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

That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, has determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the gospel in John iii. 36: ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,’ and according to other passages of Scripture also.


That, agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the gospel of John iii. 16: ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ And in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: ‘And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.’


That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, in as much as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John xv. 5: ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’


That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and co-operative grace, can neither think, will nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, in as much as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost.


That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John x. 28: ‘Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand,’ But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

They were ARMINIANS who opposed the doctrines of the Reformation as inumerated in the OFFICIAL doctrinal statements of the Reformed Church; Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, to which they gave subscription before being ordained. They were anti-Reformed. You cannot rewrite history to make those individuals anything but what they were nor diminish what they did. If you are sympathetic, then the problem is yours and not a problem with the extent written history of what transpired. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the dozens and dozens of books and documents I have read concerning the Quinquarticular Controversy of 1618-19. With little variation, they are all in agreement. Do I hear "Revisionism" being suggested here?

The only thing that is confused is YOU. The definitions of the terms used at the Synod of Dordt were changed by the followers of Arminius because they objected to the doctrines of the church to which they belonged as members and ministers. Now who is equivocating? The nearly 18 months of deliberations sufficed to expose and refute the heresy of the Arminians. They used the same tactics that nearly every heretic uses; claim to be in agreement with the existing standards, only want to make some small revisions to those standards for clarity, redefine terms without making known of the redefinitions so as to confuse, and last but certainly not least is the plea for "tolerance". The goal, of course is to remain within the communion and spread their heresy among as many as possible. Arius used the same modus operandi, as did Barth and his neo-Orthodox followers and even in our day, those who are promoting the damnable heresy of "Federal Vision", "NPP", "Shepherdism" and their morphs. No one bought their sales pitch then and some of us who have learned from history and who know the Scriptures aren't buying it today either.

And why should they have been allowed to be pastors in the Protestant Church? They opposed what the Protestant Reformed Churches believed, preached and lived according to their Confession and Catechism and historically. I doubt they were so naive to think that they were not risking their positions and even their lives given how the government and churches existed in that time.

What is bothering me and I am sure others who are reading your responses, is how it is you think that all of the professors and ministers and other representatives who attended the Synod of Dordt were bereft of biblical understanding, intellectual prowess and/or discernment; that the Holy Spirit had totally abandoned each and every one who sat in judgment over the Arminian antogonists, so that they did not rightly understand what the Arminians really believed... but YOU do, some nearly 400 years after the fact. Further, that all the books that have been written by historians and theological teachers have gotten the facts wrong concerning what went on at Dordt and distorted and/or misconstrued what the Arminians really believed... but YOU have got all right.