Meet Dirck Coornhert The Fellow Who Influenced Jacobus Arminius And Refused To Break With Roman Catholicism
Posted by Job on October 7, 2008
More stuff: ” Coornhert argued that the core of a Chrìstian ‘s life was to love God and one’s neighbors, and that ceremonies and ntes were human institutions, not biblically-based. Hence Coornhert attacked Calvin and his followers for their insistence on specific liturgical practices and their rejection of Catholic ntes. In the same work, the Dutchman also attacked the Anabaptist leader Menno Simons for similarly refusing to allow believers to continue following Catholic rituals. Coornhert, who never formally broke from Catholicism, believed that conforming outwardly to Catholic practices would not affect the core of a person’s faith, as that faith was an inward spiritual link between the faithful and God through the Holy Spint.”
Karin Maag Director, H Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies
Incidentally, this is what Coornhert said to justify the abominable practice of worshiping images of Mary, saints, and angels: “If those who kneel before idols are condemned, Jesus Christ deserved to be stoned for violating the Sabbath, since he was also guilty.” Maybe Jacobus Arminius, father of Arminianism, wasn’t aware of this statement when he decided to cast aside doctrines of elections and predestination in order to decide – based on reading the very writings of Coornhert that he was tasked with refuting – that Coornhert was right. (In other words, Arminius was an adherent to Reformed doctrine before encountering Coornhert’s teachings, and upon studying Coornhert’s teachings he decided that he agreed with them.) Maybe Arminius did not encounter anything in studying Coornhert’s writings that were blasphemous, heretical, or severe doctrinal errors. Or we should consider the more likely part: that Arminius was all too aware of them, and decided that a fellow could be right about soteriology when he was so wrong about so many other vital things. We should consider that Arminius so wanted to reject double predestination in favor of a free will human choice that he was willing to accept the message no matter the messenger.
Free will Christians try to claim that Arminius was a Calvinist, and that the debate betwen Arminius and those who adhered to Reformed theology was merely one between Calvinists, and that the Reformed position should have found a way to accommodate Arminianism (which is really Coornhertism!), and that in coming up with all of the creeds and catechisms that specifically emphasized predestination and election and denied free will doctrines, the Reformed theologians were “reactionary” and “rigid” instead of “tolerant.” Well, now it is obvious that Arminius was chosen to represent this doctrine rather than Coornhert, and even if it was “a debate between followers of Calvin”, the fact remains that one side of the debate, one of the group of “Calvinists”, was advancing the views of an idolatrous blaspheming papist.