1. The Background and Arminius
Jan Freeke
The Synod of Dort took place in the Netherlands, in the years 1618-19. The main business of the Synod was to resolve the Arminian controversy. This article describes this controversy and how the Synod dealt with it.
1. Context in which the controversy took place. The Reformation took root in the Netherlands in the sixteenth century. This had important political consequences. The Netherlands (Holland and Belgium) were under Philip II, King of Spain, who wanted to suppress the Reformation. This led to a war of 80 years’ duration: from 1568 to 1648. The revolt was led by Prince William of Orange and his successors. During this war, the Netherlands were split up into (a) a southern part (Belgium and southern parts of what is now The Netherlands), which found an accommodation with the King of Spain
1Based on a lecture given at the Theological Conference in October 2019.
and remained largely Roman Catholic and (b) a northern part (the greater part of what is now the Netherlands), which continued the revolt and were largely Protestant. Hence the Arminian controversy took place in a situation of war.
To understand the development of the controversy, it is important to take into account the political organisation of the Netherlands: in the northern part there was a union of seven regions which were ruled by the States-General. But the regions had a lot of autonomy. The region of Holland (in the west of the country) was the most influential. As a centre of trade, it brought in most of the tax revenue of the country. Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was the secretary of state for Holland, and a powerful figure in the Netherlands. The army was, at the time of the Arminian controversy, under Prince Maurice of Orange, who was responsible to the States-General. Hence there were various players in this conflict.
The Reformed Church had only recently been established. The same was true for the new political organisation of the Netherlands. As a result of this, there was uncertainty with regard to two issues: (1) the relation between church and state and (2) the character of the Dutch Reformed Church: will it be a confessional church with a Calvinistic creed or a broader church, with a great degree of tolerance?
There were developments in theological teaching. After the first Reformers, there were attempts to define Reformed theology using scholastic terminology. This gave rise to two approaches to the doctrine of election: a supralapsarian and an infralapsarian. These positions differ in their views on the sequence in the decrees of God. The supralapsarian position starts off with election and reprobation, and then sees the creation and the fall of man as consequences, flowing from that decree. The infralapsarian position takes the creation and fall of man as given, and then sees election as God’s choosing some out of the lost race of mankind to salvation and leaving others (reprobation). Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva; Perkins, a prominent Puritan theologian in Cambridge; and Gomarus, Arminius’ colleague at Leiden University, were supralapsarian theologians. It was a situation in which, for the Church, doctrinal positions were more accurately defined, and this could lead to doctrinal controversy.
2. Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) – his life and views. Jacob Hermans was born in 1560 in Oudewater, a small town between Gouda and Utrecht. His parents belonged to the Reformed Church in Gouda. Jacob had a turbulent youth. His father was a blacksmith. He died shortly after Jacob’s birth and left a widow and family in poverty. It was noticed that Jacob was a clever boy. Theodorus Aemilius, a friend of the family, took him to Utrecht, where
he attended the Latin school. When this friend died in 1574, Rudolf Snellius, another friend, took Jacob into his family. They moved to Marburg (in Germany), where Rudolf Snellius taught mathematics.
In 1575 a Spanish army attacked Oudewater and destroyed the town. There was a massacre of its inhabitants. When Jacob visited the place that year, he found his family all dead and the parental home burnt down. He returned to Marburg, but broke off his studies. As an orphan, he was now adopted into the family of Peter Bertius, a minister in Rotterdam.
In 1576 Jacob began his studies at Leiden University, initially in philosophy and mathematics, but in theology from 1581 onwards. He changed his name from Jacob Hermans to a Latin version: Jacobus Arminius. From a merchant guild in Amsterdam he obtained a bursary to study abroad, on condition that he would become a minister in Amsterdam, when his studies were completed. Jacob studied theology in Geneva (under Theodore Beza) and in Basel (under Jacob Grynæus). In Geneva he met Johannes Uytenbogaert, a fellow-student who became his life-long friend. Arminius returned to Amsterdam with testimonials from both the universities of Geneva and Basel, giving him high commendation.
On his return to Amsterdam, Arminius passed his presbytery exams and he was ordained as the fifth minister of the Amsterdam congregation in 1588. He married Elisabeth Reael, a daughter of an Amsterdam merchant, in 1590 and they had nine children.
Arminius was a popular preacher and also took an active share in the work of the Presbytery and regional Synod. In 1590 the Amsterdam kirk-session asked him to refute a book written by Coornhert, who criticised the doctrine of election as taught by Calvin and Beza. Arminius made a thorough study of the issues, but came to the conclusion that he shared some of these criticisms. This caused him great consternation. To one of his former teachers he wrote; “There is much discussion here about election, original sin and free will. It confuses me, however diligently I search the Scriptures and expositors and however much I pray to God for light.”
Also there was trouble in connection with some of his sermons. When preaching in Amsterdam, Arminius lectured through the Epistle to the Romans. When he came to Romans 7:24, “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin”, Arminius put forward the view that the Apostle Paul is speaking here of someone who is not born again – a born-again person is not carnal, but spiritual, and therefore this could not apply to the Apostle Paul himself. His fellow minister Peter Plancius accused him of teaching what contradicted the doctrine of man’s total depravity.
There were again difficulties when, the next year, Arminius gave an ex-
position of Romans 9. According to Arminius this chapter has to be interpreted in the light of the main teaching of the Epistle, which is that we are justified by faith and not by works. The election and reprobation spoken of in chapter 9 refers not to individuals, Arminius argued, but to two classes of people: election concerns those who believe and reprobation those who do not.
In 1598 the Puritan William Perkins published A Christian and clear treatise on the manner and order of God’s Predestination. Given his interest in the subject and his high regard for Perkins, Arminius studied this work and wrote down his comments in a work, Examen modestum libelli. It was written as a personal address to Perkins. Arminius completed it in 1602, the year that Perkins died. Hence Perkins never saw it. The work was published in 1612, after the death of Arminius (in 1609). Examination of this work gives us a better insight into Arminius’ views, which are given below.
Arminius agreed with Perkins that there is a decree of election. However, this decree is not an election of persons apart from their faith. Arminius quotes Romans 8:29, “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate . . .”. That is, God foresaw who would believe, and they were elected.
Perkins taught that Christ died only for the elect. According to Arminius, the decree of the Father to send the Son to atone for sinners precedes the decree of election. Christ died for all men, he claimed, on the basis of the words that God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). Yet, for Arminius, this does not mean that all will be saved. He taught that only believers will be saved. He made a distinction between the purchase and the application of the redemption.
Arminius objected to Perkins’ view on reprobation. Although Perkins acknowledged that people will be lost because of their unbelief, Perkins saw the decree of reproation as preceding their unbelief. Arminius believed that, for those who will be lost, their foreseen unbelief is the cause of their reprobation and precedes it. Arminius argued that God would be unjust, if that were not the case.
Arminius argued that Perkins’ views on election and reprobation were too deterministic and do not recognise the freedom of the human will. If someone sins because of a necessity flowing out of God’s decree, then the conclusion becomes inescapable that God is the author of sin; but this is blasphemous.
Arminius did not believe that man can save himself (Pelagianism). He acknowledged that God’s grace is necessary before a person can believe. Human nature, he argued, is such that man has the potential to believe. God’s grace first exercises its influence on the human will. The will then becomes active, and God gives follow-up, or subsequent, grace, which makes the person actually believe. This is the work of the Holy Spirit. But between
the first exercise of God’s grace upon the will and the granting of subsequent grace lies a human decision. According to Arminius, God’s grace is not irresistible.
On the issue of the perseverance of the saints, Arminius tends to the view that someone who has believed may change their mind and thus become a reprobate.
Perkins teaches that the gospel is to be preached, and salvation offered, to the whole congregation. But it should be made clear that God’s promises are only for the elect. Because of the general offer of salvation, unbelievers are without excuse. Perkins makes a distinction between God’s revealed will and His secret purpose. Arminius denies this distinction. The promises of the gospel are for the whole congregation and it is their responsibility to repent and believe. Arminius argues that unbelievers have an excuse if they do not believe a gospel that is not meant for them.
The above examination of Arminius’ views is necessary to get an understanding of the issues in the conflict. Section 5 will consider what the Canons of the Synod of Dort say on this.
Temptation1
W K Tweedie
Matthew 6:13. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
“Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.” Such is the mind of the Holy Spirit regarding temptation. For His own holy purposes, God may try us, as to “what manner of spirit” we are of. He may place us in new positions – and in providence expose us to new tests – but He cannot tempt us to sin with the purpose that we should commit it, as wicked men tempt each other.
Affliction may be sent to try our faith in God, and our patience under trial. When our religion is only that of the hand or habit, and not of the heart, God may in holy providence permit us to be tested, that the hollowness of our religion may become known to all as it is to Him. But as God Himself cannot be tempted to sin, so neither can He become the tempter of others. That is left to him who is at once the tempter and the accuser of the brethren. To show that He will be just when He judges, and clear when He condemns, God may draw out the evil that is already in our souls. He may unmask the
1Taken with editing from The Christian’s Daily Companion.
hypocrite, and cause our sins to correct us, but He can neither originate or perpetuate sin by any direct act of His.
But while the holy God tempts no one to perpetrate sin, trials may often come, and His people are often the most sorely tried. “The prosperity of fools shall destroy them.” And to prevent destruction, chastisement after chastisement is sent. Think of Job, how his temptations were multiplied – how blow after blow came, and how he was tempted at last to curse God and die. The tempter, for God’s holy purposes, was let loose on him; and so trying were the assaults that were made, both on his body and his soul, that the patriarch felt as if he would be overwhelmed in the conflict. But behold a greater than Job amid His temptations – the Son of God Himself. He is led into the wilderness expressly to be tempted, and how deeply His temptations entered into His righteous soul.
The first snare which the tempter laid for Him was intended to bring Him to deny the providence of His Father. The second would have led the Saviour either to commit suicide, or to tempt God to work a miracle to save Him. And the third would have led Him practically to dethrone the Eternal One and worship a creature in His stead. These were the temptations which befell the Man of sorrows while, for the accomplishment of His own holy purposes, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ permitted Him to be assailed. That He might know what sore temptation is, and be able to succour His people when they are tempted, He passed through that tribulation even as His people must do. And how full of comfort it is for them to feel that the Son of God is with them in the furnace – that in six troubles, and in seven, He is a God at hand to save!
But, though their covenant God is pleased to send temptation, His people are not forbidden to pray for its prevention or removal. The Redeemer Himself prayed in His agony: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me”; and one of the very purposes for which temptation is sent may be to foster a spirit of prayer – to bring His people near to Him who alone can shield them, and to keep them there. If trial is not removed, it may be blessed. If trouble on the right hand and on the left assails us, the grace of God may be magnified in supporting us under it. Thus good may be brought out of the seeming evil.
Yet lest we be tempted and snared and taken, the Christian should live on his watchtower; he should watch and pray, that he may not enter into temptation. As everything that the eye can look on, or the mind contemplate, may become a snare, the believer must ever live on his guard. He should make a covenant with his eyes that he will not fall into iniquity. He should not look “upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth its colour in the cup, when it
moveth itself aright”; for he knows that “at the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder”. It should therefore be his heart’s desire and prayer to shun the appearance of evil; when the wicked entice him, he should refuse to go. He should not watch without prayer, for that would be presumptuous self-confidence; he should not pray without watching, for that would be either superstition or hypocrisy; but he should combine the two – that is, he should watch and he should pray, he should take pains to be holy. And by the good hand of God upon him, he would thus be made more than a conqueror.
Let us now commune with our own hearts. Has it been thus with us? Temptation, in some of its countless forms, has assailed us all. Has patience had its perfect work? Have we been driven to Him who is able to save to the uttermost, even though our temptations were as numerous as those of Job, and heavy as those of Jeremiah, “the man that hath seen affliction”? Temptation is sent to show the sinfulness of sin. Have I discovered its malignity and loathsomeness in the eyes of a holy God? It is sent to show the need of a Saviour from sin. Have I felt my need of someone mighty to deliver? And have I fled to Him who compasses His people about with songs of deliverance?
Temptation or trial is sent to prompt us to repent, to show how intensely God hates sin, especially in His people, and therefore to lead them to deeper humiliation and repentance. “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore, and repent.” Have I profited by God’s warnings and fled from my sins to the Saviour? Or temptation is sent to teach us to cease from man. Our best-loved friends often allure us away from the “Friend that sticketh closer than a brother”. Creature confidence often at once robs God of His glory, and man of his peace. Have I therefore learned to cease from man and lean upon the Lord alone? Or further, trial is sent to deepen our attention to spiritual things. Have I learned, amid my temptations, to live in the Spirit and walk in the Spirit? Then, children of God, bless the Lord again. He has done great things for us. Tribulation is the way to the kingdom, and He has guided us in it.
[Christ] triumphed over Satan upon the cross and delivered the prey from the very jaws of that devouring lion, even in the crisis of His deepest humiliation. Thus He communicated life when He was in the very agonies of death, and He dispensed pardons and disposed of kingdoms as from a glorious throne even whilst hanging on the tree as a slave and a malefactor. But [the salvation of the thief] is a single instance in Scripture, an act of grace well suited to honour the extraordinary occasion. It should indeed teach us to despair of none, and that none ought to despair of themselves; yet, lest it should be abused, it was contrasted by the awful case of the other thief, who died hardened in unbelief, with a crucified Saviour before His eyes, as a warning to presuming sinners, that in general men die as they live. Thomas Scott