Posted on 11/14/2006 6:06:24 AM PST by xzins
Dort Pitted Calvinists against Arminians.
by the Staff or associates of Christian History Institute.
James (Jacob) Arminius was uneasy with some of the teachings that had come to be identified with Calvinism. Did God really choose some men to be damned before he created them? Was Christ's death only intended for those who would finally be saved? Does God exercise his sovereignty so fully that man has no choice in his own salvation? Does regeneration come first and then repentance? As the professor of theology at Leyden, James had promised to teach only those things which conformed to the confessions of faith of the state church of the Netherlands. These were Calvinist. In his public teaching, Arminius kept his word, but he laid out Scripture readings in such a way as to cast doubt on Calvin's theology (which was heavily indebted to Augustine of Hippo).
Gomarus, leading opponent of Arminianism. In private, James offered a different interpretation of Scripture to interested students. While not varying from a single doctrine of the early church creeds and accepting much that Calvin taught, he modified his theology to say that man (through ordinary grace) can respond to the gospel and has real choice in his ultimate destiny. Strict Calvinists, such as Dr. Franciscus Gomarus, objected strongly. However, a number of pastors of state churches adopted Arminian views. Arminius himself downplayed differences for the sake of peace and because of his promises, although he tried to get the Heidelberg Catechism and another Dutch confession amended.
After his death, his followers issued a document called a Remonstrance. In it they set out five points in which they differed from Calvin. Inevitably the issue got mixed up with politics too complex to go into in this short article. The Remonstrants (as Arminians were called) were on the side of those who wanted decentralized government or "states rights." The Calvinists were on the same side as Maurice, who was attempting to reduce "states rights" and create a stronger central government.
The central government called a synod (council of churchmen) to weigh the issues. On this day, November 13, 1618, the Synod of Dort convened. It was controlled by Calvinists who invited other Calvinists from neighboring countries. The assembly existed for one purpose only: to condemn the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants considered this unfair.
And the proceedings were biased. The Calvinists met alone until the sixth of December. Meanwhile, Remonstrants around the country were thrown out of their pulpits. Those Remonstrants who were summoned to the assembly found their movements restricted. They were not allowed to have their strongest speakers represent them. Many other injustices occurred.
Needless to say, with matters so stacked against the Remonstrants, their cause was condemned. One of their supporters, the statesman, John Oldenbarneveld, was invited to a meeting with Maurice and arrested. Falsely charged with treason, he was beheaded. Another supporter, Hugo Grotius (who became the father of international law), was sentenced to life in prison but managed to escape.
Arminian ideas are found among Wesleyans, Methodists, Nazarenes, Free Will Baptists and in similar traditions, while variations of Calvinism can be detected in the theologies of Reformed, Presbyterian, Calvinist Methodist and some Baptist groups.
Resources
"Arminianism," and "Dort, Synod of," in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church," edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. (Oxford, 1997).
Bangs, Carl. Arminius. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971).
Hunt, Dave. What Love Is This? Calvinism's misrepresentation of God. (Sister, Oregon: Loyal, 2002).
Vandergugten, S. "The Arminian Controversy and the Synod of Doredt."
(http://spindleworks.com/library/vandergugten/arminian_c.htm).
Watson, Richard. "Synod of Dort." www.geocities.com/calvinismheresy/synoddort.html).
If James “accepted much” what Calvin taught, there would have been very little room for calling together a Synod. People of that era didn’t toe the exact same theological line. But there were fundamental beliefs that Protestants adhered to. For the author to make the claim that the Remonstrant’s points just got “mixed up” in politics is, quite frankly, silly.
What I don’t understand is the author’s point about the Synod. Trust me, the more Calvinists you call together, the more chance there are going to be for disagreements. And why would the Synod want to include the Remonstrant when they were mulling over their points of contention? The author seems to say this wasn’t “fair” but it sounds like the Remonstrant threw down the gauntlet by saying these are the five major points of disagreements we have with the Calvinists beliefs.
Which brings me back to my first point; if James did not vary from single doctrine of the early church, what then was the big deal?
I don’t bash people of history. It was a different time and people had different values. Also, politics were mixed with religious beliefs. Does anyone really wish to discuss separation of church and state? They executed people because that was a way of removing people. We try to vote them out of office. I’m not minimizing anything but that is the way it was. King David murdered Uriah. Is anyone going to criticize his walk with the Lord or reject what he wrote?
Quite frankly X, I tend to be a little saddened by some of the statements made and in some of the posts. To be up front, it is far more respectable to say they do not agree with Calvin’s view on election and limited atonement, than to purport themselves as a Calvinist. Most serious scholars understand the distinct difference between Calvinism and Arminianism and I have never come across any serious writings where non-Calvinists make the claim they’re “Calvinists in the Arminian fashion”. If I truly believed in the free will of man, then I would be arguing with our Calvinists friends about the election of man and I would certainly not wish to be called a Calvinist. Albert Finney proudly proclaim that he was an Arminian and Calvinists were wrong. Unfortunately the same can’t be said of many other Arminians who would prefer to hide their disagreement with Calvin’s doctrine rather than proclaim it.
I wouldn't try to rewrite Dordt. I consider it non-binding.
The political perverted process that led to it is one more reason for recognizing its corruption.
Why would they need one more conference or one more confession on the same subject other than to REMOVE some of the broadness of the past and replace it with the opinions of those present?
In doing so, they admitted that Arminius was correct in seeing more flexibility in the older confessions and catechisms than they PERSONALLY wanted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.