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