If these examples are instructive, then we may wonder about the wisdom of NAPARC congregations inviting to their pulpit a modern-day Arminius, a minister who leads a movement, which has many points of contact with the theology of Arminius—that is a form of “covenantal Arminianism“—that has been considered and rejected by the Reformed churches. Yes, our modern-day Arminius affirms the Westminster Confession, but he also signed the Joint Federal Vision Statement, published in 2007. Despite the fact that the URCs, the, RCUS, the PCA, the RPCNA have all officially adopted statements condemning the Federal Vision theology, our latter day Arminius is impenitent.

From the time he entered the pastoral ministry, James Arminius (c. 1559–1609) was a controversial figure but he was also a minister in good standing in the Reformed Churches. Despite the intense controversy that his views and teaching generated, views that fractured the church, that nearly ignited a civil war in the Netherlands, that split a university, and that ultimately led to the convocation of the greatest international synod in the history of the Reformed churches, the Synod of Dort (1618–19), Arminius remained and died a minister in good standing in the Reformed churches. Partly this was a fluke. Arminius died in 1609 and the Synod did not conclude for a decade later.

At the time of his death there was great controversy but there was not unanimity as to what Arminius was actually teaching. This was intentional. Arminius was intentionally vague, even to the point of being deceptive. Despite the fact that he rejected significant aspects of established Reformed teaching, despite the fact the seemed bent on leading the Reformed churches away from the gospel and back to a form of medieval moralism and synergism, despite the fact the he called into question the teaching of the Reformed confessions, despite the fact that it was he, and not his opponents, who was elevated to Rector of the University of Leiden, and despite the fact that it was Gormarus (and not Arminius) who left the University, Arminius whined incessantly about the hardships he allegedly suffered at the hands of the evil orthodox.

Remarkably, despite these facts, the theme, that like their founder, the Remonstrants (Arminians) are beleaguered and oppressed, remains the narrative of the Arminians. If you doubt me then you clearly have never read anything that Roger Olson has written—often in the glossy pages of Christianity Today and from the his perch in an endowed chair in a major, private research university.

The Reformed churches did not see Arminius as a victim nor did they naively accept his protestations that he believed the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. There was too much evidence to the contrary. They did not accept his assertions because they paid attention to what he had actually said about Romans chapter 7, about Romans chapter 9, about nature, regeneration, grace, faith, and perseverance. It was not as if they gave him no hearing. There were at conferences with Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) and the conferences with the Remonstrants after Arminius’ death.

Finally, having heard Arminius and his followers for two decades, the churches met at Dort and issued a judgment. In the preface to their rulings (canons) on the Remonstrant crisis, Synod declared:

This Church has been attacked, first secretly and then publicly, by Jacobus Arminius and his followers (bearing the name of Remonstrants). They did this by means of various old and new errors. These flourishing churches, being persistently disturbed by offensive disputes and schisms, have been brought into such grave peril that they were in danger of being consumed by a dreadful fire of discord.

As the preface notes, even though the churches

laboured most diligently and with great patience to persuade the main advocates of these teachings (who had been summoned to appear) that they would fully explain their sentiments regarding the well-known Five Heads of Doctrine along with the arguments for them. However, they rejected the judgments of the Synod and refused to answer the points in question in an equitable fashion. No admonitions of the Synod, nor resolutions of the honorable deputies of the States General, nor even the illustrious members of the States General themselves could make progress with them. At that point, the Synod was compelled to follow another course.

Having examined “the writings, confessions, and declarations regarding the aforesaid Five Heads of Doctrine” synod issued the rules or canons. They rejected the errors of the Remonstrants categorically and declared that the Remonstrants had brought “again out of hell the Pelagian error” (Rejection of Errors, 2.3).

All this is context and preface in order to ask NAPARC ruling elders to consider this question: In light of the judgment of the Synod of Dort, had you the opportunity, would you allow James Arminius into your pulpit? After all, he died in good standing with the Reformed churches. After all, he professed adherence to the Reformed confessions. Of course not! Why not? Because you know, despite Arminius’ protestations, that he was not actually a minister of the Word as understood and confessed by the Reformed churches. You know that he was disingenuous, that it’s not possible to reconcile what Arminius actually believed and taught with what the Word of God says.

If that is the case, then, what if you had the opportunity to allow a modern-day Arminius into your pulpit, would you do it? What if he was well-regarded by many as a social conservative and as a witty and articulate defender of the faith against a rising tide of neo-atheism?

Read More