The authors seem to be at their best when they are doing historical theology. Right now I am reading the chapter on the Synod of Dort. They trace the history, beginning with Beza and progressing through the debate involving Arminius. They make it sound like Arminius disagreed with Beza even when he was studying with him. That is not how I have read it, the way I have heard it several times previously is that Arminius was one of Beza's star pupils and it was only after moving to Leiden that he changed his views. The reason he changed them was because he was enlisted to write a refutation of those who rejected the hyper-calvinism of Beza. In the process of researching, he himself came to disagree and developed an alternative—Arminianism.
Does anyone out there know which version is correct? I have read this version in several places, but have never gone back to the sources. If this version is true, then why did the authors use the version they did? Is it because it would give too much credence to the Arminian argument? If so, that is intellectual dishonesty. If, on the other hand, the version I have heard before is false, then the perveyors of it are being dishonest...
<idle musing>
Why do we think that the ends justifies the means? Another checkmark for total depravity. But, as Christians we should trust God enough to tell the truth and let Him handle the results. Unless, of course we have a god that is too small...
</idle musing>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment