1994 Issue 6 - The Synod of Dort: The Formulation of the Five Points of Calvinism - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1994 Issue 6 - The Synod of Dort: The Formulation of the Five Points of Calvinism - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/6

Introduction

Many describe Calvinism with the

acronym T.U.L.LP

.

While there is

revelance to the acronum, Calvinism

encompasses more than many people

suppose. T.U.L.I.P. is a description of

the soteriological perspective of Cal

vinism and to equate the acronym and

Calvinism limits Calvinism. Calvinis

tic theology encompasses much more

than soteriology: it represents a com

prehensive world and

life

view.

The so-called

five

points of Calvin

ism acually developed after the death

ofCalvin.Theyresulted

from

the Synod

of Dott.

he

Synod assembled

to

rule

on Arminianism which originated

in

the Netherlands. The doctrines ad

vanced by the Arminians were: limited

depravity, conditional election, un

limited atonement,

and

resistible

grace.' The Synod of Dart formulated

five points to counter the Arminian

doctrines. They are: Total depravity,

Unconditional election, Limited atone

ment, Irresistible grace, and Persever

ance

of

the saints. In doing this, the

Synod formulated the Scriptural teach

ing of predestination in confOlmity

with what Calvin taught.

Involved

in

the theological contro

versy was a political struggle. The

Re-

formed principle was that the church

and state have separate spheres of au

thority; the church rules

in

spiritual

matters and the state

in

dvil matters.

terestingly,

Beza

regarded Arminius as

one of his esteemed students.

In 1588 a

church in

Amsterdam

called Arminius to

be

their pastor. In

Amsterdam the call of a minister re

quired the approval of the burgomas

ter (an office similar to mayor). In this

we see thepervasiveness ofErastianism

in

the Netherlands. In the 1580's the

sentiment

of

the city council

and

the

They believed that the state was re- burgomaster was not rigidly Calvinis-

sponsible for the protection of the tic. Likewise, Arminius gave

no

reason

church

The

Arminians

favored

for suspicion. Arminius served fifteen

Erastianism which is the principle of

years

in

Amsterdam as a pastor. Dur

church govemment where the state ing this time he was very active among

controls the church and exercises its otherchurchesandhisowncongrega

authority

in

civil and spiritual matters. tion.The

cJassis3

to which

he

belonged

They gained the

favor

of John

frequently called upon

him

to admin

Oldenbarneveldt and through him isterdisciplineandperformotherfunc

exercised great influence over other tions required of a pastor.

civil magistrates. This political situa-

tion disabled the Reformed church While a

pastor in

Amsterdam,

from expediently rooting out the her- Arminius paltially revealed his depar-

ture from the doctrinal standards of

sy of Arminianism.

the Reformed church. In his series on

Anninianism

the book of Romans, Arminius ran

The title Arminianism derives into difficulties

when he

preached on

from the

man

named Jacubus the seventh and

ninth

chapters. Some

Arminius, who planted the seed of his of the ministers in Amsterdam ob

theology in the Netherlands. Arminius jected to the points he made and en

was a pastor

in

Amsterdam and later a deavored to expose his error. Arminius

theology professor

at

the University of 'however, stated things

in

such

an

am

Leyden. He began the controversy over biguous manner that

he

avoided any

predestination and man's

free

will

in

formal charges.

n

1592 the civil au

reaction to the teachings of the Dutch morities called a conference of minis

Reformed churches. He sought to an- ters to settle

the

problems which

swer the charge that God is the author Arminius had statted. There were

no

of sin. formal charges

brought

against

Anninius' Life

Arminius at this time,

nor

could the

Arminius (1560-1609) was the first ministers produce any evidence docu

Protestant theologian to develop a the- menting his errors. The civil authori

ology that contradicted the Reformed ties, being steeped

in

religious tolera

doctrines of the Netherlands.

2

He re- tion, dismissed the controversy as

ceived his education at the University trivial, and emphasized the need for

of Leyden. Later

he

studied at the toleration.

As

this was

an

officialmeet

University of Geneva under Theodore ing, the date of 1592 is assigned as the

Beza who was Calvin's successor. In- official beginning ofthe Arminiancon

J . . . . . : : : : : : ~ ~ : i

troversy. Though the controversy was

Peter Kloosterman is a rising Senior at Christ College and a pre-ministerial

only in seed form,

it

would bear much

student. He plans

on

pUTsuing his Master ofDivinity

at

Mid-America Reformed fruit as Arminius developed his views

Seminary.

He

and his wife, Michelle, aTe expecting their first

child.

On May

19, and obtained an influential pOsition

at

1994, this paper was awaTdedthe Golden QuillAward by the Faculty ofChrist the University of Leyden.

College f T its excellence

in

TesearCh' form, style, and content.

Julyl

August,

1994

THE COUNSEL of

Chalcedon

11


2/6

In 1600 the Synod of Harlem' com

missioned Arminius to give a Scrip

tural rebuttal of the Anabaptists. His

response manifests the deception that

he often employed. He knew hisviews

deviated

from

the accepted standards

of the church. Therefore, he did not

declare

his

position openly. Anninius

suspected they commissioned him

only to extort from him his

own

sen

timents and opinions about some of

the controversial points, he was re

solved they should

miss

their aim; for

he didnot think, that his refutation of

the Anabaptists, would oblige him

to

declare his whole mind about the doc

trines ofPredestination andFree Will.

t is evident that Arminius was not

motivated by toleration but by decep

tion. I will show that he sought

to

deceive through ambiguous answers

and by skirting a fonnal presentation

of his views whenever possible.

Like

wise, at this time Arminius's doctrines

remained underdeveloped. Hispreach

ing rendered him suspicious,

bUt

he

had not producedany published state

ments that exhibited his guilt. There

fore, he could not be charged with

error because he never fonnally pre

sented his doctrines.

In

1602

Anninius was considered

for a positionas a professor of theology

at the University of Leyden.

Divers9f the Gergy apprehended

some

danger in

the

choice of

this Gentleman,

and represented it to

the

Curators. They

thought,

he

was not sound enough in that

doctrine

[predestination1 which most

of

them had

espoused,

and

that he

dou/lted

ofsome pOints which they

judged

to Ie of

very

great

importance;

that

he

indulged

his

reason

a

little

too

much,

sufferingit

to

wander further than it ought, and medi-

tating

innovations

in Religion.

6

The leading objector who contested

Arminius's calling was Francisco

Gomarus. He

was

a professor at the

University and understood the impli

cations of Anninius's views. Gomarus

and the clergy of Leyden made a spe-

cial appeal to the Curators of the Uni

versity requesting that the

call

not be

extended to Anninius. The Curators

of

the

University of Leyden decided

that the clergy had nothing to do with

their choice

of professors.

Therefore,

they extended their call to Anninius.

They heeded the appeal of Gomarus,

however, and conditioned the

call

of

Anniniusupon

his ability to make peace

with

Gomarus before his

appointment.

At

th meeting between Gomarus

and Arrninius before the Curators,

Anninius testified:

That he

unreservedly condemned

the

principal dogmas

of the Pelagians

con-

cerning

natural

grace; the powerS of ree

will, original sin, the

peifection of man in

this

life,

predestination, and the others;

that.

he

approved

all

things, which

Au-

gustine

and the

other fathers had written

agatnstthePelagians; andmoreover,

thathe

judged

the Pelagian errors

hadbeen

rightly

refuted and condemned

by

the fathers;

and

at

the same time promised, that he

would teach nothing which d ffered.from

the

received doctrine of the churches .

7

In addition, Anniniusagreed

to

con

fonn his teaching to the Belgic Confes

sion and the Heidelberg Catechism.

He

believed, however, that he

was

not

obligated

to

teach

some

of

he

partien

lar clergy's sentinients regarding pre

destination.

In

1604Anninius delivered a thesis

on predestination that differed

from

the position of Calvin. Gomarus im

mediately opposed him on this issue.

Anninius defended himself y saying

he was not teaching anything

new.

Likewise, he suggested that his senti

ments

were well

known before his call

to the professorship and that his teach

ing was in hannony with the Confes

sion and Catechism. Deputies of the

North and South Holland Synods and

the consistory of Leyden met with

Anninius to

investigate

the

claims

that

he

was teaching error. When the del

egates confronted him, Anninius. re

fused

to respond to their questions or

2 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon July August, 994

answer them unless they would set

aside their authority as delegates and

report nothing he said to .the provin

cial synod. The delegation saw this

as

a breech of their responsibilities and

refused to address Arminius in an un

officialmanner because to do so would

undennine the authority of the Syn

ods. Thus the conflict between

Anninius

and

the orthodoxclergycon

tinued to fennent.

By 1609

the conflict between the

orthodox group led

by

Gomarus and

the group led by Anninius had esca

lated to such a proportion that the

States-General called

for

a conference

between Anninius and Gomarusc Pre-

Vi6usly, the States-General had ad

monished both parties to resolve their

differences.

Their attempts

for

recon

ciliation were unsuccessful. Finally,

the States-General decided an

official

conference

would alleviate the mis

understanding and

would

further the

cause of peace between

the

separate

factions. At this conference the

States-General granted each professor

the assistance of four ministers who

supported their positions.

The discussion between the men

centered on the point of justification.

Gomarus stated that justification is the

imputation of Christ's righteousness

by God according to His election.

Arminius said he

agreed

with this and

did not see any point of contention. At

this point Gomarus objected vehe

mently. He

pressed

the issue

further

and explained that justification includes

the doctrines

of grace,

predestination,

free-will,

and perseverance. n contrast

to Anninius,

Gomarus believed:

That

it was

appointed by an

Eternal

DecreeofGod who amongrnankindshould

be

saved, andwho

shouldbe

damned. From

whence

resulted, that

some men

were

drawn to.

righteousness,

and

being

so

drawn, were

preserved from

falling; but

that

God

suffered all the

rest

t remain in

the common

corruption.

of

humane na"

ture, and in their own

iniquities.

8


3/6

In

doing this, Gomarus sought to

laybeforethe States-General the points

of contention. He knew thatArminius

would not be able to equivocate when

it came

to

his presentation of predesti

nation, grace, free-will, and persever

ance.

When theconference concluded,

the States-General ruled that the con

troversy was a dispute overthe minute

point of predestination. They ruled

that both sides should address each

other with mutual toleration, striving

to

work

for peace among their respec

tive congregations.

On

October 19, 1609, Arminius

died. Many hoped his doctrines and

the controversies surrounding them

would die with him.

s will be seen

below, this was not the case, for

Arminius's death was

not

a sedative

but a

spur

that drove his followers to

further disturbances.

Anninius's Theology

Arminius first showed signs of de

viation

in

his sermons on the book of

Romans. These sermonsshowthe seeds

of Arminius's theology which blos

somed into a great deviation from the

teachings of the Reformed churches.

In

the ninth chapter of Romans, Paul

writes about the distinction between

the seed of the covenant

and

the chil

dren of the flesh. Paul writes:

But Rebecca also having conceived ry

one even by our father Isaac for

the

children being

not yet born, nei ther

hav-

ing

done

anyth

i

ng good

or

bad, that the

purpose of

Godaccording

to election might

stand, notofworks, butofhim thatcalleth,

itwas saidunto her, The

e

lder shall serve

the younger.

Even

as

it s

written, Jacob

I loved, but

Esau

I hated

Cvv.

10-13).

In expounding this

passage

Arminius said that Jacob and Esau

represent

types and anti-types

of

classes. He said that this passage does

not

pertain

to

them as individuals, but

shows the distinction between the

classes: Jacob as a type of he covenant

seed and Esau as the anti-type of the

children

of

the flesh. Arminius be-

lieved that the predestination of be

lievers as aclass was absolute; whereas

the predestination of individuals is

contingent upon whether

or

not the

individualhas faith. Arminius believed

that God establishes His election on

the basis of

is

foreknowledge ,

but

His election

is

conditional. He said

forelmowledge penains to God'sknow

ing whether a person would believe;

on that condition of belief He elects

the person. To put it figuratively,

Arminius would say that God looked

down through thecorridor of ime and

saw a person's response of

belief

or

unbelief. Therefore, before the foun

dations of the world, God knew a

person's response and accordingly

elected or condemned that person.

Arminius's main points

of

conten

tion with the theology of Calvin cen

tered on the doctrines pertaining to

soteriologyand anthropology. In seek

ing to answer the charge that God is

the author of sin, he put too much

emphasis on the free-will of men and

leaned too heavily

upon

reason. This

led him away from the teachings of

Scripture. Arminius emphasized the

free-will of man and in doing so he

reduced God and exalted man.

The Examination of Perkins' Pam

phlet contains Arminius's most formal

writings on his doctrine of grace.

Arminius wrote a critique of William

Perkins' book on predestination. He

was not able

to

send his critique to

Perkins because Perkins died before

Arminius completed his composition.

This work of Arminius lay dormant

until his followerspublishedit in 1612.

In

his

book on

predestination,

Perkins said God willed the fall of

Adam not as sin

but

as a means of

illustrating His glory. Perkins stated

that God willed Adam to sin according

to His good pleasure or His secret will.

Nonetheless, Perkins said that Adam

freely chose

to

rebel against God.

Perkins relied on what God reveals

in

Scripture and submitted his under-

standing to that. Arminius objected.

He sought to promote a rational argu

ment for the existence of sin. He for

mulated two reasons why God permit

ted sin: first, because of man's liberty

of the will; and second, to evidence

God's overruling of evil that He may

bring forth

good

from evil. Arminius

refused to subject his reason to

the

Word of God and made his reason the

rule of faith.

In his reply

to

Perkins'

pamphlet

Arminius wrote about the distinction

between peculiar grace and common

grace. Peculiar grace is the efficacious

grace of God whereby He irresistibly

draws the elect to salvation.

Common

grace is the grace of God shown to all

mankindwhereby menare restrained

from

the

evildoing to

which

their sin

ful nature prompts them by a fear of

punishment and are driven on by a

sense of reward to do things, contrary

to their own sinful nature and chOice,

which are in outward conformity to

the law. Arminius objected to this

distinction because he did not see pe

culiar grace as irresistible. He said

that

man can exercise his free-will

and

thereby reject peculiar grace. This ren

ders it ineffectual. I f his s the case, the

distinction does

break down because

the call to salvation, offered

by

the

grace of God, is common to all men.

In

contrast, Arminius developed a

distinction between salvationprovided

and salvation applied. Salvation pro

vided means the sacrifice of Christ,

given

by

the grace of God, is sufficient

forall men. Therefore, God couldcom

mand

all men to believe. According

to

Arminius, salvation is applied only to

those who through faith are obedient

to God's command for belief. Thus,

according to Arminius, it is

the

obedi

ence

of

men that governs the applica

tion of salvation.

The Development oj nninianism

After the death of Anninius, his

disciples further developed his theol

ogy. The orthodox group hoped the

Julyl August,

1994

THE COUNSEL of

Chalcedon t

13


4/6

controversy would be buried with its

propagator. The opposite was true.

The followers ofAnninius stated things

even more boldly. The contentions

between them and the Reformed min

isters grew. Due to increasing pressure

from the orthodox party, the ministers

who held to conditional predestina

tion thOUght it necessary to offer a

Remonstrance (1610) addressed to the

States-General. Consequently, the

fol

lowers of Anninius became known as

the Remonstrants and those who op

posed them were known as the

Contra-Remonstrants. The leaders of

the Remonstrants were Simon

Episcopius and

John

Uitenbogaert.

Uitenbogaert was the court preacher

for Prince Maurice. The Remonstrants

als.o

gained

the

favor

of John

Oldenbarneveldt, who was the d v o ~

cateofHollandandadistinguishedstates

man. Thus they had considerable influ

ence among the States- General.

The Remonstrants disliked the con

finement of the Heidelberg Catechism

and the

Belgic

Confession. Therefore,

they addressed their Remonstrance to

the States-General to get these creeds

revised. In the Remonstrance, they

delineated their points of contention

with the Contra-Remonstrants and ad

vanced

five

articles which defined their

own position.

The doctrines rejected are thus

stated:

1. That God has, before the fall, and

even before the creatioll of man, by an

unchangeable decree, foreordained

some to eternal life and others to eter

nal damnation, without any regard to

righteousness or sin,

to

obedience or

disobedience, and simply because it so

pleased him, in order

to

shqw the

glory of his righteousness to the one

class and his mercy to the other ...

2. That God, in view of the fall, and

in just condemnation of our first par

ents and their posterity, ordained

to

exempt a part of mankind

from

the

consequences of the fall, and

to

save

them by his free

grace,

but

to

leave the

rest, without regard to age or moral

condition, to their condemnation, for

the glory of his righteousness ...

3. That Christ died, not

for

a men,

but only

for the elect.

4. That the Holy Spirit works in the

elect by irresistible grace,

so

that they

must be converted and be saved; while

the grace necessary and sufficient for

conversion, faith,andsalvationiswith- .

held from the rest, although they are

externally called and invited by the

revealed will of God.

S. That those who have received this

irresistible

grace

can never totally and

finally lose it, but are guided and pre

served by the same grace

to

the end

Then the Remonstrance sets forth

the

five

articles as follows:

FIRST ARTICLE

Conditional Predestination. "God

has immutably decreed,

from

eternity,

to save those men who, by the grace of

the Holy Spirit, believein]esus Christ, .

and by the same' grace persevere in

obedience of faith to the end; and, on

the other hand,

to

condemn the unbe

lievers and unconverted

SECOND ARTICLE

Universal Atonement. "Christ, the

Saviour of the world, died for all men

and for every man, and his grace is

extended

to

all. His atoning sacrifice is

in and of itself sufficient

for

the re

demption of the whole world, and is

intended

for

all by God the Father. But

its inherent sufficiency does not nec

essarily imply its actual efficiency. The

grace of God inay be resisted, and only

those who accept it by faith are actu

ally saved.

He

who is lost, is lost

y

his

own guilt

THIR

ARTICLE

Saving Faith.

Man in hisfallen

state

is

unable to accomplish any thing really

and truly

good,

and thereforealsounable

to attain

to

saving

truth,

unless he

be

14 THE COUNSEL ofChaIcedon July August, 1994

regenerated and.

renewed

y

God

in

Christ through the

Holy

Spirit

FOURTH ARTICLE

Resistible Grace. Grace is

the

begin

ning,

continuation,

and end of ourspiri-

tuallife, so that man can neither think

nor do

any

good or resist

sin

without

prevening,

co-operating, and

assisting

grace. But as for the manner of

co-operation, this

grace

is not iriesist

ible, formany resist the Holy Ghost

FIFTH ARTICLE

The

uncertainty of Perseverance.

Althoughgrace is sufficientandabun

dant to preserve the faithful through

all trials and temptations for life ever

lasting, it has not yet been proved

from

the Scriptures that grace, once given

can never be lost."

10

The

o n t r a ~ e m o n s t r a n t s

finally had

a published work which represented

the thought of Anninius and his

fol

lowers.

The

Remonstrance gave a for

mal representation of Arminianism.

Though Anninius and his followers

had been promoting their theology for

some

time,

there had not yet been a

systematic statement of what they be

lieved. The Contra-Remonstrants took

immediate action. Theyissued a call to

the States-General for the meeting of a

national

Synod.

Through the influ

ence of Oldenbarneveldt, however, this

call went unheeded for a time.

The ormulation o

the Five

Points o

Calvinism.

After

the presentation of the ,Re

monstrance, the controversy became

more hotly contested. The Remon

strants pleaded

for

toleration and a,

ceptance

of

their

views. The

Contra-Remonstrants wanted the is

sues settled by the Scriptures. In

Zealand, a province where the

Contra-Remonstrants dominated, the

ministers developed a form of strict

subscription

to the Confession and the

Catechism. The

controversy

was

purely

theological,but because therewas such


5/6

a close tie in the Netherlands between

churchand state, the controversy soon

became ensnared in political issues.

Thus it required the attention of the

States-General.

Events Preceding the Synod o ort

In

May

1611 theStates-Generalheld

a conference at the Hague. They re

qUired the attendance of both parties

and sought

to

have the issue resolved.

The debate focused

on

the doctrine of

predestination. The Refonned minis

ters submitted a response

to

the

Re-

monstrance at this conference. They

declared the Refonned church's posi

tion

to

be as follows:

First, That for as much as the whole

race of mankind being created after

the image of God in Adam were in

volved and fallen in the sin of Adam,

and were thereby so tainted and cor

m pted, that

all men

since thattime are

conceived and born in sin, and so by

nature are become the children of

wrath, being dead in their trespasses,

and

consequently no more able of

themselves Sincerely

to

tum to God,

and

to

believe in Christ, than a dead

man to rise of himself from the grave

God has therefore exempted

and

freed

a certain number of

men

from this

general perdition, whom he in his

eternal and unalterable Council, of

mere [sic.] grace and favor, and ac

cording

to

the good pleasure of his

own Will has elected or chosen

to

salvation by Christ, through his just

judgment, passing

by

and leaving all

others in their sins.

Secondly, That

not

only the Adult,

who believe in Christ, and walk wor

thily according to

the Gospel, are

to

be

deemed the Elect children of God,

but

likewise all the children of the Cov

enant, as long as they do not actually

show the contrary; therefore Believing

Parents have no cause to doubt of the

salvation

of

their children who die in

their infancy.

Thirdly, That God did not consider

in such his Election, the faith or con-

version

of

his Elect, nor the right use

and application of his gifts, as causes of

the Election; but on the contrary, that

he resolved and decreed in his eternal

an unalterable Council, to grant to those,

whom according

to

his own good plea

sure hehadelected

to

salvation, faithand

perseverance, and so

to

save them.

Fourthly, That

for

this purpose, he

has first ofall graciously given his only

begotten Son, whom he delivered

to

the death

of

the Cross, for the Salva

tion of his Elect, in such manner, that

although the passion of Christ, as the

only begotten Son of God, is a suffi

cient ransom

for

the sins of all man

kind, yet, pursuant to the aforesaid

Council and Decree of God, it is only

efficacious in the Elect, or true Believ

ers, for the reconciliation

and

the par

don of their sins.

Fifthly, That moreover for the same

purpose God causes his holy Gospel

to

be preached, and the Holy Ghost to

operate externally, by the preaching of

the said Gospel; and internally,

by

his

particular Grace, with such power and

efficacy

in

the hearts of God's Elect,

that their understandings are thereby

enlightened, their wills changed and

renewed, that stony heart being taken

away,

and

a heart

of

flesh given them,

in such a manner, that they not only

receive thereby a power

to

enable them

to tum to God and believe, but that they

actually and freely tum and believe.

Sixthly, That those whom God has

thus purposed to bring to salvation,

are

not

only at some time

or

other thus

enlightened, regenerated, and re

newed, without any concurrence on

their own part, in order

to

their believ

ing

in

Christ, and being converted to

God; but that likewise by the same

efficacy and power of the Holy Ghost,

whereby they are once converted with

out their own co-operation, they are

likewise continually supported and

preserved nsuch manner, that though

the temptation of the flesh do always

attend them as long as they remain in

this life, by which means there

is

a

continual

war

between the flesh and

spirit, so

that they

fall sometimes

through weakness into grievous sins;

yet in this war or strife the Holy Ghost

is victorious, and prevails in them,

not

suffering the Elect of God so far to

resist the spirit of sanctification,

through the corruption

of

the flesh, as

that it should be wholly extinguished

in them;

and

that consequently they

shall never lose finallyand entirely the

true faith once bestowed upon them,

and

that

spirit

of

adoption which they

once received.

Seventhly, That nevertheless true

believers take

no

occasion from thence

to

abandon themselves carelessly [sic.]

to the sinful desires of the flesh, since

it

simpossible that they who are rooted

in Christ by nue faith, should not

bring forth fruits

of

thankfulness;

but

on the contrary, the more they feel and

are assured that od works

in them

both to will and do according to his

good pleasure, the more will they take

care

to work out their salvation with

fear

and

trembling; knowing that this

is the only means whereby God vouch

safes to support them, and bring them

to salvation: for which purpose also,

he uses all kind of exhortation and

threatenings in his word;

but

that

is

not

to

make them despair,

or doubt of

their salvation,

but

to stir

up

in them

such a fear and dread as children show,

by convincing them of he weakness of

their flesh, on which account they

would unavoidably perish,

i

hey were

not strengthened by the free

and un-

deserved Grace of God, the only cause

and foundation of their perseverance:

so that

though he

commands them

in

sCripture to watch and pray, yet nei

ther have they this of themselves, that

they are prepared for the warfare, that

they desireand obtain the assistance of

God;

but

only from the same spirit

which prepares them thereto of his

special grace, and powerfully supports

them

in

those conflicts.

July August, 994

TH

COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon

5


6/6

This

declaration

of

the

Contra-Remonstrants presented the

States-General with a formal rebuttal

of

the

Remonstrance. The ministers

presenting

this

document called for

the meeting

of

national Synod

to

setde

the , ssue. They promised their sub

mission to the ruling of such a Synod.

N

ow

both parties

had

declared their

positions to the States-General. They ,

ruled thatboth groups should strive to

maintain peace and act as Christian

brothers. They prohibited preaching

on the contested issues,

but

did

not

see

the necessity of calling a national

Synod, for they believed both parties

couldwork

out

their differences. Thus

the States-General allowed the Remon

strants to continue propagating their

errors, though neit from the pUlpit,

, and they told the Contra-Remonstrants

to refrain from being contumacious.

,Contrary to the expectation of the

States-General,

the

controversy did not

die down. The Remonstrants contin

ued to cause strife among the minis

ters

who

were

not

sympathetic with

their cause. They sought to remove

those ministers from their churches

and . wherever possible, to cast them

out of

the city as well. In 1613, the

States-General mandated another con

ference. At this conference the

Re

monstrants still desired toleration of

their views. The Contra-Remonstrants

conceded to tolerate only the five ar

tides of

he Remonstrance on the con

dition that a national Synod be called

to rule

on

the issue

and

that

both

parties agree to subject themselves to

the ruling

of such a Synod. The

States-General recognized theneed for

a national Synod; however, due to

procedural wrangling on behalfof the

Remonstrants, they were unable to

call a Synod until 1618.

, Meanwhile, thecontroversycontin

ued to

grow, creating greater civil

un-

rest.

With

the Reformed miniSters'

expulsion

by

the magistt:ates sympa

thetic with the Remonstrants, the con

troversy became a political problem;

involving the question

of

he extent of

the civil magistrate's authorityin eccle

siastical affairs. The Netherlands be

came divided between two parties: the

supporters of provincial-rights and

the supporters of nationalism. Those

who supported provincial-rights in

cluded the wealthier merchant classes

led by Oldenbarneveldt and Hugo

Grotius. The Rern,onstrants favored this

parry because they sought individual

provincial rnlings in matters of reli

gion. Thus, they could conrtol vatious

provinces while they remained a -

nOrity.The Contra-Remonstrants sup

portedwe nationalist party which was

led by

Prince Maurice.

Thenationalist party continuallype

titioned the States.General to calla

national Synod. The States-Genellli re

mained hesitant to call such an assem

bly because they viewed the ruling of

a national Synod as an infringement

upon

the supremacy

of

each province

to

setdeits ownreligiOUSmatters. Once

again the influence of Oldenbarneveldt

is evident in the decision of the

States-General.

Finally

in

1617, the States-General

concluded that a national Synod was

necessary for the peace of the country.

This decision brought resistance from

the

magistrates who favored the

Arminians. They issued a call to anns

to protect the Remonstrants and pre

vent their reqUired attendance at the

national Synod. Prince Maurice quickly

stepped

in

with military force and

quelled the rebellion. The nationalist

party considered this rebellion trea

sonous

and

punished the leaders;

namely, Oldenbarneveldt and Hugo

Grotius

A civil ,

court tried

Oldenbarneveldt for treason and or

dered his execution. Grotius was im

prisoned

on

esser charges

and

later he

escaped. With the rebellion

sup-

pressed, the 'States-General prepared

fOf

the meeting of the national Synod

which was to meet in Dordrecht on

6 T THE COUNSEL

of

Cba1cedon T

July/

August, 199 1-

November 13, 1618. To

beconduded

next month.

1.

Originally,

the Armtntans were uncer

tain whether a truly regenerate person could

lose his

sa

lyation.

2. At

the time of

Arminius' flourishing

,

the

do

ctrines

of

Calvinwere notgivenany

spedal

recognition

by

the

Dutch

churches,

for

they

were

doctrines

held

by all the Reformed

h u r h ~ throughout

Europe.

Therefore, the

term Calvinist or CalviniSm was notused

to

distinguish

a

man

or

his

theology.

3

A

classis

is comparable

to

a presbytery.

The Pr

es

bytman form of

government

uses

the titles session, pre

sbytery

and general as

sembly.

The

Ref

o

rm

ed

tradition

corresponds

in its

form of o v e r n m but uses the titles

consistory,

classis

and synod

.

4. The Synod of Harlem was a provincial

Synod. The Netherlands was

divided

int

Documents

1994 Issue 6 - The Synod of Dort: The Formulation of the Five Points of Calvinism - Counsel of Chalcedon