Did Jacob Arminius and/or the remonstrants believe they were in agreement with John Calvin?

Arminius on the Church Fathers, and Orthodox Doctrine

Jacob Arminius did in fact believe that his doctrines were in line with the ancient church fathers. In Arminius' Dissertation Of The Seventh Chapter of Romans, we find the following quotation:

If, lastly, I shall prove that the other opinion [regeneration] as it is in these days explained by most divines, cannot, without the greatest difficulty, be reconciled to many of the plainest passages of Scripture, that it is in no small degree injurious to the grace of the indwelling Spirit, that it has a hurtful effect on good morals, and that it [regeneration] was never approved by any of the ancient fathers of the church, but, on the contrary, disapproved by some of them, and even to St. Augustine himself; then may I be permitted by a most deserved right to admonish the defenders of that other sentiment [regeneration], that they reflect frequently and seriously, whether they be wishful to excite the wrath of God against themselves by an unjust condemnation of this better opinion [prevenient grace] and of those who are its defenders.

Arminius here is mainly concerned with the end of chapter 7, starting around verse 14 or 15. In particular, he is arguing against a doctrine which today would be called "regeneration by irresistible grace."

While he is not arguing against the school of Calvin in general, his opinions about irresistible grace give us some insight:

• He believed that regeneration (by irresistible grace) is not compatible with orthodox teaching
• He believed that the church fathers even disapproved of this doctrine
• He lists Augustine as one who disapproved
• He believes that he is a defender of a "better opinion"

He doesn't just appeal to Augustine. Here is a list of just some of the theologians that Arminius appeals to, in order to establish his doctrine as orthodox:

1. Clement of Alexandria
2. Irenaeus
3. Tertullian
4. Origen
5. Cyprian
6. Chrysostom
7. Basil the Great
8. Theodouret
9. Cyril
10. Macarius the Egyptian
11. Damascenus
12. Theophylact
13. Ambrose
14. Jerome

Arminius on Calvin, and His Institutes

Let's all start on the same page - John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were not contemporaries. Arminius came on the scene when Calvin's movement had become the dominant stance in reformed theology. The name "Calvin" was now representative of a movement, and not just a person.

It should be pretty obvious that Arminius did not think his opinions were in agreement with the Calvinist movement. Under I. "ON PREDESTINATION" from The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1, we find the following statement:

Commencing with this article, I will first explain what is taught concerning it, both in discourses and writings, by certain persons in our Churches, and in the University of Leyden. I will afterwards declare my own views and thoughts on the same subject, while I shew my opinion on what they advance. On this article there is no uniform and simple opinion among the teachers of our Churches; but there is some variation in certain parts of it in which they differ from each other.

Arminius acknowledges that opinions on predestination are very diverse and at odds with each other - particularly, among those in the school of Cavlin, and those sympathetic to Arminius and Kolmann.

Arminius goes into more detail in his correspondence with Junius (DISCUSSION BETWEEN ARMINIUS AND JUNIUS, TOPIC: PREDESTINATION), where he outlines the differing beliefs of his contemporaries:

I see, then, most renowned sir, that there are three views in reference to that subject, [predestination] which have their defenders among the doctors of our church. The first is that of Calvin to Beza; the second that of Thomas Aquinas and his followers; the third that of Augustine and those who agree with him.

He writes of the first doctrine the following:

I am not pleased with the first theory [Calvin's view of predestination] because God could not, in his purpose of illustrating his glory by mercy and punitive justice, have reference to man as not yet made, nor indeed to man as made, and considered in his natural condition. In which sentiment I think that I have yourself as my precedent, for, in discussing predestination, you no where make mention of mercy, but every where of grace, which transcends mercy, as exercised towards creatures, continuing in their original, natural state, while it coincides with mercy in being occupied with the sinner, but when you treat of the passed by and the reprobate, you mention justice, and only in the case of such. Besides, according to that opinion, God is, by necessary consequence, made the author of the fall of Adam and of sin, from which imputation he is not freed by the distinctions of the act and the evil in the act, of necessity and coaction, of the decree and its execution, of efficacious and permissive decree, as the latter is explained by the authors of this view, in harmony with it, nor a different relation of the divine decree and of human nature, nor by the addition of the proposed end, namely that the whole might redound to the divine glory, etc.

If you continue reading, Arminius chooses to sympathize with the third view, namely, that of Augustine. He considers this the "better option" because it does not require God to have been the author of sin, and it does not require God's unconditional damnation or reprobation of individuals to hell.

Conclusion

Here is what we can conclude, based on Arminius' own writings:

1. Arminius considers himself to be in line with the school of Augustine.
2. Arminius disagrees with the ideas of double predestination, irresistible grace, etc.
3. Arminius claims that Calvin supports double predestination, irresistible grace, etc.
4. Based on 2. and 3., Arminius does not consider himself to be in agreement with Calvin.

References

• The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1
• The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 2
• The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 3