In 1618 a national synod of Dordt was convened to deal with the question of Arminianism. Depending on how one dates things, it had only been one hundred years since the beginning of the Reformation. The Reformers were united in the main doctrines of the Gospel and of the Christian faith. They differed on certain issues, but they were united in what is now termed “Calvinism.” It is interesting to note that John Calvin did not set out the so-called five points, but in fact the Remonstrants (Arminians) had set out their five points in opposition to the doctrines that Calvin taught. It was the points that the synod gave that denied the teachings of the Remonstrants (Arminians) that are now called the five points of Calvinism.
We must notice that at this point the Reformed doctrines had been set out and defended from Scripture against Rome. Almost all of the churches that had escaped from Roman Catholicism held the Reformed teachings as being the teachings of Holy Scripture. The synod represented virtually the whole Protestant Church. Cunningham says this: “While the members of the Synod of Dordt thus represented, either formally or practically, the great body of the Protestant churches, they were themselves personally the most able and learned divines of the age, many of them having secured from themselves, by their writings, a permanent place in theological literature. This synod, after a full and deliberate examination, unanimously determined against the innovations of Arminius and his followers, and gave a decided testimony in favour of the great principles of Calvinism, as accordant with the word of God and the doctrines of the Reformation.” The synod convened, not just for one weekend, one week or even one month, but for six months. They rejected Arminianism strongly.
At this point we have to stop and think through some of the issues. Martin Luther fought against Roman Catholicism and its Arminian way of salvation and this was the primary cause of the Reformation. Luther believed that the issue of the will was of primary importance and that a person would not be converted until he gave up all hope in himself and his own will. We must not think that the Reformation was primarily over the issues of the Pope and of issues of rites; it was primarily over the issue of how man was and is to be saved. If God alone saves sinners by grace, then the will is not free. Luther congratulated Erasmus for hitting at the primary point of the issue when he wrote against Luther and his doctrine of the bondage of the will. The bondage of the will, at least for Luther, was at the very heart of the Gospel and in fact explained what he meant by grace alone which explained what he meant by justification by faith alone. The battle with Rome was indeed over the Arminian teaching of Rome and its Arminian teaching of the gospel. We now go to the Synod of Dordt. In that historical meeting the teaching of the Reformers was set out as the truth and the Arminian teaching was denounced. As we saw earlier, according to William Ames Arminianism is a dangerous error that tends toward heresy in its mitigated form. If it is not in a mitigated form, then it is to be considered as heresy. All the points of Arminianism were soundly rejected by the Reformers and the Synod of Dordt. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Confession are also very clear in teaching the doctrines taught by the Reformers and of the men of the Synod of Dordt.
What we have to face up to if we want to deal with reality is that the main theologians in the history of the Church since the Reformation have been decidedly against Arminian teaching and at the very least considered it as dangerous error that tended toward heresy. We must not flinch from this and we must not back off from it. We must also face up to the fact that the Reformers and those who followed them were either right or they were wrong. We cannot flee from this at all. Logically and biblically we have to say that they were either right or they were wrong. If they were right, then we have to see Arminian teaching as dangerous. If they were wrong, let us admit that they were wrong and stop calling ourselves Reformed. But I don’t believe that there is a middle ground on this issue. The Reformers and their children were either right or wrong on these issues.
It is helpful to note that there is a distinction between saying that Arminianism is a dangerous error tending toward heresy and then saying that all who are denoted as Arminians are unsaved. One point that must be held out is that it is the system of Arminianism that is being dealt with and not each person. There will be people who call themselves Arminians who are Calvinists and others who are Pelagians. We must set out the system for what it is and then each person can be seen in light of that on an individual basis. To be faithful to Scripture we must set out what a system really teaches before any individual person can be said to be in a system of thought or not. It is dangerous to say that a person is or is not a Christian if we don’t know what they really believe and love. Being faithful to God requires us to be diligent in these matters.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment