The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "Is Calvinism the Gospel?"

And,

1. You have avoided answering my direct question(s) and implication that ALL of those who attended the great Synod of Dordt, which was precipitated by the submission of the Arminian (followers of Arminius) "Remonstrance", either misunderstood their position and/or misconstrued their position. I am certainly justified in using the term "ALL" for the decision of the Synod was unanimous. So, I'll ask once again, Is it your contention that ALL of the attendees who represented the Protestant Reformed churches from various countries summarily misunderstood and/or misconstrued what the Arminians held to be true?

2. The "Remonstrance" was submitted as a summary of those five areas of doctrine which the Arminians believed the Belgic Confession was in error and needed correction. The details of what the "Remonstrance" summarized were discussed in detail during the nearly 18 months that the Synod was convened. Those details were recorded and appear under the relevant "points", having stated the positive statements of each doctrine, after each of those statements as the "Rejection of Errors". UNLESS, what you are possibly contending in #1 is true, those "Rejection of Errors" are a true and accurate recitation of what the Arminians held to be true.

Thus, in regard to "my" error of misunderstanding what classic Arminianism holds to believe in regard to the area of theology known as soteriology; the doctrine of salvation, I simply affirm what the Synod of Dordt concluded in this regard to Arminianism, in its doctrine and in the Synod's judgment. This I do NOT without having done my own study of the subject, both from what historical documents which were written during that actual event but also from the writings of those who came after and likewise dealt with these same issues in their day. Worthy of mention are Christopher Ness ((1621-1705), "An Antidote to Arminianism"; John Owen (1616–1683) Collected Works 16 Vol., The Death of Death in the Death of Christ; John Gill (1697-1771) The Cause of Grace and Truth; Jonathan Edwards (1703-1799) Freedom of the Will, Original Sin, Works et al; John Calvin (1509–1564), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Sermons, [i]The Eternal Predestination of God[/i], et al; John Lafayette Girardeau (1865-1898), "Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism"; and a host of other recognized scholars and pastors.

UNLESS, you are going to extend an indictment against ALL of these notable and learned men that they failed to grasp what Arminianism teaches and thus ALL of their treatises, books, articles, sermons etc., which span 400 years, my concurrence with those writings is hardly "hearsay".

Is it not possible that those who were actually present at Dordt and those who came afterward, who likewise engaged Arminians in their own day are more reliable than *your* understanding of Arminianism and those modern professed Arminians from whom you have accepted as true what they purport to be the truth of Arminianism?

Lastly, classic Arminianism as was elucidated at the Synod of Dordt came via the pen(s) of the "followers" of Jacobus Arminius, who had already died. These men are those to whom Arminius had been communicating with, albeit secretly, for several years, up and until 1609. Whether they were consistent with what the man Arminius believed is irrelevant. These men were the official representatives of the doctrines being espoused and stated by them to be the teachings of Arminius himself. IF the views of these men were contrary to what Arminius actually believed and taught, then the only thing one could say is that the label of "Arminianism" attached to what they submitted was a misnomer. But what they held to be true, regardless of the accuracy of the name attached to them, is what the Synod and all that followed rejected and what is rightly labeled as CLASSIC Arminianism.