The Arminian Challenge and the Reformed Response

As the Reformation spread throughout Europe, it was regularly beset by various controversies. One of the most significant such controversies arose at the end of the sixteenth century. It centered on the teachings of the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560–1609) and his students. The impact of this controversy continues to be felt to this day.

Who Was Jacob Arminius?

Arminius was educated in Reformed universities. He studied, for example, in Geneva under Theodore Beza and was considered by Beza to be an outstanding student. He was ordained in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands, which meant he was to teach according to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. He served as a pastor in Amsterdam for many years before assuming a teaching position at Leiden. During his time as a pastor, questions were raised about his theology as he preached through Romans. Questions continued to be raised during his time as a professor.

An investigation into Arminius’ theology was initiated, and at the request of the magistrates, Arminius wrote his Declaration of Sentiments in 1608. The theological focus of this work is the doctrine of predestination. Arminius’ colleague at Leiden was Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641). Gomarus’ doctrine of predestination was supralapsarian, meaning that he believed God’s decree of election came logically prior to His decree of the fall, and Arminius had strong objections to this view. The debate between Gomarus and Arminius was cut short when Arminius died of tuberculosis in October 1609. The controversy, however, did not end there, as Arminius’ students picked up where he left off.

The Arminian Articles

In January 1610, under the leadership of Johannes Uytenbogaert (1557–1644), forty-three Dutch ministers met and drew up a public petition. This Remonstrance contained the Arminian Articles, five articles in which the Remonstrants discussed the points of doctrine on which they differed with the Reformed confessions. The first article presents the doctrine of conditional election. The second article teaches unlimited atonement. The third article states the Remonstrants’ view of the fall and grace. The fourth article teaches the doctrine of resistible grace. Finally, the fifth article raises doubts about the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

The controversy continued to intensify, and in 1619, the Synod of Dordt was called to deal with the matter. Most of the delegates were Dutch, but there were also many from the Reformed churches in surrounding nations. The leader of the Remonstrants at the synod was Simon Episcopus (1583–1643). The Synod requested, and the Remonstrants eventually submitted, a statement of their views. The Opinions of the Remonstrants is a much more detailed document than the 1610 Arminian Articles. It is also much more clearly opposed to the confessions of the Dutch Reformed Church.

Article 1 deals with predestination and asserts:

God has not decided to elect anyone to eternal life, or to reject anyone from the same, prior to the decree to create him, without any consideration of preceding obedience or disobedience, according to His good pleasure, for the demonstration of the glory of His mercy and justice, or of His absolute power and dominion.

It continues: “The election of particular persons is decisive, out of consideration of faith in Jesus Christ and of perseverance; not, however, apart from a consideration of faith and perseverance in the true faith, as a condition prerequisite for electing.” In other words, election is conditional. God elects those whom He foresees will believe and persevere.

In Article 2, the Remonstrants unambiguously assert the doctrine of unlimited atonement, saying:

The price of redemption which Christ offered to God the Father is not only in itself and by itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race but has also been paid for all men and for every man, according to the decree, will, and the grace of God the Father; therefore no one is absolutely excluded from participation in the fruits of Christ’s death by an absolute and antecedent decree of God.

The document combines articles 3 and 4 on God’s grace and man’s conversion. The main ideas found here are the doctrine of prevenient grace and the denial of irresistible grace. We read, for example:

The efficacious grace by which anyone is converted is not irresistible; and though God so influences the will by the word and the internal operation of His Spirit that he both confers the strength to believe or supernatural powers, and actually causes man to believe, yet man is able of himself to despise that grace and not to believe, and therefore to perish through his own fault.

In Article 5, the Remonstrants no longer raise doubts about perseverance. They now completely deny it: “True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish.” With regard to assurance, the Remonstrants teach that believers can be assured of their present salvation, but they cannot be assured that they will never fall away.

The Synod of Dordt

The Synod of Dordt responded to the Remonstrant doctrines in the Canons of Dordt. One of the first things to notice about this is that the Synod of Dordt was not called to provide a summary of Reformed doctrine or a summary of “Calvinism.” The Remonstrants set forth their doctrine in five articles, and the Synod responded to those five articles. As Daniel Hyde explains in his book on the doctrines of the Synod of Dordt, “What Reformed churches in the Dutch tradition believe is most fully confessed in the thirty-seven articles of the Belgic Confession and 129 questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism.”¹ In other words, there are far more than five points of Calvinism. The so-called five points of Calvinism are specific responses to specific criticisms on certain doctrines related to soteriology.

The Canons of Dordt respond to the Remonstrant teachings point by point. Under each head of doctrine, several articles expound the biblical doctrine. This is then followed by a rejection of various errors related to the doctrine in question. The first head of doctrine, for example, discusses predestination. Eighteen articles are devoted to a positive biblical explanation of the doctrine. This is followed by a rejection of nine errors. The first head of doctrine teaches unconditional election:

Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation. (First Head, Art. 7).

The Second Head of Doctrine outlines the doctrine of definite atonement. The Synod first observes the value of the death of Christ in Article 3: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” In Article 8, the Canons explain the specific purpose of the death of Christ:

For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.

The Third and Fourth Head of Doctrine explain the doctrines of total depravity and God’s grace. Article 3 states concerning the state of fallen man:

Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.

This is why irresistible grace is necessary, as Article 12 explains, “so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe.”

Finally, the Fifth Head of Doctrine reaffirms the confessional Reformed doctrine of perseverance of the saints. As Article 8 explains:

Thus, it is not in consequence of their own merits or strength, but of God’s free mercy, that they do not totally fall from faith and grace, nor continue and perish finally in their backslidings; which, with respect to themselves, is not only possible, but would undoubtedly happen; but with respect to God, it is utterly impossible, since His counsel cannot be changed nor His promise fail, neither can the call according to His purpose be revoked, nor the merit, intercession and preservation of Christ be rendered ineffectual, nor the sealing of the Holy Spirit be frustrated or obliterated.

Historical Impact

The Arminian challenge to the doctrine and practice of the Reformed Churches was far-reaching and long-lasting. Although the Synod of Dordt rejected the Remonstrant doctrines, the teachings survived in various ecclesiastical settings. Some Arminians continued to develop the doctrines in a more and more Pelagian direction. Others developed the doctrines along more evangelical lines. We see this, for example, in Wesleyan theology. Twentieth-century dispensationalists often referred to themselves as four-point Calvinists because they accepted one of the points of Arminianism—namely, unlimited atonement.

All of this started as a result of Arminius’ difficulties with predestination and his suggestion that election is conditional upon foreseen faith. Often, in contemporary debates, one will hear this idea expressed in these words: “God looks down the corridors of time and elects those whom He foresees will believe in Jesus.” A moment’s consideration, however, will reveal the serious problems with this idea. What exactly are “the corridors of time” that God is looking down, and where did these corridors come from? For God’s election to be truly as unconditional as Arminians desire, these “corridors” would have to exist independently of God. That, however, would lead us outside of biblical Christianity altogether. But if the “corridors” and all that is going on within them are not independent of God, then neither can election be conditional in the Arminian sense of the term. In other words, as the Synod of Dordt understood, if God is God, Arminian doctrine is ruled out.