Arminius

In this paper, we will be discussing important factors of Arminianism and how it is similar to the other protestant expressions of faith yet how it differs in several crucial aspects.  Early Arminians viewed themselves as part of the Reformed faith but they felt that the reformation had erred in several ways and that they were called to “reform the reformation” to bring it back to the Bible.  Several church leaders had led the protestant movement into beliefs that were not in line with Scripture as a whole. These leaders (Martin Luther and John Calvin) and their successors were developing theological systems based upon interpretations of certain passages of Scripture that did not harmonize with the rest of the Bible.  Jacob Arminius, a student of Calvin’s successor, rose to prominence in countering the errors of the protestant reformation by developing a theological system that was more consistent with the entire Bible and avoided the misinterpretations of certain passages of Scripture that started with Augustine of Hippo and later expanded by Luther and Calvin.

The 2000th anniversary of the Varusbattle in the year 2009 commemorated an event which – unlike any other ancient event – has raised public interest in Germany and has virtually been turned into a myth. The Cheruscan chief Arminius/Hermann became an icon on the search for a German national identity as his victory over the Roman legions has been considered the date of the founding of the ‘German’ nation. However, historical facts have given evidence that neither was Arminius an altruistic hero nor was the Varusbattle any kind of national upheaval marking a turning point in Germanic history. Nevertheless, the event of the year AD 9 has attained such significance that from the 15th century onwards it has been adapted for innumerable poems, dramas, theater plays, operas, paintings and sculptures. +++ The article offers an overview of these adaptations and allocates them to the particular conditions under which they were created. Thereby it turns out that over and over new ways of interpreting and relating to the event emerged, whether on the grounds of conflicts with foreign powers or in the context of aspirations for German unification. Thus, the historical enemy of Rome could be utilized as a symbol for any political opponent: The Catholic church, the ‘hereditary enemy’ France, the German regional rulers and anybody who didn't match with the Aryan ideal of the National socialist regime. The myth remained alive as long as the Germans primarily defined their own identity by distinguishing and dissociating themselves from others. Even if such approaches have become inconceivable ever since the end of World War 2, the Varusbattle has remained equally appealing up to the present day, as attested by the success of the exhibition cooperation “IMPERIUM CONFLICT MYTH. 2000 years Varusbattle” in Haltern am See, Kalkriese and Detmold. +++ Three aspects contribute significantly to the ongoing fascination among the public: 1) speculations on the location of the battle which have never been certainly resolved, 2) the classical narrative motif telling the epic story of a seemingly inferior fighter against a sheer invincible opponent and 3) the well-liked question of "What would have happened in Germania in case of a Roman victory?"

The doctrinal system of Protestantism has its roots not only in the Patristic theology, but also in the movements which stirred controversies during the Papal schism (14th-15th centuries). A fundamental change of perspective in the British Isles was initiated by the rector of Lutterworth, John Wycliffe. The present paper outlines similarities between Wycliffe’s theology and the conceptual frame of Calvinism (the so‑called TULIP). As Cardinal Newman had said, Cor ad cor loquitur – “the heart speaks to the heart”. Wycliffe’s doctrine has echoes in Calvin’s and Arminius’
doctrine and, through their mediation, the “Morning Star of the Reformation” exerted a much wider influence on the Protestant movement.

La ruptura de Lutero, Calvino y Arminio con doctrinas de la teología clásica tales como la justificación por las obras y una eclesiología clerical es innegable. Sin embargo, es importante preguntarse si esta reforma incluyó la doctrina de Dios, dada su centralidad para todo el sistema teológico. Este artículo es el segundo de una serie de tres artículos cuyo objetivo es comparar la metodología y las presuposiciones hermenéuticas de Lutero, Calvino y Arminio con las del teísmo clásico (teología católico escolástica) para determinar si ellos se apartaron de la metodología de la sola Scriptura para elaborar la doctrina de Dios, siguiendo la metodología de múltiples fuentes de la teología clásica.
The rupture of Luther, Calvin and Arminius with doctrines of classical theology such as justification by works and a clerical ecclesiology, is undeniable. However, it is important to ask whether this reform included the doctrine of God, given its centrality to the entire theological system. This article is the second one of a series of three articles that has as its objective to compare the methodology and hermeneutical presuppositions of Luther, Calvin, and Arminius with those of classical theism (scholastic Catholic theology) to determine if they departed from the methodology of sola Scriptura to elaborate the doctrine of God, following the methodology of multiple sources of classical theology.

Contemporary conversations over the relationship between divine election and whether a person can lose his or her salvation often consider the unconditional or conditional nature of God’s predestination of individuals. A neglected element of this conversation, with strong historical precedence in scholastic approaches to the doctrine and which is only recently being recovered, concerns the relationship between God’s knowledge and will. This study examines the question of the irrevocable nature of salvation, arguing that greater clarity concerning what divides various positions is to be found in consideration of the divine knowledge and will dialectic. How one understands the way in which what God knows is determined by what God wills dictates the contours of how one approaches election, its conditionality, and whether it can be lost. This study therefore considers the relationship of God’s knowledge to his will in historical Calvinist, Arminian, and Molinist conceptions to conclude that in its approach to this dialectic Arminianism possesses problematic features towards the development of a consistent basis for assurance of salvation that the other two views do not possess.

In public opinion Publius Quinctilius Varus has hitherto mainly been regarded as the tragic loser of the famous battle in the Teutoburg Forest in AD 9. However, this negative repute does not do justice to Varus, who previously had pursued a highly successful career in the service of Rome. +++ 19 renowned ancient historians, legal historians, archaeologists and numismatists from Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Croatia, Greece, Turkey and Israel have compiled their current research results in the colloquium papers. In a total of 17 articles they cast a differentiated light upon the historical-cultural context around the turn of eras, from the person of Varus and his Germanic adversary Arminius, via the policy of conquest in Pannonia and the northern provinces right up to Africa and the eastern Mediterranean regions, all in which Varus held significant military and political offices. The papers are rounded off by various articles on the arts and architecture of the Golden Age, in which Rome reached its cultural peak in the reign of Augustus. +++ Contributions by Rudolf Aßkamp, Torsten Capelle, Markus Dizdar, Werner Eck, Tobias Esch, Michael Gechter, Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, Eugenio La Rocca, Detlef Liebs, Eric M. Moormann, Luisa Musso, Ulrich Nuber, Mehmet Önal, Joseph Patrich, Evangelos Pavlidis, Ivan Radman-Livaja, Dieter Salzmann, Martin Tombrägel, Josef Wiesehöfer, Reinhard Wolters, Konstantinos Zachos and Werner Zanier. +++ 246 pages · 235 images · 6 tables · Hardcover · ISBN 978-3-402-15007-8 · Aschendorff Verlag GmbH & Co. KG +++ Review in Bonner Jahrbücher 212, 2012, 397–399 by Prof. Dr. Peter S. Wells (Minneapolis): https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/bjb/article/view/43194/36663.

40 essays by Ronnie Hsia, Ulrich Leinsle, Marius Reiser, Thomas Marschler, Trent Pomplun, Jean-Louis Quantin, William O'Brien SJ, Stefania Tutino, Carl Trueman, Andreas Beck, Willem van Asselt, Eric Carlsson, Stephen Hampton, Benjamin Mayes, Robert Kolb, Risto Saarinnen, Ola Tjorholm, Sarah Mortimer, Jeff Bach, Keith Stanglin, Hartmut Lehmann, Jonathan Strom, Craig Atwood, Stephen Burnett, Emanuele Colombo, Aza Goudriaan, Carolina Armenteros, Eric Watkins, Maria Rosa Antognazza, Stephen Gaukroger, Jonathan Israel, John Henry.

Dieser Beitrag untersucht das Hermannsdenkmal der fünfziger Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts in Bezug auf seinen Deutungswandel als Symbol nationaler Identität vor dem Hintergrund der politisch-sozialen und denkmalskulturellen Veränderungen. Zu fragen ist, warum sich das Denkmal Ende der fünfziger Jahre nicht als tragfähiges Symbol nationaler Identität erwiesen hatte. Wie wurde versucht, den “Hermann“ als National- denkmal neu zu deuten und welche Konflikte traten dabei auf, ohne dass sich eine Deutung durchsetzen konnte?

This is my original 1996 University of Toronto/Toronto School of Theology Doctoral Dissertation.  I have previously uploaded a gussied up version of the dissertation under the title Romans 7, Conversion & Sanctification from Arminius to Ironside (1591-1928): How Theology, Personal Experience & Wishful Thinking Shaped our reading of the Seventh Chapter of Romans.  The latter has been corrected and changed and added to at points.

Die Varusschlacht oder Hermannschlacht oder Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald – drei Namen für ein Ereignis-ist seit 500 Jahren fester Bestandteil der deutschen Historiographie. Kaum ein anderes historisches Ereignis hat in vergleich barer Weise die deutsche Identität und den deutschen Nationalismus befeuert wie die Varusschlacht. Auf besondere Weise bildete sie den Fluchtpunkt der deutschen Nation; sie war Ideal und Lehrstück in einem. In einigen Schlaglichtern soll ihre politische Instrumentalisierung bis heute nachgezeichnet werden.

Фрагмент перевода на русский язык труда голландского реформатского богослова Якобуса Харменсзона, известного как Якоб Арминий (1560-1609) под названием “Объявление мнения Я. Арминия о предопределении, Божественном провидении, свободе воли, благодати Божией, божественности Сына Божьего и оправдании человека перед Богом” (лат. Declaratio sententiae I. Arminii de Praedestinatione, Providentia Dei, Libero arbitrio, Gratia Dei, Divinitate Filii Dei, & de Iustificatione hominis coram Deo).

This article argues that John Plaifere’s doctrine of predestination appearing in Appello Evangelium (1651) can be labelled as ‘conditional predestination’, since it embodies two Arminian features: scientia media and resistible grace. His conditional predestination needs to be considered as recognizing at least five different variations of predestination in his time. It is distinctive in English Arminianism, but not because Plaifere introduces scientia media and resistible grace or because he is unique in adopting these notions (as is not the case). Rather, Plaifere’s doctrine of predestination is distinctive because it is a hybrid version embracing core tenets of Molina, Arminius, Arminianism, and the Remonstrants. Although not every English Arminian or Dutch Remonstrant had much concern for scientia media, Plaifere’s conditional predestination advances resistible grace, which is substantially based on the notion of scientia media as its metaphysical foundation. In analyzing Plaifere’s Appello Evangelium, one can gain a sense of the specific technical-theological components with which English Arminianism was constructed.

This article sketches the theological profile of the Synopsis purioris theologiae (1625) by focusing on its exposition of the doctrine of God. Earlier disputations by Leiden theologians Franciscus Junius (1545-1602) and Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641) are discussed as a background for the theology of Antonius Thysius (1565-1640), the author of the disputation in the Synopsis on God’s nature and attributes. For a further specification of the doctrinal position presented in the Synopsis, it is contrasted with the more innovative accounts proposed by Jacob Arminius (1559-1609) in his disputation “De natura Dei” (1603) and by Conrad Vorstius (1569-1622) in his Tractatus theologicus de Deo (1606). This analysis yields the conclusion that both Arminius and Vorstius advocated a structural differentiation between God’s inner essence and his outward operations, which leaves room for human freedom and independence. While the Synopsis does not explicitly discuss their views, in its own formulations it maintains the common Reformed orthodox notion of divine simplicity, and keeps the balance between – on the one hand – the (hypothetical) necessity of God’s foreknowledge and decree, and – on the other hand – the contingency and freedom in the created world.

Jakob Hermansz (1560-1609) better known as Arminius, was a Dutch reformed theologian. He was ordained in 1588. Study of the Epistles of the Romans made him doubt the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.  Amongst Calvinists, Arminius is often misunderstood. A common assumption amongst Reformed Christians is that Arminius would have denied the existence of predestination. Instead, he would have stated that in soteriology, human will is the decisive factor. However, in his book Duplex Amor Dei, William den Boer writes that Arminius is much discussed but little studied.  For what does Arminius really teach about predestination? Today much can be said for the idea that Arminius was sincerely hungering for truth, instead of the heresy many people accused him of. In this essay I will not only discuss his teachings, but also where the conflict on predestination lied in his days, and in which way Arminius played part in it. To this end I will address two major trends: namely supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. Finally, I will discuss the current influence of the ideas of Arminius in the Church of today.

The importance of antiquity for baroque opera is obvious. More than the half of Handels Operas has ancient themes -historical and mythological. But the influence of the ancient sources on the libretti was quite different: Opera has never intended to narrate ancient or medieval history. It was legitimate to invent a story that had only the starting point in Virgil, Plutarch or Tacitus. The following operas are in the focus of interest:  Wolfgang A. Mozart: Ascanio in Alba (1771)  George Frederic Handel: Giulio Cesare in Egitto (1724)  Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber: Arminio (1690/92)  George Frederic Handel: Arminio The libretti for the Arminius-Operas used ancient sources as well as recent literary works. Drama and Happy End were more important than historicity. * Diese Ausarbeitung geht auf einen Vortrag zurück, den ich im Wintersemester 2002/3 an der Universität Rostock gehalten habe.

Das von über 130 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmern besuchte Kolloquium »IMPERIUM – Varus und seine Zeit« widmete sich dem Römischen Reich unter Augustus. Die Ergebnisse flossen in die Konzeption der großen Sonderausstellung »IMPERIUM – 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht« ein, die von Mai bis Oktober 2009 mehr als 165.000 Besucherinnen und Besucher in die Seestadthalle und das LWL-Römermuseum in Haltern am See lockte. +++ Die 16 Vorträge renommierter Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus dem In- und Ausland deckten diverse Disziplinen der Altertumsforschung ab: Klassische Archäologie, Provinzialrömische Archäologie, historische Bauforschung, Alte Geschichte, Rechtsgeschichte, Numismatik, Epigraphik etc. Durch diesen interdisziplinären Ansatz zeichnete das Kolloquium ein differenziertes Bild des historisch-kulturellen Kontextes, in dem Publius Quinctilius Varus und sein Widersacher Arminius agierten. +++ Referentinnen und Referenten: Prof. Dr. Eric M. Moormann (Nijmegen/NL) · Dr. Martin Tombrägel (Leipzig/D) · Prof. Dr. Eugenio La Rocca (Rom/I) · Prof. Dr. Detlef Liebs (Freiburg/D) · Dr. Konstantinos Zachos und Evangelos Pavlidis B.A. (Ioannina/GR) · Prof. Dr. Josef Wiesehöfer (Kiel/D) · Prof. Dr. Luisa Musso (Rom/I) · Prof. Dr. Dieter Salzmann (Münster/D) · Prof. Dr. Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer (Berlin/D) · Dr. Mehmet Önal (Gaziantep/TR) · Prof. Dr. Joseph Patrich (Jerusalem/IL) · Prof. Dr. Hans Ulrich Nuber (Freiburg/D) · Ivan Radman-Livaja M.A. und Dr. Markus Dizdar (Zagreb/HR) · Dr. Michael Gechter (Overath/D) · Prof. Dr. Reinhard Wolters (Tübingen/D) · Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Werner Eck (Köln/D). +++ Gefördert durch die LWL-Kulturstiftung, die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, die Kulturstiftung der Westfälischen Provinzial Versicherung sowie den Verein der Freunde und Förderer des Westfälischen Römermuseums Haltern e. V. +++ Das vorliegende Programm enthält den zeitlichen Ablauf des Kolloquiums inklusive kurzer Abstracts der einzelnen Vorträge. Die ausführlichen Fassungen finden sich in: R. Aßkamp – T. Esch (Hrsg.), IMPERIUM – Varus und seine Zeit. Beiträge zum internationalen Kolloquium des LWL-Römermuseums am 28. und 29. April 2008 in Münster, Veröffentlichungen der Altertumskommission für Westfalen 18 (Münster 2010). +++ Bericht zum Kolloquium von Prof. Dr. Bernhard Weisser (Berlin/D): https://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-2094.

The evangelical theology is not monolith in some areas. One of the evidence for such statement is the existence of two great traditions in evangelical bosom, namely Calvinism and Arminianism. The article presents the evangelical Arminianism in order to show that it is an alternative side of the evangelical Protestantism. The author starts from historical-theological perspective, exposing the soteriology of Jacob Arminius and his followers (so-called Remonstrants) as the main source of modern evangelical Arminian thought. The next part contains the presentation of views of Arminian theologians (F. Leroy Forlines, Robert E. Picirilli, Jack Cottrell, I. Howard Marschall, Roger E. Olson). The analysis, which has been made, indicates that the representatives of this theological stream believe in total depravity of human nature, Christ’s universal atonement and the particular application of redemption, the necessity of God’s grace, which is not irresistible in its nature, and in conditional predestination, which is realized in the saving union with Christ. Moreover, the author includes the Arminian exegesis of three biblical passages that relate to the operation of grace (John 6: 37.39.44); eternal predestination (Eph 1: 3-14); and the extent of the universal salvific will of God and the atonement (1Tim 2: 1-6).

La ruptura de Lutero, Calvino y Arminio con doctrinas de la teología clásica tales como la justificación por las obras y una eclesiología clerical es innegable. Sin embargo, es importante preguntarse si esta reforma incluyó la doctrina de Dios, dada su centralidad para todo el sistema teológico. Este artículo es el primer de una serie de tres artículos cuyo objetivo es comparar la metodología y las presuposiciones hermenéuticas de Lutero, Calvino y Arminio con las del teísmo clásico (teología católico escolástica) para determinar si ellos se apartaron de la metodología de la sola Scriptura para elaborar la doctrina de Dios, siguiendo la metodología de múltiples fuentes de la teología clásica.
The rupture of Luther, Calvin and Arminius with doctrines of classical theology such as justification by works and a clerical ecclesiology, is undeniable. However, it is important to ask whether this reform included the doctrine of God, given its centrality to the entire theological system. This article is the first of a series of three articles that has as its objective to compare the methodology and hermeneutical presuppositions of Luther, Calvin, and Arminius with those of classical theism (scholastic Catholic theology) to determine if they departed from the methodology of sola Scriptura to elaborate the doctrine of God, following the methodology of multiple sources of classical theology.

Данная статья представляет собой введение в важнейший богословий труд Якоба Арминия “Объявление мнения”, к которому прилагается фрагмент текста первоисточника. Это произведение было впервые переведено с латыни на русский язык. Вводная статья знакомит читателя с причинами появления этого перевода, предоставляет обзор основных разделов, характерных черт и идей данного богословского трактата и, наконец, объясняет некоторые базовые принципы и методы, стоящие за работой переводчика. Избранный фрагмент произведения, в свою очередь, излагает ключевые богословские тезисы Арминия, которые он отстаивал в своем Объявлении. Здесь можно найти его идеи касательно предопределения, божественного провидения и благодати, человеческой свободы воли и некоторых аспектов христианской жизни. Они представлены в переводе на русский с краткими пояснительными комментариями в подстрочных ссылках. Таким образом, теперь первоисточник арминианского богословия доступен для широкой русскоязычной публики.

The author is concerned with the origin and development of Germanic kingship from the 1st century BC to the 6th century AD. The first mention of Germanic tribes, their social structure and habits is in Caesar's and particularly Tacitus' writings. Although their terminology is different, they described basically the same circumstances. Both of them clearly distinguished between elected war leader, the commander, and chosen judge, the chieftain or king, who descended from respected and noble family. In Tacitus' times the strong military leaders or autocratic kings were disliked by their fellow tribesmen and some of them, like Arminius, Maroboduus or Vannius, were deposed, expelled or even murdered. After two murky centuries, however, Ammianus Marcellinus witnessed high degree of hierarchization within Germanic tribal society and documented king's highest authority. Since that times king held military power of commander as well jurisdiction and sacral functions of chieftain. His office was hereditary and lifelong. Written sources occasionally reveal also some of personal, physical or mental qualities of particular chief. The most notable leaders or kings were described, for example, as young, tall and strong, handsome, bold, intelligent, wise men and especially as capable commanders. Militarily inept or cowardly kings were therefore removed or killed, usually after crushing defeat.

L'articolo analizza come il castello di Wewelsburg sia stato reso da Himmler il centro culturale e simbolico del suo mondo di credenze pseudo-storiche ed esoterico, mettendo in evidenza in particolare un duplice modo di rifarsi alla figura del barbaro: da un lato il barbaro come modello da seguire (Arminio e Viduchindo), dall'altro il barbaro selvaggio dell'est da conquistare seguendo l'esempio dei re tedeschi (Carlo Magno e Enrico l'Uccellatore).

I've taken a long view of both Calvin and Arminius from the perspective of what their views have caused and rendered in Ecclesiastical History. In addition, I have nullified their work and views from the perspective that all of it is about foisting divergent views from the NT and its overall objective of a non-Constantinian reality of Ekklesia

The rupture of Luther, Calvin, and Arminius with doctrines of classical theology such as justification by works and a clerical ecclesiology, is undeniable. However, it is important to ask whether this reform included the doctrine of God, given its centrality to the entire theological system. This article is the third of a series of three articles that has as its objective to compare the methodology and hermeneutical presuppositions of Luther, Calvin, and Arminius with those of classical theism (scholastic Catholic theology) to determine if they departed from the methodology of sola Scriptura to elaborate the doctrine of God, following the methodology of multiple sources of classical theology

When news reached Rome in late September AD 9 that three entire legions plus auxiliaries under P. Quinctilius Varus had been ambushed and lost in the Teutoburger Wald, so great was the panic in Rome fearing a German invasion that Augustus at once ordered patrols in Rome to prevent any uprising, sent many of the Germans in Rome off to remote islands, drafted troops from a most reluctant and terrified civilian population, prolonged the terms of experienced governors to protect the provinces, and sent Tiberius at once to Germany to salvage the situation. Augustus himself suffered a near breakdown, during which he banged his head on the wall several times, crying out Vare, redde meas legiones! Indeed, Varus’ defeat at Teutoburger Wald had profound and immediate consequences for Rome. Geopolitically, it permanently divided Europe into German and Roman zones. This fact has so dominated scholars’ interest that other parts of Varus’ legacy pass largely unnoticed, when they too deserve attention.
Varus’ legacy also includes his own unfair disgrace as a scapegoat for the ambush, the curtailing of his descendents’ careers, an aberration in Roman policy towards POWs, an end to Augustus’ conciliation of the old aristocratic houses, and most interestingly a terrible blow to Tiberius which should have stalled his political star, but ironically, intensified it -- though at a sacrifice - because no one else could reliably handle the situation.
Although the official version blamed Varus for the disaster of Teutoburger Wald (in Latin it is the clades Variana), this was very difficult for Tiberius, who regarded Varus as one of his few friends back when times were tough back in the days of exile on Rhodes. In AD 15 when the Roman army again invaded Germany, it very nearly suffered a second ambushed under similar circumstances, exposing the difficulty Varus had faced in Germany and his unfair vilification.
But Tiberius, like Augustus before him, preferred not to rock the boat too much.  After three relatively successful years of fighting, Tiberius recalled the army. Germany was not conquered, but it was wounded. The Romans captured Arminius’ pregnant wife, but never caught him. Later under Claudius, some Roman POWs, rescued during a raid in German territory, brought home stories of their suffering and some closure to many Roman families, who now heard the final end of their lost relations.  As for Varus, he was neither rehabilitated, nor was he erased in damnatio memoriae. He appears – or used to appear – on the Ara Pacis, completed in 9 BC when he shared the consulship with Tiberius. He surely participated in the procession and appeared on the monument. Neither Augustus nor Tiberius had Varus’ image removed after the fact. Varus’ family lived on, but never achieved greatness (the prosecution of his widow for treason by Sejanus was unrelated to Teutoburger Wald, and Tiberius intervened to save the son). The fact that someone else later damaged his image on the Ara Pacis beyond recognition today or repair is a coincidence.

The “Arminian triumph wagon”: a Dortian satire on Jaconus Arminius and the Remonstrants from 1618

The present essay analyzes the way in which the remonstrants were satirized during and after the National Synod of Dort, which took place between 1618 and 1619. We analyzed, in this essay, the pamphlet named Arminiaensche dreck-waghen (The Arminian dung cart), originally published in 1618, as well as a later edition of that same document which was probably based on the painting Pacis trivmphantis delineatio, by Willem van Haecht (1593-1637), dated in 1577 and / or the painting De vrijheid van consciëntie, by Joachim Wtewael (1566- 1638), dated 1596. The analytical method adopted in this essay to verify these pamphlets occurs through the contributions of Wölfflin and Panofsky.
Keywords: Remonstrants; Jacobus Arminius; Synod of Dort; Arminiaensche dreckwaghen; Religious intolerance

Rozwój ruchów reformacyjnych w XVI wieku był prawdziwą feerią doktrynalnej różnorodności. Dysputy teologów na uniwersytetach a także ludowe nadinterpretacje słów reformatorów, zapewniały nieustanne potęgowanie się liczby nurtów i trendów. Reformacja genewska, choć otwarta na współpracę została odrzucona przez Lutra, z powodu różnic w rozumieniu kluczowych dla Wittenbergi prawd wiary. A jednak wspólnym punktem wielkich reformatorów pozostawał dogmat o predestynacji, czemu zresztą nietrudno się było dziwić, zważywszy na idee augustiańskie stojące u fundamentu rozumowania Lutra. Na pisma Erazma z Rotterdamu, wittenberski teolog odpowiadał przecież:
„(...)wolna wola to wierutne kłamstwo, i (...) sprawa z nią ma się podobnie, jak z ową niewiastą z ewangelii, że im więcej lekarze ją leczyli, tym gorzej się miała.”
Jednak gdzie predestynacja Lutra była nieuniknionym wynikiem biblijnej antropologii, Kalwin uczynił z niej główną prawdę na której opiera się system społeczny. Tam, gdzie Luter zwracał się nieustannie w stronę Pisma, odrzucając pomysł filozofii sekularnej, tam Kalwin, który wszak wzrastał w Paryżu i Orleanie, inkorporował nieustannie do własnego dogmatu o predestynacji nauki socjologiczne, inspirowane mentalnością renesansu. Taki oto kalwinizm trafił do prężnego narodu Niderlandów, gdzie już wkrótce, jeden z niewielu punktów wspólnych protestantów całej Europy, miał zakwestionować pewien profesor z uniwersytetu w Lejdzie – Jakub Arminiusz.

In the pages of Caesar's Commentaries on the Conquest of Gaul, Vercingetorix emerges as an anti-hero who doggedly fought against the Roman conquest, first by forceful and mostly honorable means, but later with desperation and by any means necessary, sinking to inhumane measures to force his countrymen to continue a hopeless opposition. Finally, when he realized the Romans had won Gaul at Alesia, he heroically surrendered himself to the Romans to prevent further bloodshed and destruction, again becoming a hero in French eyes, as well. France still honors and memorializes Vercingetorix as the first, national hero. Not surprisingly, several other nations select their own first, national hero from the Roman era. For obvious reasons, Germany honors Arminius (aka Hermann), the man who drove out the Romans after they had successfully colonized both sides of the Rhine River in the infamous Teutoburger Wald uprising. The Swiss likewise celebrated Divico, a Helvetian chief in the first century BC, who defeated the Romans. But surprisingly Portugal and the Netherlands chose as their first, national heroes leaders of failed resistance to the Roman conquest, namely Viriathus and Julius Civilis. In other words, France, Portugal, and the Netherlands celebrate men who stood in the way of history, but were run down by the advance of Roman civilization. In the case of France and Portugal, who so long stood in the Latin orbit during the North-South European divide, this contains some irony. Let us reexamine the deeds of these first national heroes, the major sources that record those deeds, and the modern reception and revivals that re-popularized them in the nationalist movements of the 19 th century, leading to the erection of statues of them in Germany and France (and elsewhere). They may not all have resisted Rome, but they won honor for themselves and eternal fame that Odysseus and Achilles would envy. When the Borg on Star Trek are poised to attack they inform the other vessels that " resistance is futile, " and then raid them for their technology and assimilate their people; for most ancient Mediterranean peoples, including the Celts, Carthaginians, Greeks, Syrians, and others, the Romans were just as formidable, just as ruthless, and just as invincible an adversary. The will to resist Roman imperialism required a near suicidal devotion to freedom that did not always guarantee success, sometimes it guarantied only a free death, as in the case of Numantia and Xanthus. In the 19th century and in a few cases earlier, the search of a unifying national figure led most nations that had been part of the Roman Empire to embrace and sometimes misrepresent an early figure of local history as a great freedom fighter for that specific people, although in many cases the national hero did not actually succeed against the Romans, and if they had, it would have prevented the expansion of Western civilization; it is not a matter of " the winners write the history, " since the underdog can inspire local pride and nationalism even if he did not actually win, and especially if he faced overwhelming odds but resisted anyway.

While Martin Luther was not engaged in archaeological research his keen interest in the Germanic past mirrored his conflict with Rome. He would champion and inspire inquiries into and championing the prehistory of the Germani and Wittenberg became a powerhouse of early archaeological enquiry. In the 16th century results of archaeological activities would play an increasing role in the conflict between the champions of the Lutheran reformation  and the established church as well as laying the foundations for nationalist sentiment.

In this Very Short Introduction, Jon Balserak explores major ideas associated with the Calvinist system of thought. Beginning during the Protestant Reformation in cities like Zurich, Geneva, and Basel, Calvinism—also known as Reformed Theology—spread rapidly throughout Europe and the New World, eventually making its way to the African Continent and the East. Balserak examines how Calvinist thought and practice spread and took root, helping shape church and society. Much of contemporary thought, especially western thought, on everything from theology to civil government, economics, the arts, work and leisure, education, and the family has been influenced by Calvinism. Balserak explores this influence. He also examines common misconceptions and objections to Calvinism, and sets forth a Calvinist understanding of God, the world, humankind, and the meaning of life.

Preface

Chapter 1 Calvinism – What’s in a Name?
Chapter 2 Conversion
Chapter 3 Culture
Chapter 4 Church
Chapter 5 Knowledge
Chapter 6 Covenant
Chapter 7 Humanity and New Humanity
Chapter 8 God and Hell

Chronology
Further Reading