Dort Pitted Calvinists Against Arminians (The Unjust Killing of Oldenbarneveld)

Christian History Institute ^ | Christian History Institute

[HarleyD]

This article is nothing more than doublespeak. Consider the following statements:

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

So this is “new” thinking that hasn’t happened in the church for over 1600 years? Is that what the author would like us to believe now?

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.

[xzins]

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.