On faith and justification, John Valero Fesko has done a careful study showing that Arminius taught that faith itself is imputed for righteousness, which is seriously at odds with the standard Reformed understanding that faith is the instrument by which the righteousness of Christ is received. Instead, he distinguished assurance ( fiducia) from faith ( fides), declaring that assurance follows as the ordinary result of saving faith, but is not necessarily simultaneous with faith.вЂќ 2 But the Heidelberg Catechism teaches: вЂњWhat is true faith? True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a firm confidence which the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of ChristвЂ™s meritsвЂќ (Q&A 21). Arminius contested this assertion that led Christians to despair. In other words, assurance is, by definition, thought to be a necessary component of saving faith. On faith as trust, again Stanglin and McCall summarize: вЂњFor Arminius, the problem lies first with the Reformed conviction that saving faith includes not only knowledge and assent, but also fiducia, or confident assurance. On original sin, Stanglin and McCall summarize ArminiusвЂ™ views: вЂњTo put the matter briefly, for Arminius, the claim that original sin is primarily a deprivation of original righteousness is accompanied by the claim that original sin does not make one liable to further punishment.вЂќ 1 This position stands in contrast to Belgic Confession article 15: вЂњWe believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their motherвЂ™s womb are infected, and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof, and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind.вЂќ It is useful here to show that he clearly disagreed with the teaching of the confession and catechism, not only on predestination, but on a number of other issues. His call for a synod, however, reinforced the suspicions of many ministers that he was trying to change the established theological commitments of the church. Robert Godfrey examines Jacob Arminius and the Calvinists who opposed his teaching.ДЄrminius often claimed to agree with the confessional standards, and perhaps he never publicly taught contrary to them.

In this excerpt from Saving the Reformation, Dr.

Who was arminius