Gregory A. Wills: "Arminianism did not prosper in the Netherlands"

Gregory A. Wills summarily writes about the Synod of Dort's response to the Remonstrants, followers of Jacob Arminius.

'The Arminian Remonstrants summed up their doubts [i.e. concerning the purported teachings of John Calvin by Theodore Beza, et al] in five points. The Dutch church hosted the Synod of Dort, a gathering of the leaders of Europe's Reformed churches, which answered each point…These became known as the "five points of Calvinism."'¹

Wills then writes, "Arminianism did not prosper in the Netherlands but attracted many followers in England and America."

So far so good I suppose.

But...

While what Wills writes about the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) is generally true, the impression he surely leaves upon the reader by what he doesn't write or qualify seems grossly unfair and perhaps even a bit irresponsible.

Consider.

Yes, it's true Arminianism did not prosper in the Netherlands (at least immediately after Dort). But Wills fails to hint as to perhaps the main reason why that may have been the case. As a result of what famed historian, Phillip Schaff, indicated was a rigged outcome against the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort ("the fate of the Arminians was decided beforehand"), approximately two hundred ministers were defrocked from the ministry with at least eighty being either thrown in prison or banished from Holland. Government officials, Van Olden Barneveldt and Hugo Grotius were arrested for collaborating with heretics, the former beheaded at The Hague soon after the Dort synod was dismissed, while the latter presumably escaped a similar fate by first escaping jail.²

Given these ignored facts, one can surely understand better why Arminianism did not prosper in the Netherlands after the Synod of Dort. Arminianism was condemned as heresy, and consequently a capital offense for embracing it.

¹Wills, G.A. Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South, 1785-1900. Oxford University Press, USA. 2003:102-103

²Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The History of Creeds, vol. 1 (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1878), 514.

Comments

[Lydia]

Selective history gets very old from supposed "scholars" as young minds become slaves to it and never learn to think!

[Scott Shaver]

Absolutely Lydia.

They're still framing and redacting the history today.

They believe in the rights of the unborn but not the living if the narrative of any living departs from the party line.

See if I can get tossed out of SBC Tomorrow for the hat trick..LOL

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia:

On a slightly sarcastic note: Peter keeps putting up all this excellent historical source material while OTHERS, tell us we're bitter and stuck in the past for discussing history.

What do you make of this?

[Scott Shaver]

Are Calvinists "bitter" and "stuck" in the past for wanting us to embrace reformed church structures and ecclesiology 400 years old?

They (reformed Calvinists) have no problem with history as long they're the ones telling the story.

SBC "Trads" don't want to even remember history beyond 20 years.

It's insane.

[peter lumpkins]

OK, I'm bitter, if that's what they think. But I hope they don't hold their breath thinking I'm going to stop pillaging around in Baptists' old forgotten closets. :^)

[Lydia]

Scott, I don't think the accusation of 'bitter" carries the weight it used to. It has been so over used that it comes off as a last ditch effort to try and make the other party defensive. If they call me bitter, I usually remind them they forgot "Jezebel" and "pelagian". I mean a false accusation should really carry some punch! :o)

The new favorite word from that movement to describe themselves is "winsome". An odd choice for the manly men of biblical manhood--- but there you are.

[Lydia]

There is a huge push to map freedom, free enterprise, etc to Calvinism. It is a horrible reading of history. History is just not that black and white and people were operating within very controlling oppressive religious/ state systems. In that environment any movement toward self government in industry is radical. But still must be approved. They operated more with in a Fascism religious structure.

Agenda driven religious historical scholars bother me the most. They answer the wrong questions to drive their agenda. They are constantly doing this with Calvins Geneva, too.

I honestly believe that the turn toward licentiousness that has come out of these European countries is a direct result of the controlling religious Oppression of so many years. People tend to over correct such things.

[Scott Shaver]

"Winsome" with the qualifier of "what's left" would be accurate Lydia? ;)

[Scott Shaver]

Kinda hard to feel spiritual kinship with a Christianity that shackles and imprisons its own. Ask Sir Thomas Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury. Struggled to his death over having Cristians burned at the stake in his zeal against Lutheranism. Human beings just aren't equipped to make that call unless in war or self-defense. Holds equally true as to WHO actually holds the keys to Christ's church.