![who was arminius who was arminius](https://adlucem.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/arminio-02-svolta.jpg)
Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. Images alone do not count as valid references. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).
![who was arminius who was arminius](https://i1.wp.com/ramblingeveron.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/jacobus_arminius.jpeg)
This and the paragraph after it are adapted from my book Arminian and Baptist.You learn something new every day what did you learn today? In this, however, those Remonstrants, who adopted that notion, did not follow their great leader Arminius, who felt no need of this subterfuge, but stood on the plain declarations of Scripture, unembarrassed with metaphysical distinctions” ( Theological Institutes, 1:418, emphasis added). This distinction, which was taken from the Jesuits, who drew it from the Schoolmen, was at least favoured by some of the Remonstrant divines, as the extract from Episcopius shows: and they seem to have been led to it by the circumstance, that almost all the high Calvinist theologians of that day entirely denied the possibility of contingent future actions being foreknown, in order to support on this ground their doctrine of absolute predestination.
![who was arminius who was arminius](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3f3RV8PNpRLUj8rOEtYvwjeZPVg=/0x0:1200x900/1200x800/filters:focal(504x354:696x546)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64489204/979769.0.jpg)
“There is another theory which was formerly much debated, under the name of Scientia Media but to which, in the present day, reference is seldom made. I had forgotten about the following statement by the eminent British Wesleyan-Methodist theologian Richard Watson that agrees with these sentiments, and I thought I’d share it here: The most that can be said is that Arminius toyed with the concept of middle knowledge but was ambiguous on it and did not actually articulate a Molinist doctrine of predestination. Stuart Clarke, William Witt, and more recently Hendrik Frandsen, who I think properly interpret Arminius on this point, while scholars such as Eef Dekker, Richard Muller, Keith Stanglin, and (to a lesser degree) William den Boer read too much Molinism into Arminius. I agree with Robert Picirilli, Roger Olson, F. This includes their union with Christ through faith or their rejection of him through impenitence and unbelief. Thus, he knew what everyone was freely going to do in the actual (not possible) world. Instead, Arminius argued that God knew the future infallibly and certainly. Arminius nowhere intimates that, in eternity past, God, knowing what everyone would do given certain circumstances, selected the possible world, from among all possible worlds, in which exactly what he desires to occur will occur, while at the same time human beings retain freedom. While Arminius showed awareness of Luis de Molina’s concept of middle knowledge, he did not utilize it in his doctrine of predestination. It concerns Molinism, or middle knowledge, the theory of divine foreknowledge articulated by the sixteenth-century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina.Īs I’ve said elsewhere, Arminius’s views on divine foreknowledge militate against a Molinist account of predestination, as presented, for example by recent scholars such as William Lane Craig and Kenneth Keathley. I thought the readers of this blog would enjoy it. The other day I came across a wonderful quote that I had forgotten about from Richard Watson’s Theological Institutes.