extensively in this study, the focus on God’s goodness andespecially his iustitia remained characteristic of Arminius’s theology until

his death in 1609.

Between 1599 and 1602, Arminius wrote his Examen modestum libelli,

quem D. Gulielmus Perkinsius apprime doctus theologus edidit ante aliquot

annos de praedestinationis modo et ordine, itemque de amplitudine gratiae

divinae, a “varied collection of arguments and quotations.”15 In this work

Arminius responds at length to William Perkins’s (1558–1602)16 De prae-

destinationis modo et ordine, et de amplitudine gratiae diuinae Christiana

et perspicua disceptatio (1598), which the latter had written against Nicho-las Hemmingius’s (1513–1600) Tractatus de gratia universali (1591).17

From the way Arminius corrects Perkins’s summary of parts of this treatise,

it is clear that he was very familiar with it. According to Dekker, the Ex-

amen Perkinsiani and the pro gradu disputations form Arminius’s most

important work: “It is particularly in this Examen Perkinsiani that Arminius

unfolds his theological insights. For that reason we can say that the struc-

ture of his theology is actually already there by the time the position as

professor comes into view.”18 As such this observation is correct. However,

as has been noted above, the same could be said about the correspondencewith Junius, even if it focuses more narrowly on the object of predestination

while the Examen Perkinsiani treats a much wider range of topics.

When both Franciscus Junius and Lucas Trelcatius Sr.19 passed away in

1602, Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641)20 was the only remaining professor

of theology at Leiden. However, the calls to have Arminius appointed to fill

one of the vacancies at the same time aroused protests from those who had

suspicions concerning his orthodoxy. Gomarus also protested, almost un-

doubtedly at the urging of others. Yet a “friendly conference” between

Gomarus and Arminius, held on May 6–7, 1603, in the presence of both

supporters and opponents of Arminius’s appointment satisfied Gomarus

completely. In spite of their differences, he no longer doubted Arminius’s

orthodoxy in the fundamentals of doctrine. This is remarkable, given that

the topics that came up during this conference included not only Arminius’s


16 RGG 5, 224; VAN BAARSEL, Perkins.

17 FRANDSEN, “Hemmingsen”, 18–35. For Hemmingius (Niels Hemmingsen), see: RGG

4

3,218.

18 DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 37–38.

19 BLGNP 6, 315–317.

20 BLGNP 2, 220–225.







exegesis of Romans 7, but also his views on free will, contingency, God’s

will, foreknowledge and predestination.21

After an examination on June 19, 1603, Arminius defended his doctoral

theses De natura Dei on July 10, 1603. Dekker calls these theses “one of the richest, but at the same time most compact, sources for a nuanced un-

derstanding of Arminius’s theology.” Section 4.1 will show that, and how,

Arminius clearly expressed his view on God’s justice already in this first

public event. In terms of content, the duplex amor Dei is already fully

present.

On July 11, 1603, Arminius delivered his oration on the occasion of re-

ceiving the degree of Doctor of Divinity, speaking on the priesthood of

Christ. Section 3.3.1 will show that the contents of this public address are of

fundamental importance for Arminius’s theology as a whole.This is true also for the three inaugural addresses in which Arminius in

September 1603 set the tone of his work as professor. In these addresses as

well – on theological prolegomena: the object, author, goal and certainty of

theology – God’s righteousness and justice have a central place (see espe-

cially 2.2.2).

Both the central and fundamental place of Christ in predestination, as

well as the primacy of God’s love for justice within his twofold love for

justice and humanity (duplex amor Dei), receive attention in Arminius’s

exhaustive treatment of Gomarus’s theses on predestination, the Examenthesium Gomari. In response to the disputation on predestination that was

held under Arminius’s presidence on February 7, 1604, according to the

regular repetitio cycle, Gomarus held his own disputation on predestination

on October 31 outside of the repetitio cycle, something that was unusual

though admittedly not unheard of.22 This was the first clear sign of discord

between the two professors. Arminius’s Examen thesium Gomari, published

in 1613, reveals much about Arminius’s theological point of departure, as

well as method. The most significant themes are God’s justice and Chris-

tology. Sin, the cause of the separation between God and humankind, must

first be removed through Christ before predestination can take place as the

means to restore humankind before God. God’s decree to send his Son to

restore what was lost is therefore not predestination itself, but necessarily

precedes it. Arminius also considers whether predestination as understood

by Gomarus, Calvin and Beza, does not make God the author of sin, which

————— 21 See, for example, DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 39, and STARREVELD, “Verslag”, 65–76. For

Arminius’s time at the Leiden university and his working relationships there, see especially

STANGLIN, Assurance, 23–35.

22 DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 44 n. 141.






18 Introduction

is of “all the blasphemies which can be uttered against God, the most griev-

ous.”23

The differences within the university of Leiden soon spread unrest in the

churches. Classis Dordrecht asked synod South Holland to put an end to thecontroversy in the academy, as well as the broader unrest in the church.

Halfway through 1605, however, it seemed that there was a good relation-

ship of understanding between Gomarus and Arminius.24 They were able to

put at ease the university curators, alarmed by the prospect of synodical

interference in the internal dealings of the university, with a declaration

they signed together with Trelcatius and Cuchlinus on August 10. In this

declaration they agreed that there was no difference whatsoever regarding

the fundamental doctrines.25

At the end of August, the synod of South Holland decided to honor therequest of classis Dordrecht to ask the curators to question the three profes-

sors of theology on the controversial issues. On November 9, the synodical

deputies Franciscus Lansbergius26 and Festus Hommius27 presented nine

questions to the faculty, but the latter refused to cooperate. Yet Arminius

managed to get a hold of these nine questions, and towards the end of 1605

————— 23 ETG 154 (III 654–655). Where applicable, references to the English translation of Armi-

nius’s works will be given in brackets. These refer to the reprint (!) effected by Baker Book House

(1991) of The Works of James Arminius, translated by James Nichols and William Nichols, 3 vols.

(vol. 1–2, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1825–1828; vol. 3, London:

Thomas Baker, 1875). The reference to the reprint-edition is significant because it corrects a

pagination error in volume 1 of the nineteenth-century edition. In the Baker reprint the orations

occupy p. 321–770 instead of p. 257–706 as in the original. Translations are taken from the same,

with modification where necessary.

24 Cf. BANGS, Arminius, 270; Letter from Arminius to Wtenbogaert, June 7, 1605, Ep.Ecc.

77.

25 “Ex Gestis Academicis. Professores facultatis Theologicae, quum ipsis relatum esset, Clas-sem Dordracenam hac gravamen forma conceptum inter caetera posuisse, Quum in Ecclesia et

Academia Leidensi, rumor sit, controversias quasdam circa doctrinam reformatorum Ecclesiarum

obortas esse, censuit Classis, necessarium esse, ut de iis controversiis quam tutissime citissimeque,

componendis Synodus deliberet, ut schismata omnia et offendicula qua inde oriri possunt,

tempstive amoveantur, conserveturque unio Ecclesiarum reformatarum contra adversariorum

calumniam; D.D. Curatoribus et Consulibus sciscitantibus, num qua ipsis controversiae istiusmodi

essent perspectae, re inter se primum examinata seorsim perpensaque, unamimiter responerunt:

Optasse se, a Classe Dordracena melius ordinatiusque in hac re actum esse: Inter studiosos quidem

opinari se plura disputari, quam ipsis gratum sit; inter se vero, hoc est facultatis Theologicae

professors, nullum discrimen, quod quidem constet, esse in fundamentis doctrinae. Daturos quo-

que operam, ut quae inter studiosos disputations istiusmodi obortae sunt mnuantur. Actum X. Aug.Anno 1605. Subscripsere, Iacobus Arminius pro tempore Rector Academie. Franciscus Gomarus.

Lucas Trelcatius.” ARMINIUS, Disputationes Magnam partem S. Theologiae complectentes.

26 BLGNP 4, 292–293.

27 BLGNP 2, 251–254; WIJMINGA, Festus Hommius.







he wrote his Responsio ad questiones novem.28 The questions concern such

issues as the relationship between election and faith, original sin, good

works, the gracious character of faith, assurance, perseverance and the

possibility of perfection. For our present inquiry, what is particularly impor-tant is that in the context of the second point it is asked whether from the

assumption that God determines and governs all things – also evil human

acts for good ends – one must conclude that God is the author of sin. We

fully agree with Dekker who notes that particularly this question “was con-

sidered by Arminius to be of greatest relevance. His own answer to this

question is a ‘yes,’ and is argued extensively in different places throughout

his works.”29 We can only guess as to why Arminius in a letter to Johannes

Wtenbogaert30 on these nine questions, treats every single question except

this second one concerning God’s authorship of sin. Was it because theywere so fully agreed on this point that Arminius felt no need to devote a

further word to it?31 Question five is also important. Here it is asked wheth-

er God has the right to demand faith from those who through the fall into

sin are no longer capable of coming to faith by themselves, and whether

God has given enough grace to all to whom the Gospel is proclaimed so as

to be able to come to faith should they so desire. These questions make it

clear that the synodical deputies had a good grip on the issues that sur-

rounded the controversy in which Arminius had become embroiled.

In May of 1607 a group of pastors met to prepare for a national synodthat was going to be organized.32 The delegates included not only Arminius,

but also Gomarus, Wtenbogaert, Johannes Bogerman33 and Sibrandus Lub-

bertus.34 The Conventus praeparatorius can be considered a “milestone in

the history of the Remonstrant disputes,”35 because it marked the end of the

pre-history. Here the two parties were able to size up each other’s strength,

and diverging opinions were laid out and defended, with the result that the

disunity increased. The dispute sharpened and also became known beyond

the boundaries of the Netherlands, particularly with the letters Lubbertus

sent to theologians outside of the Dutch Republic. Lubbertus sent letters

reporting on the Conventus to Paris, Heidelberg, Scotland, Geneva and

Zürich. Arminius and Wtenbogaert, on the other hand, did all they could to

————— 28 These questions have been reproduced (sometimes in abbreviated form) in: DEKKER , Rijk-

er dan Midas, 45.

29 DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 46.

30 BLGNP 2, 464–468; R OGGE, Wtenbogaert.

31 Letter to Wtenbogaert, December 31, 1605, Ep.Ecc. 81 (I 179–180; II 69–71).32 See DE GROOT, “Conventus”, 129–166.

33 BLGNP 2, 73–76.

34 BLGNP 1, 143–145.

35 DE GROOT, “Conventus”, 163.






20 Introduction

counter them. Their complaints about the allegations being spread against

them, which they finally brought to the very States of Holland, led to the

States’ decision to summon Arminius and Gomarus before the High Coun-

cil in order to explain their views.36

This meeting took place on May 30 and31, 1608.37

The letter Arminius wrote on April 5, 1608, to Hippolytus a Collibus,

ambassador of the Palatinate to the Netherlands, is not only to be consi-

dered a good summary of his views on several of the debated issues,38 but it

also gives considerable insight into the point of departure for his theology.

It thus speaks not only about the need to avoid any line of reasoning that

has God’s authorship of sin and evil as consequence, but also about the

normative function of justice for God’s acts. At the end of his letter, Armi-

nius adds that he is tired of being burdened with new complaints on a daily basis, and having to respond to them.

That Arminius was not exaggerating is clear from the lists39 that circu-

lated from 1606 onwards of heresies Arminius (and to a lesser extent

Adrianus Borrius40) was said to be promoting. In 1608 Arminius manages to

get a hold of such a list, by now inflated to 31 articles, and responds to them

in his Apologia D. Iacobi Arminii adversus articulos quosdam theologicos.

Arminius’s defense was probably not published officially, but in manuscript

form it at any rate was known already at the end of 1608.41 Here Arminius

time and again points to the context in which he made certain statements,and also remarks on the lack of precision with which views attributed to

him were formulated. In addition to the issues that came up in the earlier list

of 9 questions, the 31 articles also treat necessity and contingency, and what

must be understood by “sufficient grace.”

Returning to May 30 and 31, 1608, we see Arminius and Gomarus ap-

pear before the High Council in order to lay out their views so as to arrive

at a mutual understanding, and “to see whether they could be moved to

agreement, to brotherly friendship and to the right hand of fellowship.”42

Because Gomarus refused to give an account before a secular government,

the decision was instead taken that Arminius and Gomarus would respond

to each other in writing. When, at the end of the discussions that followed

————— 36 DE GROOT, “Conventus”, 162–164. Cf. HOENDERDAAL, Verklaring , 9–15.

37 See below.

38 Cf. DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 46.

39 Cf. HOENDERDAAL, Verklaring , 12.

40 BLGNP 2, 84–85.41 See DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 47, n. 155 and 156. For text (and Dutch translation), see

DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 273–276 (appendix 5).

42 As cited in HOENDERDAAL, Verklaring , 16: “sulcks te sien of men se tot accoord broeder-

lijcke vrundschap ende onderlinge hantgevinge kon bewegen”.







this decision,43 the president of the High Council announced to the States

that the differences did not concern the fundamental articles of salvation,

Gomarus protested and claimed that he would not dare to appear before

God’s judgment seat with such views. Arminius responded that he wasunaware of any deviation from Scripture or confession, and would be ready

to defend himself before a national or provincial synod, or before the States.

A request was thus sent to Arminius on October 20, 1608, to appear before

the States of Holland and to give a declaration of his sentiments there. Ar-

minius did so on October 30, and himself would later claim that he there

openly stated his views. Arminius’s declaration was then passed to the

States in written form, and first published in 1610.

The Declaration of Sentiments (Verclaringhe) is the last extensive ac-

count extant where Arminius himself wrote up his views on the debatedissues. In the minutes of the States of Holland from October 30, 1608, we

find a concise record of Arminius’s greatest concerns:

Following the events of this assembly as recorded above, there appeared today in the

same assembly Doctor Jacobus Arminius, Doctor and Professor at the University of

Leiden. Following the customary exhortation to declare his thoughts openly on the

issues he was pondering, he declared (upon the firm assurance made to him by the

assembly that the things he would reveal to it would not be brought up in classis or

any other church assembly, in the university or on the pulpit) predestination and its

consequences to be the most important issues: that is, that God has determined frometernity to create the greater majority of people to destruction and the smaller part to

salvation without any consideration of their works, as is being taught in the Universi-

ty of Leiden. He said that this conflicts with God’s nature, and that this doctrine

therefore was not the foundation of Christian salvation [...].44

According to these minutes, therefore, Arminius’s greatest difficulty is with

a doctrine of predestination that teaches creation to destruction, and is for

that reason in conflict with God’s nature. The contents of the Declaration

————— 43 Dekker notes that Arminius wrote up his objections in 26 theses, and Gomarus in 31. He

argues that Arminius’s articles can be read as a first draft of the Verclaringhe. DEKKER , Rijker dan

Midas, 49 n. 165.

44 Cited in HOENDERDAAL, Verklaring , 18: “Achtervolgende voorgaende aenschrijven deser

Vergaderinge, is huyden in deselve verschenen Doctor Jacobus Erminius, Doctor ende Professor in

de Universiteyt tot Leyden, en heeft op de vermaninge aen hem volgende het gedaene aenschrij-

ven, rondelijck te willen verklaeren, op hetgene hij in bedencken hadde, geseyt ende verklaerdt,

dat op de vaste verseeckeringhe die hij hem vertrouwde, van dat het geene haer geopent soude

werden, niet en soude gebracht werden in Classikale, ofte andere Kerckenvergaeringe, in de

Universiteyt, nochte op den Predickstoel het meeste te wesen, het stuck van de Praedestinatie ende

gevolge van dien; als te weten, dat Godt van eeuwigheyt af beslooten hadde, het meerendeel der Menschen te scheppen tot verdoemenisse, ende het andere minderdeel ter saligheyt, sonder eenigh

aensien der Wercken, gelijck sulcks in de Universiteyt van Leyden werde geleert, ende dat hij

seyde sulcks te strijden tegen Godes natuyre, ende daerom die Leere niet en was het fondament der

Christelijcker Salichheyt […].”






22 Introduction

confirm that this was indeed an accurate summary. The Declaration is not

only Arminius’s last work, but on a number of points it also represents the

most full and crystallized expression of Arminius’s conviction. Precisely

because of the setting in which the declaration was made, a certain rhetori-cal element is not absent in it.45 Yet even when this is taken into account,

one must conclude that in the Declaration Arminius has more than purely

rhetorical concerns, and is not just there to try and persuade his audience,

which was trained more in politics than in theology, with solid and convinc-

ing arguments. The Declaration is also very significant because of its theo-

logical content. This is not so much because new issues come up, but be-

cause Arminius here expresses his views very clearly, in some cases in a

way that we do not see in his earlier writings.46

Early in 1609, Arminius falls seriously ill from the tuberculosis he hadsuffered from for many years already. On July 25, he still presides over a

public disputation on calling, but it turns out to be the last. A “friendly

conference” organized by the States between Gomarus and Arminius on

August 13 brings him to his feet one more time.47 However, in the course of

the conference Arminius becomes so sick that he has to return home. On

September 12 he writes to the States that he will most likely be unable to

make good on his promise to put everything down in writing one more

time. He dies little more than a month later on October 19, no more than 50

years old.The pamphlet war which had broken out continued unabated.48 The dis-

pute was now public, and had already resulted in such polarization that even

the death of Arminius could not bring it to an end. In January 1610 some

forty pastors met together in Gouda under the leadership of Wtenbogaert. It

was here that the Remonstrance was produced as a defense of Arminius’s

position. This Remonstrance became the cause of serious unrest, and led to

a States-organized conference to discuss its contents. This conference,

which became known as the Hague Conference, as well as the records of

the discussions that took place there, will receive attention in the second

part of this study.

————— 45 In my opinion, this is also why the terminology is “less sharp” than, for example, in the

Examen Perkinsiani, as has also been noted by DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 51. That Dekker on

this basis questions whether the Verclaringhe can serve as an accurate and complete summary of

Arminius’s thought can be attributed to his own interest in, and preference for, systematic preci-

sion.

46 Only in this limited sense is Hoenderdaal correct when, in reference to the Declaration, he

remarks that he has the impression that throughout the course of the entire struggle, Arminius’sdefinitive views were formed only late. HOENDERDAAL, Verklaring , 14.

47 See the report of this conference in a letter from Hommius to Lubbertus. This letter can be

found in WIJMINGA, Festus Hommius, Appendix G. Section 4.1 below will deal with this letter.

48 Cf. HAKKENBERG, Controversy.







1.1.2 Other Works of Arminius

We still need to remark on the extant Arminius works that have not come

up in the biographical survey above. These include his “note-book” (aante-keningenschrift ),49 and particularly the disputations that were held under his

presidence at the university of Leiden. Finally, Arminius’s correspondence,

which has already been referred to above occasionally, may also be listed as

a separate category.50

Articuli nonnulli

This note-book contains more than two hundred loose statements or consid-

erations from Arminius, and was first published in 1613 as the Articulinonnulli.51 Originally the theses were marked with certain signs to indicate

agreement or disagreement, but these marks were not included in any

printed edition. As result, we lack explicit certainty with respect to Armi-

nius’s view of the theses recorded, and this factor must be taken into ac-

count when using the Articuli nonnulli. However, there are so many paral-

lels between these theses and the rest of Arminius’s writings that his view

on almost all of them can be determined with virtually complete certainty.

Disputations and Authorship

For the majority of the available sources of Arminius’s theology, there are

no questions regarding authorship, and/or whether the contents indeed re-

flect Arminius’s viewpoint. Yet a difficult issue, which in my opinion can-

not be solved, is the authorship of the academic disputations that were held

in Leiden under Arminius’s presidence from 1603 to 1609, and which con-

stitute a significant portion of his extant writings. In the Opera theologica

(1629) the 25 public and 79 private disputations cover a total of 258 pages.

Stanglin’s ventures into the archives have unearthed another 36 hitherto

unknown disputations which likewise belong to Arminius’s tenure as pro-

fessor. His extensive discussion on the issue of authorship for the disputa-

tions is a significant contribution.52 In what follows, I too will treat this


50 The extant letters to and from Arminius, inventoried by DEKKER , Rijker dan Midas, 256–

259 (Appendix 1), can mostly be found in Ep.Ecc. MARONIER , Arminius, and BANGS, Arminius,

have made extensive use of them in their biographies, and many letters were fully or partly trans-lated by James and William Nichols in their annotations to the translation of Arminius’s works.

51 The complete title is: Articuli nonnulli diligenti examine perpendendi, eo quod inter ipsos

Reformatae Religionis Professores de iis aliqua incidit controversia.

52 STANGLIN, Assurance, 36–58. See also STANGLIN, The Missing Public Disputations.






24 Introduction

question, but arrive at a different conclusion. Thereafter I will support my

conclusion with further argumentation, and finally lay out its consequences

as well.

First, however, it will be necessary to give an unambiguous definition of what is understood in this study by the word “view” (understanding, mean-

ing, standpoint). Because we are attempting to uncover Arminius’s deepest

personal and theological motives (cf. 1.3), with “view” we mean someone’s

personal and complete conviction. Understood in this way, “view” stands in

contrast to an exposition of that personal conviction where, for whatever

reason relating to form and/or content (e.g. for the sake of caution), the

situation in which that exposition was made must be taken into account.

Here the context, audience, expected impact or desired reaction play a great

role. What we mean is that in such a situation, the connection between a person’s conviction and a public exposition of it can actually be so distant

that the latter is not in a direct sense representative of the former. It goes

without saying that the distinction drawn here between view/conviction and

expression is somewhat theoretical, and that in practice the difference is

more gradual. What is more, those who work with written records have

only the written expression of a personal conviction, and must proceed from

the assumption that the author intends to express his personal conviction

openly, and that this author, except where the situation gives reason to think

otherwise, does not intend to mislead later readers or researchers.When this methodological standpoint is applied concretely to the case of

Arminius, it has important consequences. The circumstances in which the

works attributed to Arminius were produced vary widely. His sixteenth-

century, posthumously-published works, his personal letters to friends,

colleagues and acquaintances that were not intended for publication, and his

personal notes can all virtually without reserve be classified as “personal

conviction.” However, especially after his appointment as professor, Armi-

nius increasingly – in terms of both intensity and the number of people

involved – came under pressure from the polemics and the suspicion di-

rected against him. As result, when reading Arminius’s public statements

from this period, one must take serious account of the caution with which

he will have broached the controverted topics. And in the case of the dispu-

tations, there are also the issues of genre and authorship. Arminius’s Decla-

ration of Sentiments which he made before the States of Holland in 1608,

forms a sort of “middle category.” Arminius promised to speak openly of

his deepest convictions, on the condition that the governmental body that

was by and large favorable to him – his audience there – would not makehis declaration public. Although it was public and made in a polemical

context, the necessity of giving a clear and straightforward explanation,

together with the promise of secrecy by those present, will have inspired







enough confidence in Arminius to speak openly and without dissimulation.

A comparison of its contents with other “non-suspect” sources shows that

Arminius did indeed most likely speak openly and without reserve.

With respect to disputations, Rouwendal has written the following:

From ca. 1250 onwards, part of the normal task of each magister (master, professor)

was the regular organization of disputations. The magister assigned a topic (quaestio:

question) that was treated during such a disputation. He then drew up a number of

theses (articuli) on this topic. A previously appointed student (respondens: respon-

dent) had to respond to the objections (objectiones) directed against him by other

students. Notes were made of both objections and responses, so that at the conclusion

of the disputation a collection of both was available, which the magister then used for

the definitive determination (determinatio: determinatio; or solutio: solution) some-times held on the next day, but usually in the week that followed. Also this written

determination was given the name disputatio. However, such written disputations did

not give a literal record of the course of the disputations themselves, and must there-

fore be distinguished from them.53

The fact that it is not always possible to determine with complete certainty

whether it was the magister or the respondens who wrote the disputation, or

whether it is a mixture of the views of both magister and respondens, poses

considerable problems for the question of authorship.54 This lack of certain-

ty applies to both types of disputations ( pro gradu and exercitii gratia),55 and as a rule falls away only if the title explicitly indicates who authored

that particular disputation. The following quotation from Willem Otters-

peer’s history of the university of Leiden is illustrative:

The author of the theses was often not, as has long been thought, the praeses of the

disputation, but rather the defendens himself. However, these disputations were often

————— 53 R OUWENDAL, “Leerwijze”, 57: “Vanaf ongeveer 1250 behoorde het met regelmaat organi-

seren van disputaties tot de vaste taak van elke magister (meester, professor). De magister gaf eenonderwerp (quaestio: vraagstuk) op dat tijdens een dergelijke disputatie behandeld werd. Hij stelde

over dit onderwerp een aantal stellingen (articuli) op. Een van te voren aangewezen student (de

respondens; beantwoorder) diende de door andere studenten aangevoerde tegenwerpingen (objec-

tiones) te beantwoorden. Zowel de tegenwerpingen als de antwoorden werden genotuleerd zodat

men aan het einde van de disputatie van beide een verzameling had, die de magister gebruikte voor

de definitieve beantwoording (determinatio; beslissing, of solutio: oplossing) van het probleem,

meestal op de volgende collegedag. Deze op schrift gestelde beantwoordingen kregen ook de naam

disputatio. Zulke geschreven disputaties gaven echter geen letterlijk verslag van het verloop van

een disputatie en moeten derhalve onderscheiden worden van het gebeuren zelf.”

54 Cf. e.g. FREEDMAN, “Process”: “Disputations were normally held by a presider (praeses)

together with one or more respondents (respondens; respondentes) and with one or more oppo-nents; in most cases, the authorship of disputations is not specified.”

55 A pro gradu disputation is one held for the purposes of obtaining an academic degree; the

exercitii gratia disputations were those held for the purposes of instruction and practice in the skill

of debating.







www.v-r.de

Reformed Historical Theology, Vol. 14

The present study offers new insights to the understanding of Arminius’s theology by identifying Jacob Arminius (1559–1609) asa theologian of the justice of God, or more precisely, as a theolo-gian of God’s twofold love. William den Boer illustrates how thesetwo characterizations are both valid, and why they do not excludebut include all other characterizations that have been offered, by

placing them in their proper perspective.In Part 1 the author posits that the leading motif of Arminius’stheology lies in a careful defense of the justice of God. Part 2considers the reception of his theology in the discussions betweenRemonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants during the Hague Con-ference of 1611. Finally, Arminius’s theology is integrated into thecontext of sixteenth-century debates on the cause of sin and God’srelationship to evil.

The Author

William den Boer, PhD, is Lecturer in Dutch Church History at theTheological University Apeldoorn.

9 78352 5 569085

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joseperez
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Doble Amor de Dios- La Teología de JACOBO ARMINO(William den Boer)

Documents