The Synod of Dort

[Xavier]

I'm curious as to the true significance of the Synod of Dort in the History of Christian Doctrine. Several Reformed proponents have attempted to use its findings as the Church's general finding that the positions of the Remonstrants were heretical.

However, from a cursory glance on material on Wiki as well as my recent interactions with Calvinist history in Britian, that position seems to be in doubt.

The Synod of Dort, held in order to settle a serious controversy in the Dutch churches initiated by the rise of Arminianism, met in the city of Dordrecht in 1618–1619 as a national assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church, to which were also invited voting representatives from the Reformed churches in eight foreign countries.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort

The fact that voting representatives were from "Reformed churches" caught my eye so I linked to that wiki article.

The Reformed churches are a group of Protestant denominations historically related by a similar Zwinglian or Calvinist system of doctrine but organisationally independent

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_churches

The article on Reformed Churches is about the modern Reformed Church, so it's definition needs to be taken with a grain of salt in regards to the Dutch Reformed church and those in other nations.

That said, my understanding of the Reformed Church at this time in history indicates that the same was true for that period.

Should it be surprising that a voting group consisting almost entirely of Calvinists would find against the Remostrants?

Further, what of the stories that certain key Remonstrants were not even allow to speak before the synod and its proceedings?

[Aetius II]

Keep in mind however that the Remonstrants were reformed and then changed their views. Before Arminius, every Protestant was Calvinist in Soteriology. The view of the heretical nature of Arminianism doesn't necessarily come from the findings at the synod of dordt, but from its origins in Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, condemn in the Coucil of Ephesus and the Council of Orange respectively.

[Xavier]

I notice that you didn't address ANY of my historical questions in favour of some historical revisionism. The fact that Catholic theology is largely synomynous with Arminianism should be a clue about the true place of the condemnations at Ephesus and Orange. Obviously, those brethern see some difference between both Pelagianism and "Semi-Pelagianism" that the Catholics (and the Eastern Church) do not.

[Aetius II]

I notice that you didn't address ANY of my historical questions in favour of some historical revisionism. The fact that Catholic theology is largely synomynous with Arminianism should be a clue about the true place of the condemnations at Ephesus and Orange. Obviously, those brethern see some difference between both Pelagianism and "Semi-Pelagianism" that the Catholics (and the Eastern Church) do not.
I don't think I understood the question. Sorry.

[Skyrider]

I notice that you didn't address ANY of my historical questions in favour of some historical revisionism. The fact that Catholic theology is largely synomynous with Arminianism should be a clue about the true place of the condemnations at Ephesus and Orange. Obviously, those brethern see some difference between both Pelagianism and "Semi-Pelagianism" that the Catholics (and the Eastern Church) do not.

Hi Xavier,

Could you rephrase this? I don't understand where you're going either.

Thanks,

Sky

[One Bad Pig]

Keep in mind however that the Remonstrants were reformed and then changed their views. Before Arminius, every Protestant was Calvinist in Soteriology.
Every Protestant? :no:

Is changing your view necessarily wrong?

[Adam]

Hi Xavier,
Quote: Originally posted by Xavier

I notice that you didn't address ANY of my historical questions in favour of some historical revisionism. The fact that Catholic theology is largely synomynous with Arminianism should be a clue about the true place of the condemnations at Ephesus and Orange. Obviously, those brethern see some difference between both Pelagianism and "Semi-Pelagianism" that the Catholics (and the Eastern Church) do not.
Could you rephrase this? I don't understand where you're going either.
Thanks,
Sky
As Xavier seems otherwise occupied....(someone should have PMd him)....
Xavier must mean that all of Christianity except for Calvinists did not see the Council of Ephesus (431 A. D.) and the (non-ecumenical) Council of Orange as necessarily condemning the position of the Remonstrants (and Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans and Anglicans, in large part in any case) as heretical Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.
Like the old Quaker couple, "I question the Faith of anyone besides me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee."
Let me add on my own that I recall an article by R. C. Sproul (the noted Calvinist theologian and radio preacher) recently in which he attacked basically all of Christianity (except himself of course) as having fallen into Semi-Pelagianism.
Adam