Unrelated question: Regarding Arminius and his theology, by my lights it sounds like he denies real presence in the sense that Calvin teaches. He still uses the sign and thing signified terminology, but it seems like he thinks that mere signification is what conveys grace, not the sacrament itself. Of course he denies ex opere operato (as he should), but he also seems to deny any realism within the sacrament (same with baptism). This certainly seems to be outside of the confines of reformed orthodoxy, even under the two forms of unity. From the Belgic Confession: “In order that He might represent unto us this spiritual and heavenly bread, Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as a sacrament of His body, and wine as a sacrament of His blood, to testify by them unto us that, as certainly as we receive and hold this sacrament in our hands and eat and drink the same with our mouths, by which our life is afterwards nourished, we also do as certainly receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Saviour in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life.” Now, Anglo-Arminians (including Wesley) are, much better with the sacraments in my estimation. The Dutch Arminians had lots of disagreement regarding lots of things save predestination. Gesselius, Vossius Corvinus, and Uytenbogaert, among some other remonstrants seemed to have a more realist view… but it wasn’t universal. All in all, do you think that Arminius himself was a realist about the sacraments or was he more of a Zwinglian?
@@PracticalChristianLessons Merry Christmas to you as well! And I’m referring to his “On Sacraments in General” and “On the Sacraments of the New Testament in General” One place that sticks out to me is point 6 of the latter, where he outright denies that the new testament sacraments exhibit grace.
@@TheOtherCaleb Hmm. On his disputation on the Lord's Supper, though I'd probably use stronger language, he does seem to use the Reformed language of the sign and the thing signified, as well as seeing it as a seal on the believer to the union of Christ and a promise of grace. DISPUTATION LXIV. Is this "The matter is the external element itself created by God, and, therefore, subject to his power, and made suitable to seal that which, according to his wisdom, God wills to be sealed by it." what you are reading and getting a denial of grace from? ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works2/works2.iii.lx.html
@@TheOtherCaleb Sorry saw you meant the latter. How would you balance that with point though. "And, therefore, the sacraments of the New Testament do not differ from those used in the Old Testament; because the former exhibit grace, but the latter typify or prefigure it."
Unrelated question: Regarding Arminius and his theology, by my lights it sounds like he denies real presence in the sense that Calvin teaches. He still uses the sign and thing signified terminology, but it seems like he thinks that mere signification is what conveys grace, not the sacrament itself. Of course he denies ex opere operato (as he should), but he also seems to deny any realism within the sacrament (same with baptism). This certainly seems to be outside of the confines of reformed orthodoxy, even under the two forms of unity.
From the Belgic Confession:
“In order that He might represent unto us this spiritual and heavenly bread, Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as a sacrament of His body, and wine as a sacrament of His blood, to testify by them unto us that, as certainly as we receive and hold this sacrament in our hands and eat and drink the same with our mouths, by which our life is afterwards nourished, we also do as certainly receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Saviour in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life.”
Now, Anglo-Arminians (including Wesley) are, much better with the sacraments in my estimation. The Dutch Arminians had lots of disagreement regarding lots of things save predestination. Gesselius, Vossius Corvinus, and Uytenbogaert, among some other remonstrants seemed to have a more realist view… but it wasn’t universal.
All in all, do you think that Arminius himself was a realist about the sacraments or was he more of a Zwinglian?
@@TheOtherCaleb what have you read from Arminius on this? (If I don't until tomorrow don't be surprised, Merry Christmas!)
@@PracticalChristianLessons Merry Christmas to you as well! And I’m referring to his “On Sacraments in General” and “On the Sacraments of the New Testament in General”
One place that sticks out to me is point 6 of the latter, where he outright denies that the new testament sacraments exhibit grace.
@@TheOtherCaleb Hmm. On his disputation on the Lord's Supper, though I'd probably use stronger language, he does seem to use the Reformed language of the sign and the thing signified, as well as seeing it as a seal on the believer to the union of Christ and a promise of grace. DISPUTATION LXIV.
Is this "The matter is the external element itself created by God, and, therefore, subject to his power, and made suitable to seal that which, according to his wisdom, God wills to be sealed by it." what you are reading and getting a denial of grace from? ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works2/works2.iii.lx.html
@@TheOtherCaleb Sorry saw you meant the latter. How would you balance that with point though. "And, therefore, the sacraments of the New Testament do not differ from those used in the Old Testament; because the former exhibit grace, but the latter typify or prefigure it."
Article on Ordo Solutis learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/order-salvation