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
of Calvin. They resulted from the Synod
of Dott. The 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 the pervasiveness 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
esy 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
i
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. In 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 official meet-
University of Geneva under Theodore ing, the date of 1592 is assigned as the
Beza, who was Calvin's successor. In- official beginning of the 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 of Divinity 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 Quill Award" by the Faculty of Christ the University of Leyden.
College fOT its excellence in TesearCh' form, style, and content.
Julyl August, 1994 ~ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon ~ 11
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 his views
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 did not think, that his refutation of
the Anabaptists, would oblige him to
declare his whole mind about the doc-
trines of Predestination and Free Will."
It 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 produced any 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 position as 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
of some 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 the 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 free
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
agatnstthe Pelagians; 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, Anninius agreed 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 the partien-
lar clergy's sentinients regarding pre-
destination.
In 1604 Anninius delivered a thesis
on predestination that differed from
the position of Calvin. Gomarus im-
mediately opposed him on this issue.
Anninius defended himself by 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
12 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon July! August, 1994
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-
official manner because to do so would
undennine the authority of the Syn-
ods. Thus the conflict between
Anninius and the orthodox clergy con-
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. In contrast
to Anninius, Gomarus believed:
That it was appointed by an Eternal
Decree of God, who amongrnankindshould
be saved, andwho should be 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 to remain in
the common corruption. of humane na"
ture, and in their own iniquities.
8
In doing this, Gomarus sought to
lay before the States-General the points
of contention. He knew that Arminius
would not be able to equivocate when
it came to his presentation of predesti-
nation, grace, free-will, and persever-
ance. When the conference 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. As 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 sermons show the 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 anything good or bad, that the
purpose of Godaccording to election might
stand, notofworks, butofhim thatcalleth,
itwas said unto her, "The elder shall serve
the younger." Even as it is 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 the covenant
seed and Esau as the anti -type of the
children of the flesh. Arminius be-
lieved that the predestination of be-
lievers as a class was absolute; whereas
the predestination of individuals is
contingent upon whether or not the
individual has faith. Arminius believed
that God establishes His election on
the basis of His foreknowledge, but
His election is conditional. He said
forelmowledge penains to God's know-
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 the corridor of time 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
soteriology and 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 followers published it 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
mankind whereby "men are 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. If this is 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 salvation provided
and salvation applied. Salvation pro-
vided means the sacrifice of Christ,
given by the grace of God, is sufficient
for all men. Therefore, God could com-
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 Anninianism
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
... ~
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
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 aU 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 by his
own guilt ....
THIRD ARTICLE.
Saving Faith. "Man in his fallen 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 by God in
Christ through the Holy Spirit ....
FOURTH ARTICLE.
Resistible Grace. "Grace is the begin-
ning, continuation, and end of our spiri-
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.
"Although grace 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 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 Formulation of
the Five Points of Calvinism.
After the presentation of the ,Re-
monstrance, the controversy became
more hotly contested. The Remon-
strants pleaded for toleration and a,C-
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 there was such
a close tie in the Netherlands between
church and state, the controversy soon
became ensnared in political issues.
Thus it required the attention of the
States-General.
Events Preceding the Synod of Dort
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 he had elected to salvation, faithand
perseverance, and so to save them.
Fourthly, That for this purpose, he
has first of all 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 in such 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 finally and 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 isimpossible 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 God 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 the weakness of
their flesh, on which account they
would unavoidably perish, if they 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 desire and 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, 1994 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 15
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 , issue. 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 that both 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
could work 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 the 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 the need for
a national Synod; however, due to
procedural wrangling on behalf of 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 the 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 mi-
nOrity. The Contra-Remonstrants sup-
ported we 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 own religiOUS matters. 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 lesser 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
16 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 salyation.
2. At the time of Arminius' flourishing , the
doctrines of Calvinwere notgivenany spedal
recognition by the Dutch churches, for they
were doctrines held by all the Reformed
throughout Europe. Therefore, the
term "Calvinist" or "CalviniSm" was not used
to distinguish a man or his theology.
3. A classis is comparable to a presbytery.
The Presbytman form of government uses
the titles session, presbytery and general as-
sembly. The Reformed tradition corresponds
in its form of but uses the titles
consistory, classis and synod.
4. The Synod of Harlem was a provincial
Synod. The Netherlands was divided int<
provinces which weT< responsible for their
own" loocal government both civil and reli-
gious. ,TheStates-Gen<ral which was the title
for the national government constrained the
civil administration. Whtreas tht
States-General hesitated to inte1ere with the
religiOUS government of the individual prov-
inces. As will be seen later, this would change
as tht Arminian controversy grew.
5. Geuaut Brandt, The History af the
Reformation and Other Ecclesiastical T rans-
actions In and About the Low Countries:
From the Beginning of the Eighth Century
Down to" the Synod of Dort, Inclusive. Trans.
by John Chamberlayne (London: T. Wood
1720-1723; repro USA: AMS 1979, bk. 1,
2:4.
6 Brandt, 2:25
7 Thomas Scou, trans., The Articles of the
Synod of and its Rejection of Errors:
With the History of Events Which Made Way
for that Synod, as Published by the Authority
of the States-General; and the Documents
Confirming its Decisions. (Utica, NY :Will-
iam WiUiams, 1831), 10.
8 Brandt, History of the Reformation, 2:31
9. Henry H. Meeter, The Basic Ideas of
Calvinism, 6th ed., rev. by Paul Marshall
(Grarld Rapids: Baher, 1990), 52.
10 Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Chrstendom:
Witha History and erincalNotes. Vol. 1, The
History of Creeds. Rev. by Dcivid. S. Schaff.
(Harper arid Row, 1931; reprint, GrandR"P':
ids: Baker, 1990) 517-519.
11 Brandt, History of the Reformation,
2:94,95