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

It was certainly permissible and understandable, from their vantage point that they would plead for "tolerance", albeit, "tolerance" doesn't convey the same meaning as "mercy". What the Arminians brought to the floor was intolerable because it was antithetical to the doctrines of their own church/denomination, never mind the Reformed churches everywhere. The punishment(s) which were typically exacted by the government were not unique to that period of time. Thus, IF you are using the word "tolerance" to mean "mercy" in regard to their punishment, then yes I would agree that death would be harsh, to say the least. However, I can sympathize with a punishment of exile in order to try and stem the propagation of their damnable heresy among the people of that region.

Again, what policies America has enacted have no bearing upon any other country, especially one that was in existence 400+ years prior. God has endowed the State (government) to wield the sword to protect its citizens. If a government believes that idolatry, blaspheme and such sins/crimes against God are worth of death or exile, then they are within their God-given rights to enact them.

As I have stated more than once already, the Arminians knew full well the potential sanctions which they could have faced if found guilty of serious heresy in the Church in Holland. I can only assume that they being aware of the seriousness of their venture and the punishment that could be ordered by both Church and State, they felt the matter was worth the risk(s).


I can only conclude that you still haven't yet grasped the profundity of the doctrines of Arminianism or perhaps you simply refuse to do so. Again, I have made it very clear in previous responses to you that Arminianism, as it was set forth and explained in detail at the Synod of Dordt, in large part by Episcopius, Curcellæus, Limborch, and Grotius, was antithetical to the doctrines of the Reformed churches and in particular to those doctrines summarized in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. Classic, historic Arminianism holds to a different God, a different Jesus, a different Spirit and another Gospel. The differences between what the Arminians posited as being antagonistic against the established Reformed Church were not simply a matter of opinion or perspective. This fact is incontrovertible. The two 'systems' (Arminianism and Calvinism), at very least in regard to the "Five Points" are diametrically opposed. The issue was fundamental to the doctrine of Soteriology (salvation)... How is a man made right with God?

And, in case you weren't aware of another factoid... These same men eventually rejected the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide, making "faith", a free-will choice which they wrote was the more than the proximate cause of justification; i.e., it was the ultimate cause of justification, thus reversing what Scripture and all the Protestant Churches affirmed. This grievous error has been maintained by all Arminians since that time and even hailed as one of the 'marks' of distinction among nearly all semi-Pelagian churches. My article, which I have provided a link to twice already, explains this error in graphic and simple detail so that hopefully, even a child could grasp it. A basic side-by-side comparison of the two systems can also be found HERE.