7. It was in response to this “Remonstrance” that the Synod of Dordrecht was convened.
Yes, but if you want to tell me what the Remonstants believed, you should quote them - not the opposition who may or may not understand or recite correctly their doctrine.
8. The importance of recognizing the modus operandi, tactics of the Arminians for today:
a. They used recognized terms but having redefined them secretly.
b. They used “proof texting” without sound exegetical support; out of context.
c. They constantly pleaded for “tolerance” by those in opposition.
d. They always professed to be Reformed, i.e., in complete agreement with the church.
They are Reformed, that is, protestants who agree with the 5 solas and all that. They are not Catholics. They followed the Reformation.
I do not see any instance of "proof-texting" from my readings of Arminius, the Remonstrance, or skilled Arminian theologians of today.
You are correct that Arminians and Calvinists use the same terms to mean different things - but who is redefining? Words mean what they are used to mean - that's why there are multiple definitions for each word in the dictionary. The only problem is when people equivocate, to confuse an argument.
Finally, when they plead for "tolerance," during that time in history, it's because they were not being allowed to be pastors, were exiled from their home towns, and one beheaded. It's not the same "tolerance" as we think of today (in politics).
