Chapter 4
The Synod of Dort Unmasked
Many people interested in the subject of the believer’s security are totally unaware of the Synod of Dort (Dordrecht) which convened hundreds of years ago in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, that Synod held by the Reformed church is an extremely important event that must be addressed for more than one reason. This is especially true since it is sometimes addressed in teachings or discussions, and its decrees are implied as the final word on the issue of the Calvinism/Arminianism controversy, which would affect the believer’s security. Therefore, Dort continues to profoundly affect the Protestant world in this present hour!
Please note the importance laid upon the Synod of Dort from the following:
The views of the Remonstrance[1] were rejected as heretical[2] at a National Synod in Dort 1618-1619. The Synod also set out to present the true Calvinistic teaching in regard to the five matters called into question. They stated what we know today as the five points of Calvinism. The term Calvinism was derived from the great reformer John Calvin (1509 to 1564), who along with many others, expounded these views.
The “five points of Calvinism” presented at the Synod are as follows: (1) total depravity, (2) unconditional election, (3) limited atonement or particular redemption, (4) irresistible grace or the efficacious call of the Spirit, and (5) perseverance of the saints or eternal security (italics his).[3]
Others have said:
This term [Calvinism] comes out of the seventeenth century, largely in opposition to the teachings of Arminius condemned by the Synod of Dort in 1618.[4]
. . . [at] the convocation of the Synod of Dordrecht of 1618-1619, Remonstrantism was condemned as heterodoxy. . .[5]
The controversy between Arminians and Calvinists culminated in the Synod of Dort (1618-19), at which Arminianism was condemned and Calvinism asserted in the strongest possible terms.[6]
This system of theology [Calvinism] was reaffirmed by the Synod of Dort in 1619 as the doctrine of salvation contained in the Holy Scriptures. The system was at that time formulated into “five points” (in answer to the five points submitted by the Arminians) and has ever since been known as “the five points of Calvinism.”[7]
. . . Calvinism in its classical form actually took shape in heated debate surrounding the teachings of James Arminius (1560-1609). The center of the controversy occurred in Holland and was officially resolved at the Synod of Dort (1618-19), which approved the well-known “five points of Calvinism.”[8]
These citations, and many others like them, note only the historical fact that, at Dort, Arminianism was rejected as heretical or condemned and Calvinism was approved. But they don’t mention critical background information as to how, why or, in this case, the basis of that condemnation. If you are like most, you are in for a shock as the Synod of Dort is about to be unmasked!
James Arminius
Before we get to these little-known facts, something should be mentioned about James Arminius (1560-1609), who was dead before the Synod of Dort convened in 1618:
He was at first a strict Calvinist, but while engaged in investigating and defending the Calvinistic doctrines against the writings of Dirik Volckaerts zoon Koornheert, at the request of the magistrate of Amsterdam, he found the arguments of the opponent stronger than his own convictions, and became a convert to the doctrine of universal grace and of the freedom of will. He saw in the seventh chapter of Romans the description of a legalistic conflict of the awakened but unregenerate man, while Augustine and the Reformers referred it to the regenerate. He denied the decree of reprobation, and moderated the doctrine of original sin. He advocated a revision of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. He came into open conflict with his supralapsarian colleague, Francis Gomar (1563-1645), who had conferred on him the degree of doctor of divinity, but now became his chief antagonist. Hence the strict Calvinists were called ‘Gomarists.’ The controversy soon spread over all Holland. Arminius applied to the Government to convoke a synod (appealing, like the Donatists, to the very power which afterwards condemned him), but died of a painful disorder before it convened. He was a learned and able divine; and during the controversy which embittered his life he showed a meek, Christian spirit. ‘Condemned by others,’ said Grotius, ‘he condemned none.’[9]
Regarding the believer’s security, Arminius wrote:
In the beginning of faith in Christ and conversion to God the believer becomes a living member of Christ; and, if persevering in the faith of Christ, and keeping a conscience void of offence, remains a living member. But if it happen that this member grows slothful, is not careful over itself, gives place to sin, by little and little it becomes half-dead; and so at length, proceeding still further, dies altogether, and ceases to be a member.[10]
Before The Synod Of Dort Occurred
Politically, the Calvinists were at a definite advantage before the Synod convened:
After the magistracy of the country was purged of its Arminian influence, it proceeded to call the long-awaited national synod. It was held at Dordrecht in 1618-19, under the presidency of the Leeuwarden minister Johannes Bogerman.[11]
The controversy became mixed with political issues; the Remonstrants were supported by the powerful Oldenbarneveldt, but opposed by the stadhouder Maurice of Orange. . . . Deprived of their chief political supporter, the Remonstrants were helpless, and the synod speedily declared their teachings erroneous.[12]
Those Who Presided At Dort And The Fate Of Arminianism
Strict Calvinists were in charge of the synod, but that’s not all you should know:
John Bogerman, pastor at Leuwarden, was elected President; Festus Hommius, pastor in Leyden, first Secretary—both strict Calvinists. The former had translated Beza’s[13] tract on the punishment of heretics into Dutch; the latter prepared a new Latin version of the Belgic Confession. The whole Dutch delegation was orthodox.[14] Only three delegates from the provincial Synod of Utrecht were Remonstrants, but these had to yield their seats to the three orthodox members elected by the minority in that province. Gomarus[15] represented supralapsarian[16] Calvinism, but the great majority were infralapsarians or sublapsarians.
Thus the fate of the Arminians was decided beforehand. Episcopius[17] and his friends—thirteen in all—were summoned before the Synod simply as defendants, and protested against unconditional submission.[18]
Earlier, the man who chaired the great Synod of Dort started “a crusade against a group of Anabaptists who were holding worship services in the quiet of their own houses.” He urged the magistrates to “strike down valiantly these monsters in the guise of men.”[19]
There was a national synod, nine years after his [Arminius’] death, the Synod of Dort of 1618-19, and so far was it from the vision of Arminius that the Arminians themselves were never even seated as delegates, but were only summoned as culprits to appear before it for condemnation.[20]
The Remonstrants were not seated but appeared only as the accused.[21]
This information alone is most revealing as it shows Dort was not an impartial arena for both sides to be presented and unbiasedly evaluated by Scripture alone, as you might have supposed.
Imagine, the fate of the Arminians was decided beforehand! From this missing detail alone, it should now be apparent as to why this, and other related facts, have been concealed by those fully informed about Dort and who unjustly use the Synod of Dort against Arminianism. But that’s not all! Something else proceeded from those who presided at Dort besides a mere condemnation of Arminianism.
Persecution Of Arminian Christians
The victory of orthodoxy was obscured by the succeeding deposition of about two hundred Arminian clergyman, and by the preceding though independent arrest of the political leaders of the Remonstrants, at the instigation of Maurice. Grotius[22] was condemned by the States-General to perpetual imprisonment, but escaped through the ingenuity of his wife (1621). Van Olden Barneveldt[23] was unjustly condemned to death for alleged high-treason, and beheaded at the Hague (May 14, 1619) . . . Some secular historians denounce it [the Synod of Dort] as a Calvinistic tribunal of inquisition.[24]
Their doctrines were condemned; they were forbidden to preach or worship on pain of banishment and confiscation; many of the ministers had to flee the country. Some of them were imprisoned in the Loevestein castle. Hugo Grotius was imprisoned there too, but his wife enabled him to escape by smuggling him out in a book chest.[25]
Remonstrant ministers were ousted from their pulpits, and Remonstrant leaders ousted from the country (by the Estates-General, as disturbers of the peace). The synod ended with a banquet 9 May 1619, celebrating the triumph of Calvinist orthodoxy. Oldenbarneveldt was executed shortly afterward.[26]
. . . 1625 ended the persecution of the Remonstrants.[27]
As mentioned earlier, Van Olden Barneveldt (or Oldenbarneveldt), the political leader who favored Arminianism, was unjustly condemned to death at the age of 71 and beheaded. The charge against him was never proven:
. . . Oldenbarnevelt was charged with high treason. This charge turned out to be unprovable, but the old pensionary was nonetheless condemned, sentenced to death, and then executed on 13 May 1619 in The Hague.[28]
We should be aware of another charge brought against the Arminian Christians and the doctrinal standards used for their condemnation. These are cited in that order and will be your next surprises.
The Arminian Christians—Disturbers Of The Peace
Remonstrant ministers, some 200, were ousted from their pulpits, and many exiled for disturbing the peace.[29]
The synod took the position that it was convened to judge whether the Remonstrant position was in accord with the Calvinist confessions, and cited Episcopius and other Remonstrant leaders to appear before it. Despite Remonstrant protests that the issue was whether the confessions should be revised, synod proceeded. . .
Judging the Remonstrants by their writings, then, the synod not surprisingly concluded that they were not orthodox. The Canons[30] were written to summarize the orthodox position against the Remonstrants, and affirmed total depravity (i.e., man, after the Fall, cannot choose to serve God), unconditional election (God’s choice of the elect is not conditioned on any action by them), limited atonement (Christ died for the elect only, since those He died for are saved), irresistible grace (divine grace cannot be rejected by the elect), and perseverance of the saints (once elect, always elect). The Canons were adopted as one of the standards of the Dutch Reformed Church.[31]
Acceptance of these points [The Remonstrance of 1610] would have meant revising the Belgic Confession[32] and the Heidelberg Catechism, generally accepted as doctrinal standards by the Dutch Calvinist churches.[33]
Before moving on, please note that “Sola Scriptura” was not the practice of these Reformers, since they held the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism as their doctrinal standards!
What Was Considered Heresy?
Below, in capsulized form, is what the Arminians held to as presented in the Remonstrance. This is what was condemned as heretical:
After Arminius’s death in 1609, Uytenbogaert[34] took the lead in drawing up the Remonstrance of 1610. . . . The Remonstrance sets forth five points,[35] all dealing with Arminius’s [sic] attempt to soften the orthodox Calvinist idea of predestination and save something of man’s free will. It holds that the decree of predestination is not absolute, but conditioned on man’s response; that the offer of salvation is directed to all men, and all men in principle can be saved; that man can exercise his free will properly only after receiving grace; but, that this grace can be accepted or denied; thus, believers can fall from grace.[36]
It should be apparent that there is nothing heretical about these statements, as many Bible-believing, evangelical Christians would attest to. In spite of this, however, Dort still made such a bold pronouncement—one that continues to be quoted in our day!
The Calvinistic Unchangeable Standards
The Remonstrance was but one episode in an ongoing struggle over the interpretation, authority, and possible revision of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism in the Dutch church. The Calvinists upheld the documents as unchangeable standards. In November of 1608 the States of Holland and West Friesland had invited the Arminians to present their alternative views. Upon the death of the Leiden theologian Jacobus Arminius on 19 October 1609, his party felt pressed to act. They met, probably in Gouda, and on 14 January 1610 fourty-four ministers signed the Remonstrance, which is believed to have been composed by Johannes Wtenbogaert, court chaplain at The Hague and a long-time intimate friend of the late Arminius . . . . by 1619 only thirty-four signatories [of the Remonstrance of 1610] were left. They were deposed from their offices. Ten of them, to avoid deportation or imprisonment, agreed to be silent. By the time the Remonstrants could regroup a decade later as a separate church, only a handful of the signatories of 1610 remained with them.
The Remonstrance renewed the Arminian insistence that the States call a national synod that would revise the confession and catechism, favored by the Calvinists, to bring these formulas “in harmony with the word of God.”[37]
The struggle over the authority of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism in the Netherlands was going on even before Jacob Arminius died in 1609:
[The truce and the national synod of 1607]: The delegates divided on question six: Should the delegates be bound only by the word of God? Thirteen delegates wanted to bind the delegates to the Confession and Catechism as well as to Scripture. Four delegates submitted a minority report with a simple yes to the question. They were Arminius, Uitenbogaert, and two Utrecht ministers, Everhardus Bootius and Henricus Ioannis. This was the crux of the matter: whether Scripture should be the supreme authority in terms of which Confession and Catechism could be revised, or whether the Confession and Catechism should be determined a priori to be so conformable to Scripture that not even Scripture could judge them. Arminius and his friends were outvoted. The majority argued that the Catechism was of Palatine origin and that the Dutch Church had no authority to change it. The minority argued that the foreign origin of the Catechism was reason enough for the Dutch to revise it. And they could point to other lands where confessions were revised, including France and England (italics his).[38]
Please notice the all-important reason why the Arminians were condemned as heretics was because their views were not in accord with the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, the Calvinistic standards of that day!
Orthodox Calvinism achieved a complete triumph. The Five Articles of the Remonstrance were unanimously rejected, and five Calvinistic canons adopted, together with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.[39]
Remember, the political and religious leaders when Dort convened were biased against Arminianism. Since Calvinism was the already accepted orthodox standard of doctrine in that part of the world, to stand opposed to double predestination and other points of Calvinism was to automatically show yourself heretical! Hence, the condemnation of Arminianism was a foregone conclusion, since those in power were not willing to consider possible revisions of their confessions based on the standard of the Bible, as the Arminians wanted:
The Remonstrants maintained that the synod was a free conference, not having decisive power, and that scripture was the only authority in doctrinal matters. . . . The “Canons of Dordrecht,” or “Five Articles against the Remonstrants,” were officially proclaimed as an explanation of certain points of the Belgic Confession. This extensive document defends the doctrine of double predestination and rejects the Remonstrant view of predestination as based on human faith or unbelief, as foreseen by God. Soon it gained a confessional status as one of the “formulas of concord” for the Dutch Reformed church together with the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. . . . until 1630 leading Remonstrants in the republic were persecuted.[40]
DORT, SYNOD OF: The largest and, next to the Westminister Assembly, the most imposing of all synods of the Reformed Churches, convened by the States General of the Netherlands at the instance of the Calvinists to try to settle the disputes between the latter and the “Remonstrants,” or followers of Jacobus Arminius . . . the first sessions were devoted to a discussion of a new translation of the Bible, and it was agreed that three members should undertake the Old Testament, and three others the New; it was then declared that the Heidelberg Catechism should be expounded in sermons in all the churches.
Not until Dec. 6 and the twenty-second session was the main business of the gathering reached. The Remonstrants were told that they could merely express their opinions and the Synod would pronounce judgment. Against this they immediately protested. Episcopius in an eloquent speech said that they had all come of their own accord, and that they should not be accused of heterodoxy; while they were ready to discuss the dogmas in question, they would not submit to any human power or belief, but only to the word of God in the Holy Scripture.[41]
At a final session on 9 May 1619 the Synod drew up 93 canonical rules and confirmed the authority of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism (italics theirs).[42]
All of this information is vital in understanding the condemnation of Arminianism at the Synod of Dort. Without it, one would have a distorted view of what brought about the outcome. Few people seem to be aware of these facts, which has led to a gross misrepresentation of Arminianism and the validation of an unfair, completely-biased, Calvinistic synod and its pronouncements which ended with banishment, imprisonment or death for the Arminian Christian leaders! After its pronouncements, and especially because of its persecution of Christians, the Synod of Dort has been rightly denounced by some as a Calvinistic tribunal of inquisition.
While the Arminian Christians exalted the Bible as final authority, in contrast the Calvinists cited the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism as doctrinal standards and the basis for the Arminian condemnation!
Arminian Christians Persecuted
Regarding the Synod of Dort and its persecution of the Arminian Christians, the eternal word of God simply but accurately states that we can know them by their fruit (Mt. 12:33). Remember this when spiritually assessing those who presided at Dort.[43]
In Scripture, one never sees any but the unsaved persecuting the Christians, who reasoned from the Scriptures alone! This is undeniable and indisputable fact that should always be mentioned when Dort’s condemnation of Arminianism continues to be boldly and unashamedly cited, while the basis of the heresy pronouncement and the persecution on the Arminian Christians is never mentioned! These missing details speak volumes.
A Summary And Final Word
The preceding pages have shown, among other things, that:
(1) The decisions at Dort regarding the condemnation of Arminianism were a foregone conclusion, before the Arminians presented their Scriptural case;
(2) The Arminians appeared only as defendants;
(3) Their primary point of contention was over double predestination and wanting a revision of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism; and
(4) After their condemnation, the Arminian Christian leaders were severely persecuted.
In brief, the Synod of Dort was ruled by men who were biased against Arminianism, highly indoctrinated in Calvinism and willing to persecute Christians who opposed them doctrinally.[44]
All of this information is not common knowledge and will not be readily cited by those trying to defend the perseverance of the saints (OSAS) or any other point of Calvinism.
A historian of this period gives an interesting view of the Synod of Dort. T. C. Grattan, in THE HISTORY OF THE NETHERLANDS, says of it: “Theology was mystified; religion disgraced; Christianity outraged. And after six months’ display of ferocity and fraud, the solemn mockery was closed by the declaration of its president that its miraculous labours had made hell tremble. Proscriptions, banishments, and death were the natural consequences of this synod. The divisions which it had professed to extinguish were rendered a thousand times more violent than before. Its decrees did incalculable ill to the cause they were meant to promote. The Anglican church was the first to reject the canons of Dort with horror and contempt. The protestants of France and Germany, and even Geneva, the nurse and guardian of Calvinism, were shocked and disgusted, and unanimously softened down the rigour of their respective creeds” (quoted in THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD, Vol. XIII, p. 564 fn.).
So this was the assembly that groaned in travail and brought forth the Five Points of Calvinism!
Yet some folks are so enamored of the five
points that they will praise the work of the Synod (capital emphasis and italics his).[45]
Ponder This . . .
Few people seem to be aware of these facts, which has led to a gross misrepresentation of Arminianism and the validation of an unfair, completely-biased, Calvinistic synod and its pronouncements which ended with banishment, imprisonment or death for the Arminian Christian leaders! After its pronouncements, and especially because of its persecution of Christians, it is easy to see why the Synod of Dort has been denounced by some as a Calvinistic tribunal of inquisition.
The condemnation of all of Arminianism at Dort (1618-1619) by strict Calvinists is similar to the condemnation of all of Protestantism at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) by strict Catholics. Should one justly dismiss all of Protestantism because Trent rejected it as heretical with over 100 anathemas, without considering background information about the people who issued such condemnation or the standard of truth by which such a condemnation was issued? God forbid! This is, likewise, how we should view Dort—if we are willing to look at it from an unbiased Scriptural perspective.
Regarding OSAS, Dort stated, “. . . Satan abhors it, the world ridicules it, the ignorant and hypocritical abuse it, and the heretics oppose it. . . .” (See App. K, Art. 15.)
That wasn’t the first time Christians were so labeled. Consider what Paul declared others said about Christianity:
. . . I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect (Acts 24:14, NIV).
The Greek word translated sect is hairesis. According to Strong, it can also mean heresy. Hence, the KJV reads:
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God. . . .
From this we learn that the Arminian Christians at the Synod of Dort were not the first to be fallaciously associated with heresy, since Paul was too.
----------------
Notes
[1] Remonstrance was the document formulating the five points of Arminian dissent from strict Calvinism (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. 2, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, p. 1066).
[2] Heretical means a doctrinal position at variance to a recognized standard.
[3] Robert P. Lightner, Sin, the Savior, and Salvation (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), p. 110. [Notice, Dr. Lightner makes no distinction between the perseverance of the saints and eternal security, as some try to do today.]
[4] The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J. D. Douglas, General Editor (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p. 179.
[5] The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, Vol. 2, Hans J. Hillerbrand, Editor in Chief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 198. The word heterodoxy means opposed to the orthodox position.
[6] John F. Walvoord in Five Views on Sanctification (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), p. 223.
[7] H. Wayne House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 100.
[8] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994 ed.), p. 585.
[9] The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1, Edited by Philip Schaff, Revised by David S. Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 510, 511.
[10] The Works of Arminius, Vol. III, The London Edition, Translated by James Nichols and William Nichols (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, Reprinted 1991), p. 470.
[11] Carl Bangs, Arminius (Grand Rapids, MI: Francis Asbury Press, Second Edition 1985), p. 356.
[12] The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J. D. Douglas, General Editor (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p. 835.
[13] Theodore Beza was John Calvin‛s successor at Geneva. [Beza‛s tract was written in defense of the execution of heretics (Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced, Murfreesboro, TN: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985, p. 122).]
[14] “Orthodox” in the context of the Synod of Dort means Calvinistic.
[15] Francis Gomarus was a strict Calvinist and the chief opponent of Jacob Arminius. Their controversy led to the Synod of Dort, where Gomarus himself played a prominent role.
[16] These are three theological terms (supralapsarian and infralapsarian, also known as sublapsarian), all of which are held by the Calvinists. Sublapsarianism is defined as: “The doctrine that God decreed both election and reprobation before the fall. Supralapsarianism differs from infralapsarianism on the relation of God‛s decree to human sin” (Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984, p. 1059).
[17] Simon Episcopius was the chief spokesman for the Arminians at the Synod of Dort.
[18] The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1, p. 513.
[19] Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced, p. 122.
[20] Bangs, Arminius, p. 279.
[21] Ibid., p. 356.
[22] Hugo Grotius was a leader of the Arminians at Dort sentenced to life imprisonment in 1618, but escaped years later in 1621 (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 489).
[23] Van Olden Barneveldt (or Oldenbarneveldt) was the political leader who favored the Arminians.
[24] The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1, pp. 514, 515.
[25] Bangs, Arminius, p. 356.
[26] The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 310.
[27] The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, Vol. 2, p. 55.
[28] Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 173.
[29] The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 835.
[30] Because of the length, only the Calvinistic Canon related to the Fifth Head, “the perseverance of the saints” is cited in Appendix K.
[31] The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 310.
[32] The Belgic Confession was composed in 1561 by Guido de Bres. “Distinctively Reformed elements may be found in the articles on election (16), sanctification (24), the government of the church (30-32), and the Lord‛s Supper (35). (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 132.)
[33] The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 835.
[34] Johannes Uytenbogaert (or Wtenbogaert).
[35] See Appendix I.
[36] The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 835.
[37] The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, Vol. 3, pp. 416, 417.
[38] Bangs, Arminius, p. 290.
[39] The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1, p. 514.
[40] The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, Vol. 2, pp. 2, 3.
[41] The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 494.
[42] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Second Edition, Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (New York: Oxford University Press, Reprinted 1990), p. 421.
[43] In 1646, several decades after the Synod of Dort, the Westminister Confession was drawn up. Regarding that Confession, we read: “Some members of the Assembly had participated in the Synod of Dort.” (Creeds of the Churches, Edited by John H. Leith, Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977, p. 192.)
[44] The condemnation of all of Arminianism at Dort (1618-1619) by strict Calvinists is similar to the condemnation of all of Protestantism at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) by strict Catholics. Should one justly dismiss all of Protestantism, because Trent rejected it as heretical with over 100 anathemas, without considering background information about the people who issued such condemnation or the standard of truth by which such a condemnation was issued? God forbid! This is, likewise, how we should view Dort—if we are willing to look at it from an unbiased, historical perspective, with Scripture alone as our authority.
[45] Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced, p. 123.
