Oldenbarneveld in his old age
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).
I wonder if there ever was an apology.
by the Staff or associates of Christian History Institute.
John Oldenbarnevelt was a hero in the long struggle between the Netherlands and Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was he who convinced England and France to the side with the Dutch. He was also a firm supporter of William the Silent, the strong Dutch leader who won crucial victories against Spain.
Barnevelt in his old age.
After William was assassinated, Oldenbarnevelt threw his influence behind Maurice of Nassau to become the new Captain General of the Netherlands. The states agreed. John Oldenbarnevelt then negotiated a peace treaty with Spain by which Spain agreed to recognize the Netherlands as a separate nation for twelve years. So why did Maurice engineer a coup, arrest Oldenbarnevelt, try him for treason and execute him when he was seventy years old?
Religious and political issues were at stake. First and foremost, Oldenbarnevelt was an Arminian. Arminianism is an interpretation of Calvinism that says that our destiny is not completely fixed by God in advance. A man has some choice in whether or not he is saved, if no more than to say "yes" or "no" to God's offer of salvation. Salvation is not entirely by God's command. For years the strict Calvinists and the Arminians fought word battles over this issue.
Politics often mirrors faith. Oldenbarnevelt, champion of man's spiritual freedom, favored a freer nation and a more liberal government. He was for state's rights. The strict Calvinists preferred a centralized government and fewer state's rights.
The two positions could not be reconciled without much generosity on either side. Alarmed that the Arminian states were going to be suppressed, Oldenbarnevelt urged them to arm to defend themselves, a move Maurice viewed as treason. The Arminian states were Oldenbarnevelt's allies. It was they who had supported his peace plan when Maurice wanted to fight on.
Maurice declared himself on the side of the strict Calvinists, who were the majority in the Netherlands. Eventually the Calvinist states gave him complete authority to deal with the situation. Maurice arranged a meeting with the Arminian political leaders. As each one stepped into Maurice's apartment, he was arrested. The man Oldenbarnevelt had raised to power now had to seek his death.
Oldenbanevelt was brought to trial. The same men were both accusers and judges. Although he defended himself well, the nation's grand old statesman was found guilty of high treason. On this day, May 13, 1619, he was led to the scaffold and beheaded.
Resources:
"Arminianism." 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).
Motley, John Lothrop. Life and Death of John of Barneveld. (London: John Murray, 1904).
Various encyclopedia and internet articles
Oldenbarneveld in his old age
Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker committed sexual immorality. Therefore all charismatics are not christian. (sarcasm)
And I thought it was the Calvinists that did it.
(September 14, 1547, Amersfoort – May 13, 1619, The Hague) was a Dutch statesman, who played an important role in the Dutch struggle for independence from Spain.
Van Oldenbarnevelt studied law at Louvain, Bourges,Heidelberg and Padua, and traveled in France and Italy before settling in The Hague. He was a moderate Calvinist, so he supported William the Silent in his revolt against Spain, and fought in William's army.
Early political life
He served as a volunteer for the relief of Haarlem (1573) and again at Leiden (1574). In 1576 he obtained the important post of pensionary of Rotterdam, an office which carried with it official membership of the States of Holland. In this capacity his industry, singular grasp of affairs, and persuasive powers of speech speedily gained for him a position of influence. He was active in promoting the Union of Utrecht (1579) and the acceptance of the countship of Holland and Zeeland by William (1584). He was a fierce opponent of the policies of the Earl of Leicester, the governor-general at the time, and instead favoured Maurice of Nassau, a son of William. Leicester left in 1587, leaving the military power in the Netherlands to Maurice. During the governorship of Leicester, Van Oldenbarnevelt was the leader of the strenuous opposition offered by the States of Holland to the centralizing policy of the governor.
Becomes Land's Advocate
On March 16, 1586 [1], van Oldenbarnevelt, in succession to Paulus Buys, became Land's Advocate of Holland for the States of Holland, an office he held for 32 years. This great office gave to a man of commanding ability and industry unbounded influence in a many-headed republic without any central executive authority. Though nominally the servant of the States of Holland he made himself politically the personification of the province which bore more than half the entire charge of the union, and as its mouthpiece in the states-general he practically dominated that assembly. In a brief period he became entrusted with such large and far-reaching authority in all the details of administration, as to be virtually minister of all affairs.
During the two critical years which followed the withdrawal of Leicester, it was the statesmanship of the Advocate which kept the United Provinces from falling asunder through their own inherent separatist tendencies, and prevented them from becoming an easy conquest to the formidable army of Alexander of Parma. Fortunately for the Netherlands the attention of Philip was at their time of greatest weakness riveted upon his contemplated invasion of England, and a respite was afforded which enabled Oldenbarneveldt to supply the lack of any central organized government by gathering into his own hands the control of administrative affairs. His task was made the easier by the whole-hearted support he received from Maurice of Nassau, who, after 1589, held the Stadholderate of five provinces, and was likewise Captain-General and Admiral of the Union. The interests and ambitions of the two men did not clash, for Maurice's thoughts were centered on the training and leadership of armies and he had no special capacity as a statesman or inclination for politics. The first rift between them came in 1600, when Maurice was forced against his will by the States-General, under the Advocate's influence, to undertake an expedition into Flanders, which was only saved from disaster by desperate efforts which ended in victory at Nieuwpoort. In 1598 Oldenbarneveldt took part in special embassies to Henry IV and Elizabeth, and again in 1605 in a special mission sent to congratulate James I on his accession.
Truce with Spain
The opening of negotiations by Albert and Isabel in 1606 for a peace or long truce led to a great division of opinion in the Netherlands.
The archdukes having consented to treat with the United Provinces as free provinces and states over which they had no pretensions, Oldenbarneveldt, who had with him the States of Holland and the majority of burgher regents throughout the county, was for peace, provided that liberty of trading was conceded.
Maurice and his cousin William Louis, stadholder of Frisia, with the military and naval leaders and the Calvinist clergy, were opposed to it, on the ground that the Spanish king was merely seeking an interval of repose in which to recuperate his strength for a renewed attack on the independence of the Netherlands.
For some three years the negotiations went on, but at last after endless parleying, on the 9th of April 1609, a truce for twelve years was concluded. All that the Dutch asked was directly or indirectly granted, and Maurice felt obliged to give a reluctant and somewhat sullen assent to the favorable conditions obtained by the firm and skillful diplomacy of the Advocate.
Religious conflict in the Netherlands
The immediate effect of the truce was a strengthening of Oldenbarneveldt's influence in the government of the Dutch Republic, now recognized as a free and independent state; external peace, however, was to bring with it internal strife. For some years there had been a war of words between the religious parties, known as the Calvinist Gomarists (or Contra-Remonstrants) and the (Arminians, moderate Calvinists).
In 1610 the Arminians, henceforth known as Remonstrants, drew up a petition, known as the Remonstrance, in which they asked that their tenets (defined in five articles) should be submitted to a national synod, summoned by the civil government. It was no secret that this action of the Arminians was taken with the approval and connivance of the Advocate, who was what was styled a libertine, i.e. an upholder of the principle of toleration in religious opinions.
The Gomarists in reply drew up a Contra-Remonstrance in seven articles, and appealed to a purely church synod. The whole land was henceforth divided into Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants; the States of Holland under the influence of Oldenbarneveldt supported the former, and refused to sanction the summoning of a purely church synod (1613). They likewise (1614) forbade the preachers in the Province of Holland to treat of disputed subjects from their pulpits.
Obedience was difficult to enforce without military help; riots broke out in certain towns, and when Maurice was appealed to, as Captain-General, he declined to act. He did more, though in no sense a theologian; he declared himself on the side of the Contra-Remonstrants, and established a preacher of that persuasion in a church at the Hague (1617).
Holland declares sovereign independence (Scherpe Resolutie)
The Advocate now took a bold step. He proposed that the States of Holland should, on their own authority, as a sovereign province, raise a local force of 4000 men (waardgelders) to keep the peace.
The States-General, meanwhile, by a bare majority (4 provinces to 3) agreed to the summoning of a national church synod. The States of Holland, also by a narrow majority, refused their assent to this, and passed (August 4, 1617) a strong resolution (Scherpe Resolutie) by which all magistrates, officials and soldiers in the pay of the province were required to take an oath of obedience to the States of Holland on pain of dismissal, and were to be held accountable not to the ordinary tribunals, but to the States of Holland.
It was a declaration of sovereign independence on the part of Holland, and the States-General of the Republic took up the challenge and determined on decisive action. A commission was appointed, with Maurice at its head, to compel the disbanding of the waardgelders. On the 31st of July 1618 the Stadholder appeared at Utrecht, which had thrown in its lot with Holland, at the head of a body of troops, and at his command the local levies at once laid down their arms.
His progress through the towns of Holland met with no opposition. The States party was crushed without a blow being struck.
Arrest and trial
On the 23rd of August, by order of the States-General, the Advocate and his chief supporters, Hugo Grotius and Hoogerbeets, were arrested.
Oldenbarneveldt was, with his friends, kept in the strictest confinement until November, and then brought for examination before a commission appointed by the States-General. He appeared more than sixty times before the commissioners and was examined most severely upon the whole course of his official life, and was, most unjustly, allowed neither to consult papers nor to put his defence in writing.
On the February 20, 1619 he was arraigned before a special court of twenty-four members, only half of whom were Hollanders, and nearly all of them his personal enemies. It was in no sense a legal court, nor had it any jurisdiction over the prisoner, but the protest of the Advocate, who claimed his right to be tried by the sovereign province of Holland, whose servant he was, was disregarded.
It was in fact not a trial at all, and the packed bench of judges on Sunday, 12th May, pronounced sentence of death. On the following day the old statesman, at the age of seventy-one, was beheaded in the Binnenhof in The Hague. Such, to use his own words, was his reward for serving his country forty-three years.
Analysis
The accusations brought against Oldenbarneveldt of having been a traitor to his country, whose interests he had betrayed for foreign gold, have no basis in fact. The whole life of the Advocate disproves them, and not a shred of evidence has ever been produced to throw suspicion upon the patriot statesman's conduct.
All his private papers fell into the hands of his foes, but not even the bitterest and ablest of his personal enemies, Frans Aarssens, could extract from them anything to show that Oldenbarneveldt at any time betrayed his country's interests.
That he was an ambitious man, fond of power, and haughty in his attitude to those who differed from him in opinion, may be granted, but it must also be conceded that he sought power in order to confer invaluable services upon his country, and that impatience of opposition was not unnatural in a man who had exercised an almost supreme control of administrative affairs for upwards of three decades.
His high-handed course of action in defence of what he conceived to be the sovereign rights of his own province of Holland to decide upon religious questions within its borders may be challenged on the ground of inexpediency, but not of illegality.
The harshness of the treatment meted out by Maurice to his father's old friend, the faithful counsellor and protector of his own early years, leaves a stain upon the Stadholder's memory which can never be washed away.
That the prince should have felt compelled in the last resort to take up arms for the Union against the attempt of the province of Holland to defy the authority of the Generality may be justified by the plea rei publicae salus suprema lex. To eject the Advocate from power was one thing, to execute him as a traitor quite another.
The condemnation of Oldenbarneveldt was carried out with Maurice's consent and approval, and he cannot be acquitted of a prominent share in what posterity has pronounced to be a judicial murder.
Personal life
Oldenbarneveldt was married in 1575 to Maria van Utrecht. He left two sons, the lords of Groeneveld and Stoutenburg, and two daughters. A conspiracy against the life of Maurice, in which the sons of Oldenbarneveldt took part, was discovered in 1623. Stoutenburg, who was the chief accomplice, made his escape and entered the service of Spain; Groeneveld was executed.
The Nederland Line ship Johan van Oldenbarnevelt carried his name from 1930 to 1963.
References
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.
Hit in the head with a Dutch Staff
A Story similar to that of Dutch Hero, Robeeeen Hooood
Oh, get off it man! Grievances dating back 700 years have absolutely no probative value. So what if some Calvinists back then did some nasty deeds? It is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of their claims that God is sovereign and saves and reprobates whomever He will. It is a red herring, calculated only to prejudice readers.
The canons of Dort are not - and could not be - discredited by the actions of government. "Falsely charged with treason, he was beheaded." Treason was not a charge within the Church, nor did the Church authorities have the ability to bring treason prosecutions. That was a failing of Dutch government in the 1600's.
Scattered throughout this piece of pulp propaganda is the fallacious assumption that 1600's Holland can be judged according to the standards of 20th century American secularism. You find me a single country in the 1600's that tolerated religious dissent. (crickets).
From the participants or descendants of Dort. I've posted the history from at least 2 sources and it seems to be the same. We could go for other sources, but I suspect they'll also say the same. It's hardly pulp history.
In any case, it goes to the climate of the age, and it speaks to the nature of the meetings, synods, hearings, etc. that were held.
It sounds as if there was no ability to speak or be heard, so one can only wonder what really went on with Arminius, Grotius, Remonstrants, etc.
And the so-called "political safety" of Arminius is fiction. No wonder he was careful about speaking out.
Sounds to me like anyone who would have spoken up in opposition to the majority (er, rather, the unanimous) position of the council of Dordt would have had a shortened life expectancy.
Another supporter, Hugo Grotius (who became the father of international law), was sentenced to life in prison but managed to escape.
...the States of Holland under the influence of Oldenbarneveldt supported the [Remonstrants], and refused to sanction the summoning of a purely church synod (1613). They likewise (1614) forbade the preachers in the Province of Holland to treat of disputed subjects from their pulpits.Interesting. It appears that Oldenbarnevelt was, like Arminius before him, very much an Erastian in believing that civil authorities should have final jurisdiction in all matters (including those within the church)....
The States of Holland, also by a narrow majority, refused their assent to [a national church synod], and passed (August 4, 1617) a strong resolution (Scherpe Resolutie) by which all magistrates, officials and soldiers in the pay of the province were required to take an oath of obedience to the States of Holland on pain of dismissal, and were to be held accountable not to the ordinary tribunals, but to the States of Holland.
Of course, I'm sure you recognize that Oldenbarnevelt's arrest and execution was the result of the political battle being waged between the States-General and the States of Holland, and not the result of the theological battle being fought by the church synod (as the OP implies).
Funny. What the OP implies and what the subsequent articles say paint two entirely different pictures. The OP implies that he was arrested on charges of treason trumped up by Calvinist ministers and delegates in order to kill off a heretic. The other articles don't appear to support such a notion.
Which is irrelevant.
The case for Calvinism is not found solely in the pages of historical theology. It is found in the detailed exegesis of Romans 9-11, Ephesians 2, and John 6.
Playing around with this justification of Arminius and his acolytes serves only to gratify the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history. It really is neither here nor there.
Interesting climate, wasn't it?
Definitely a climate from which good decisions and good directions for future generations would flow.
I'm sure, as well, that everyone was freely speaking out without fear of reprisal.
It would almost make an observer of that history reluctant to allow that era to be determinative about anything.
So why are we even talking about it?
see #17.
I'd pick a different era as my reformation standard bearer
Because it is held up as the standard bearer. Therefore, it is open to dissection.
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.